S/RSC: Village allocations in the rural southern cluster

S/RSC/HW Land between Hinton Way and Mingle Lane, Great Shelford
This land lies within the Green Belt. Already having been considered in the last Local Plan, it was rejected as unsuitable for a variety of reasons, including:
Adverse impact on the Green Belt changing the linear character of this area of the village; this is a backland development, and encroaches on the fields which provide a blended and softer edge of the village.
There must be "exceptional circumstances" for release of Green Belt land, and I can see no factors that justify a re-assessment.
Indeed, the Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment report (GCGBA) states the impact on Green Belt of use of this piece of land is 'Moderate-High'. It goes on to state that the purpose of Green Belt is to "prevent communities merging into one" (GCGBA page 9), preserve "landscape that retains a strong rural character" (page 26), "prevent further coalescence of settlements" (page 28) and "prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another" (page 42). In conflict with all those purposes, this proposed development lies on the boundary between the parishes of Great Shelford and Stapleford, which clearly will lead to merging of the two villages into one continuous settlement.
Access issues: The proposed access from Mingle Lane is highly unsuitable for 100 houses. Mingle Lane is a narrow 20 mph restricted lane and accessed either through narrow roads through the conservation area (frequently narrowed further by cars parked for Stapleford Church, the businesses at the southern end of Mingle Lane, or from Hinton Way. The large increase in traffic on Hinton Way will cause further issues at the already congested railway crossing.
I note GCGBA states that the impact of development should consider the "degree of activity from the development (e.g. by traffic generation)" (page 16), and I can see no justification based on the previous paragraph.
Where is the assessment of the resulting impact on local services (e.g. schools, General Practices etc)?
There is a great deal of local opposition to development of the site.
There has been no convincing or well-argued new rationale for use of this site; it is against the findings of the consultation and the principles of the Local plan, and does not materially contribute to new housing stock, especially affordable homes.

Regarding
S/RSC/HW Land between Hinton Way and Mingle Lane, Great Shelford
This land is currently within the Green Belt and has already been considered in the last Local Plan, and then dismissed, as unsuitable for. There are multiple reasons for this prior exclusion including: Adverse impact on the Green Belt changing 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.
There must be "exceptional circumstances" for release of Green Belt land.
What are the new factors that justify reassessment?
The Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment (GCGBA) report, which states the impact on Green Belt of use of this parcel of land as 'Moderate-High'. The report also states that the purpose of Green Belt is to "prevent communities merging into one" (GCGBA page 9), preserve "landscape that retains a strong rural character" (page 26), "prevent further coalescence of settlements" (page 28) and "prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another" (page 42). This proposed development lies exactly on the boundary between the parishes of Great Shelford and Stapleford, which clearly contributes to the merging of the two villages into one continuous settlement.
- How have you assessed the poor quality access to this site?
The proposed access from Mingle Lane is not suitable for 100 houses. Mingle Lane is a narrow 20 mph restricted lane and accessed either through particularly narrow roads through the conservation area or from Hinton Way. The large increase in traffic onto Hinton Way will cause further issues at the already congested railway crossing. I note GCGBA states that the impact of development should consider the "degree of activity from the development (e.g. by traffic generation)" (page 16).
- What is the assessment of impact on local services (e.g. schooling, GPs etc)?
There is a great deal of local opposition to development of the site.
There has been no persuasive new rationale for use of this site, it is against the findings of the consultation, against the principles of the Local plan and does not materially contribute to new housing stock. I would note that the uncertainty and changeability on the part of the council are contributors to significant stress for the local residents.

I object to the development of the site between Mingle Lane and Hinton Way. It is green belt land (Government policy is not to build on green belt). There are already issues with water supply. The access is from a residential 20mph street that is already very busy with traffic trying to avoid the very busy railway crossing at Shelford. The development will be a big step towards Stapleford becoming a suburb, forever changing the village.

What are the ‘exceptional circumstances’ that the council has to remove the land from green belt? Pollution and traffic congestion not considered on a narrow 20 mph road or the impact the busiest railway crossing in the UK
No consideration to the impact on the already over crowded local services Schooling and GP

Regarding S/RSC/HW Land between Hinton Way and Mingle Lane, Great Shelford
Proposal should be dismissed:
- infrastructure is already strained - little or no capacity at school or GP, or on busy roads;
- railway crossing issues;
- against local plan and local consultation findings;
- pollution issues around access road and increased traffic, also relating to railway crossing congestion;
- impinging on green belt in this location would likely lead to further incursions elsewhere;
- strong local opposition.

(Minerals and Waste) S/RSC/HW - All within MSAs for chalk and sand & gravel. MWLP Policy 5 applies. Site is adjacent to residential properties; amenity buffer likely to sterilise most of the mineral.
S/RSC/MF – All within a MSA for chalk. MWLP Policy 5 applies. Site is adjacent to residential properties and too small to contain a workable quantity of mineral.
S/RSC/CC - All within MSAs for chalk and sand & gravel. MWLP Policy 5 applies. Site is too small to contain a workable quantity of mineral.

The Trumpington Residents' Association notes the reference in the plan to development off Hinton Way, Great Shelford (page 112-113). We are concerned about the impact of this on the Green Belt, local services and transport. We note with concern the reference to "Very well located in relation to existing railway station, with resulting excellent access to Cambridge, and to Cambridge Biomedical Campus once the new Cambridge South station is open, providing the exceptional circumstances required for Green Belt release."

Object. The proposals have incorrectly omitted site JDI number 40509; Land to the south of Babraham Road and east of site H1c, Sawston. This site performs equally or better than the other sites allocated within S/RSC given that it is located in a more sustainable location. Given that the site performs equitably or better than the allocated sites, it is therefore equally or more suitable for development. Site 40509 must be included as an allocation under S/RSC or otherwise the other allocations should be omitted from the Local Plan if the assessment is to be a fair, equitable assessment based on allocating the best performing sites. The reason that the claim is made that site 40509 has been incorrectly omitted is set out below:

We submitted a site under the original call for sites JDI number 40509; Land to the south of Babraham Road and east of site H1c, Sawston. It appears on the First Conversation Site Submission Map.

On review of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan – First Proposals documentation we have concerns that there has been an error in the assessment of this site.

On review of the HEELA in the First Proposals Document Library,:
• Site 40509 is Listed in Appendix 1 – Full List of Sites.
• It is not included in Appendix 2 which is the Not Deliverable/Developable lists. One therefore assumes it is considered to be a deliverable/developable site.
• A version of the site reference (40509a) appears in Appendix 3 which are the discounted sites, with the justification of it being a ‘duplicated site’.
• It appears in Appendix 4 with a detailed proforma showing it as having one Amber and two Green assessments – see attached extract.

In accordance with the information in the HEELA, we have then reviewed the Strategy Topic Paper. The Strategy Topic Paper confirms that all sites which met the Key Criteria for assessment should be:

‘• Locations with sustainable access: Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres, but also Group villages with very good Public Transport Access.
• Sites with a green or amber rating in the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment’

both of which site 40509 complies with, being on the edge of Sawston which is a Rural Centre with good access to amenities and having met the Amber/Green HEELA threshold.

However, the Strategic Topic Paper makes no reference to site 40509. The site location falls under the ‘Other Site Allocations in the Southern Rural Cluster’ section but does not appear in either the ‘New Allocations’, ‘Continuing Allocations’ or ‘Allocations Not Proposed to be Taken Forward’ subsections. As a new site which met the threshold for assessment within the Strategic Topic Paper, presumably it should be referenced somewhere as either included or not included?

The Strategic Topic Paper assessment refers to the need to continue with the allocation of site H/1:c. Site 40509 abuts Site H/1:C and could therefore reasonably be confused with being part of it. We had assumed the reference within the Appendix 3 of the HEELA to site 40509a being a duplicate was an administration error and that the site was inputted twice, however, with it not appearing within the Strategic Topic Paper, it appears that it has been confused as being part of Site H/1:C and therefore incorrectly removed from assessment going forward.

To address this issue and remove our objection:
• the site should be removed from the HEELA Appendix 3 as a duplicate.
• It should then appear within the Strategic Topic Paper as a site which meets the Key Criteria.
• It should appear in the assessment of ‘Other Site Allocations in the Southern Rural Cluster’
• Based on the fact that it performs equally in terms of Amber and Red and is in a more sustainable location than some of the currently allocated sites within the Southern Rural Cluster, on the basis of the best performing sites being taken forward, it should be included as an allocated site.

Object. The proposals have incorrectly omitted site JDI number 40509; Land to the south of Babraham Road and east of site H1c, Sawston. This site performs equally or better than the other sites allocated within S/RSC given that the site is located in a more sustainable location. Given that the site performs equitably or better than the allocated sites it is therefore equally or more suitable for development. Site 40509 must be included as an allocation under S/RSC or the other allocations should be omitted from the Local Plan if the assessment is to be a fair, equitable assessment based on allocating the best performing sites. The reason that the claim is made that the site has been incorrectly omitted is set out below:

We submitted a site under the original call for sites JDI number 40509; Land to the south of Babraham Road and east of site H1c, Sawston. It appears on the First Conversation Site Submission Map.

On review of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan – First Proposals documentation we have concerns that there has been an error in the assessment of this site.

On review of the HEELA in the First Proposals Document Library,:
• Site 40509 is Listed in Appendix 1 – Full List of Sites.
• It is not included in Appendix 2 which is the Not Deliverable/Developable lists. One therefore assumes it is considered to be a deliverable/developable site.
• A version of the site reference (40509a) appears in Appendix 3 which are the discounted sites, with the justification of it being a ‘duplicated site’.
• It appears in Appendix 4 with a detailed proforma showing it as having one Amber and two Green assessments – see attached extract.

In accordance with the information in the HEELA, we have then reviewed the Strategy Topic Paper. The Strategy Topic Paper confirms that all sites which met the Key Criteria for assessment should be:

‘• Locations with sustainable access: Rural Centres and Minor Rural Centres, but also Group villages with very good Public Transport Access.
• Sites with a green or amber rating in the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment’

both of which site 40509 complies with, being on the edge of Sawston which is a Rural Centre with good access to amenities and having met the Amber/Green HEELA threshold.

However, the Strategic Topic Paper makes no reference to site 40509. The site location falls under the ‘Other Site Allocations in the Southern Rural Cluster’ section but does not appear in either the ‘New Allocations’, ‘Continuing Allocations’ or ‘Allocations Not Proposed to be Taken Forward’ subsections. As a new site which met the threshold for assessment within the Strategic Topic Paper, presumably it should be referenced somewhere as either included or not included?

The Strategic Topic Paper assessment refers to the need to continue with the allocation of site H/1:c. Site 40509 abuts Site H/1:C and could therefore reasonably be confused with being part of it. We had assumed the reference within the Appendix 3 of the HEELA to site 40509a being a duplicate was an administration error and that the site was inputted twice, however, with it not appearing within the Strategic Topic Paper, it appears that it has been confused as being part of Site H/1:C and therefore incorrectly removed from assessment going forward.

To address this issue and remove our objection:
• the site should be removed from the HEELA Appendix 3 as a duplicate.
• It should then appear within the Strategic Topic Paper as a site which meets the Key Criteria.
• It should appear in the assessment of ‘Other Site Allocations in the Southern Rural Cluster’
• Based on the fact that it performs equally in terms of Amber and Red and is in a more sustainable location than some of the currently allocated sites within the Southern Rural Cluster, on the basis of the best performing sites being taken forward, it should be included as an allocated site.

Section 2.5: Rural Southern Cluster / Policy S/RSC: Village Allocations in the Rural Southern Cluster

OBJECT

It is considered that the growth of the more sustainable villages must be part of the development strategy for emerging GCLP, and particularly those villages that contain a very good range of services and facilities, are accessible by a range of modes of transport, and where there is an identified need for affordable housing for those with a local connection to the village. Great Shelford falls within this category.

Paragraph 79 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 off Cabbage Moor in Great Shelford would support the existing services and facilities in the village, including the convenience stores, post office, library, banks, public houses and restaurants, bus, and rail services.

Paragraph 69 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. It is requested that small sized sites such as land off Cabbage Moor in Great Shelford are allocated to meet the requirement for a mix of sites including those that are easily deliverable.

Paragraph 104 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. Great Shelford contains a railway station. The proposed Cambridge South Station would be located to the west of Cambridge Biomedical Campus. Shelford Road is on a bus and cycle route. Trumpington Park & Ride and the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway are within close proximity of the site off Cabbage Moor. The Cambridge South East Transport project by the Greater Cambridge Partnership includes a stop at Great Shelford and at Cambridge Biomedical Campus. Great Shelford and the land off Cabbage Moor are sustainable locations in transport terms, and additional development in this location would be consistent with Paragraph 104.

Paragraph 62 of the NPPF expects the size, type, and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters, and self-builders. South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2019) identified a need for 47 affordable dwellings in Great Shelford for those with a local connection to the village, and 21 affordable dwellings in Stapleford. This identified need would not be met without allocations in the village. The promoted development by Shelford Investments at land off Cabbage Moor in Great Shelford would include housing and affordable housing to meet local needs of the village, and there would be a policy requirement to include a proportion of self/custom build housing plots.

For all these reasons, additional small scale housing allocations should be made in the more sustainable villages within the Rural Southern Cluster, including Great Shelford, because it is accessible by sustainable modes of transport, it is well related to employment opportunities, there is a need to support the existing services and facilities within the village, and there is an identified need for affordable housing in the villages which would not be met via other means. The affordable housing needs for Great Shelford would not be met by the preferred allocation in Stapleford identified in emerging GCLP.

Shelford Investments representations to the assessment of the land off Cabbage Moor in Great Shelford site in the HELAA (Site Ref. 40529) comment on the potential constraints identified with the promoted development and explain how those constraints would be addressed. In summary, there is an existing vehicular access to the site from Cabbage Moor. There are limited views of the site from the surrounding area because of the existing landscaping at the site boundary. The site makes a limited contribution to the purposes for including land within the Green Belt.

Requested Change

It is requested that the development strategy for the Rural Southern Cluster includes an additional residential allocation at land off Cabbage Moor in Great Shelford, as promoted by Shelford Investments, with the following policy requirements:

• Site Area of 1.81 Ha
• Capacity for approx. 70 dwellings, including affordable housing and self/custom build plots
• Retain and enhance existing trees and hedgerows at site boundary
• Provide open space and green infrastructure
• Upgrade existing vehicular access on Cabbage Moor and at junction on to Shelford Road

We can confirm that, for the reasons outlined within our statement (appended to our submission) that our clients’ site (Grange Field, Church Street, Great Shelford, CB22 5AT, Council ref. 40128) is suitable, available for development now and achievable and would be appropriate as an allocation for residential development (possibly including market housing, affordable housing, key worker housing, older persons housing, residential care home, custom or self-build housing, specialist ‘other’ forms of housing) in addition to publicly accessible open space and/or recreational/leisure uses.

My clients’ site does have a direct and existing access onto the adopted public highway and as illustrated on the plan found at Appendix A of our accompanying Statement. Access is shared with the adjoining Peacocks development with rights to improve the vehicular access onto my client’s site. Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service should, therefore, amend their HELAA in light of this fact when it is next updated, i.e., my client’s site is ‘suitable’ for development given there is an appropriate (existing) access that leads directly onto the public highway.

Parker Planning consider that our clients’ site would make a valuable contribution to housing land supply as part of a more logical, coherent, and crucially sustainable settlement expansion scheme than would be the case were proposed site S/RSC/HW to be allocated.

Ref: Land to the rear of No. 24 Brookhampton Street
Ref: Land south of Ickleton Road, Great Chesterford
Ref: Land east of M11, west of Duxford, Duxford.

We would like to add comments for all of the above sites, as we consider them all completely unsuitable for development, and would strongly oppose any planned development on these sites.

Ensure that Neighbourhood Plans are fully taken into account when considering housing locations.

Policy S/RSC/HW – Residential Allocation at Hinton Way and Mingle Lane Great Shelford

SUPPORT

Mrs Johnson owns land included within the preferred allocation at land between Hinton Way and Mingle Lane in Great Shelford (Site Ref. S/RSC/HW), and as such support the preferred allocation.

The rationale for selecting this site as a preferred allocation in emerging GCLP is explained in Topic Paper 1: Strategy – see pg. 158 to 161. The reason for directing development to the Rural Southern Cluster and the decision to release land from the Green Belt at the preferred allocation is stated as follows: “The Councils consider that the carbon benefits of locating homes close to jobs in the research parks, where there are existing opportunities for very high quality sustainable travel, could provide the exceptional circumstances required to justify removing land from the Green Belt in this location but only if considered alongside the environmental impacts”.

It is agreed that Stapleford and Great Shelford, and the land off Hinton Way and Mingle Lane, are very well related to Cambridge Biomedical Campus and other employment opportunities within and on the edge of Cambridge. Stapleford and Great Shelford contain a very good range of services and facilities, and the villages and the site are accessible by sustainable modes of transport. Shelford Station is located close to the site. There are bus routes on Hinton Way, Mingle Lane, Station Road and Cambridge Road, all of which are close to the site. There are cycle routes through Stapleford and Great Shelford into Cambridge. The route for the proposed Cambridge South East Transport project by the Greater Cambridge Partnership is located to the north west of the site, and there is a proposed stop at Hinton Way that would be within close proximity of the site.

It is agreed that accessibility to key employment locations and access by sustainable modes of transport represent exceptional circumstances to release land from the Green Belt. However, other exceptional circumstances also exist to justify the release of Green Belt land, which are related to the need for housing generally and affordable housing need in the villages. There is a need for additional housing to support the economic growth of Greater Cambridge. The cost of buying and renting housing in Greater Cambridge is high, and the affordability ratio is high too. Those that cannot afford to live in Greater Cambridge will need to live elsewhere and undertake longer distance commuting to access their job, and if as is likely those journeys are undertaken by car this would add to traffic congestion and air pollution. South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2019) identified a need for 28 affordable dwellings in Stapleford and 47 affordable dwellings in Great Shelford for those with a local connection to the villages. No alternative strategy has been identified to meet those affordable housing needs, other than through the allocation of a suitable site in emerging GCLP that are capable of delivering policy compliant levels of affordable housing. The preferred allocation at land off Hinton Way and Mingle Lane would include housing and affordable housing to meet local needs of the villages. It is considered that all of these factors also represent exceptional circumstances to justify the release of land from the Green Belt at Stapleford and Great Shelford and at land off Hinton Way and Mingle Lane.

The site was assessed in the HELAA against a series of suitability criteria and potential constraints – see Site Ref. OS216. The site mostly scored ‘amber’ for the majority of the suitability criteria, with a few ‘green’ scores, and the commentary identified how those identified constraints could be addressed e.g. for landscape and heritage impacts. The one identified ‘red’ score for the sites relates to strategic highway impacts. However, as set out above, the site is very accessible by sustainable modes of transport including bus and rail in terms of access to employment opportunities and to retail, leisure, and recreation facilities. As such, there are realistic alternatives to the car for most journeys from the site to reduce potential increases in traffic on the strategic highway network.

The harm to the Green Belt from development at the site is identified in the HELAA assessment as ‘moderate high’. As set out above, there are exceptional circumstances to justify the release of land from the Green Belt, including in Great Shelford and at the site. The site is sustainable in transport terms, and development at the site would represent a sustainable pattern of development. Those exceptional circumstances and the sustainability credentials of the site need to be balanced against the harm to the Green Belt. The promoted development would include additional landscaping to avoid impacts on the character of the area including harm to the Green Belt. The route for the Cambridge South East Transport project should be taken into account in the assessment of harm to Green Belt purposes associated with development at the site. The development at the site would have no adverse impact on the compactness or setting of Cambridge and it would not lead to the merging of villages. It is suggested that, taking into account all these factors, the harm to the Green Belt from development at the site would be less than stated in the assessment.

The site was assessed in the SA against a series of sustainability objectives and compared against other reasonable alternative site options – see Table 4.21 in SA. In summary, the site scores well against sustainability objectives and when compared against alternative site options. The findings of the site assessment for access to services and facilities needs to be corrected because there is very good access from the site to the services and facilities within Stapleford and Great Shelford. The mineral resources at the site will need to be investigated, but it is unlikely that the site would be suitable for mineral extraction because of the close proximity of residential areas. The promoted development at the site would include mitigation measures to address potential impacts on landscape, biodiversity, heritage, climate change and air quality. The design and layout of the promoted development would respect the character of the site and surrounding area.

Policy S/RSC/HW identifies a number of policy requirements for the promoted development at the site, relating to site area, quantum of development, exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release, heritage matters, location of open space, and access arrangements. As set out above, there are additional exceptional circumstances that are relevant to the decision to release land from the Green Belt and should be referred to for this site. A number of technical reports will need to be prepared to support a planning application, including a landscape assessment, heritage assessment, ecological appraisal and transport assessment, in order to demonstrate that the promoted development is acceptable. The policy requirements identified at this stage are all appropriate, but might need to be added to or adjusted once the technical work has been completed. In addition, it would also be appropriate to refer to the suggested landscape mitigation measures referred to in the site assessment for the HELAA e.g. landscape buffer on northern and eastern boundaries and dwellings to be set back from the village edge.

In conclusion, the preferred allocation at land off Hinton Way and Mingle Lane is supported. No changes are required to the preferred allocation.

I object to the proposal S/RSC/HW on many grounds
• We need to protect the Green Belt
• Communication to Cambridge from Shelford is not excellent but in fact poor. The fact that for large parts of the day trains are only once an hour makes it impractical to use for such a short journey on a consistent basis. The same will be true for Cambridge South if it is built. I would also expect that only a small proportion of the purchasers of any new houses will actually work in the Cambridge Biomedical Campus site. As such this cannot be regarded as an exceptional circumstance for green belt release.
• The number of houses is not commensurate with the amount of land proposed to be released. As mentioned in the document they do actually want to build more properties which will lead to more congestion. I have been informed that the amount of land proposed to be released would normally support about 250 homes
• I believe that there is an issue with ensuring that there is sufficient water available to supply the site.
• With so many new houses the local schools will not be able to cope.
• We are now very conscious of the affect we are having on the environment. We need to encourage food to be grown locally to help protect the effect of greenhouse gases associated with food being transported long distances. There is a growing trend of supermarkets sourcing food from local farmers to help with this. If arable land is built upon it is contrary to all of this
• As a recent employer in Great Shelford, I see no reason for so many extra houses to be built in the Shelford/Stapleford area. The building of houses not near the place of work can only lead to extra congestion on the roads
• Mingle Lane has many young children walking and cycling along it, particularly to and from the local school (which I am led to believe is at capacity). The extra traffic referred to above would jeopardise their safety. It should be noted that the representation states that an alleged study, of which no copy has been available, is reported to have said that the junction could be made safe - however if it has not been reported that it would be safe. If that were the case I am sure the representation would have stated it.
• The railway crossing at Shelford station already causes severe congestion with queues to the traffic lights already being a regular occurrence. With a potential of an extra two hundred cars (two per household) in the area as well as all of the delivery vans this will only get worse.
• There is a substantial amount of wildlife in the fields. Foxes, deer etc are regularly seen in the area. The loss of habitat would be a further reduction in the land available for these animals
• It should be noted that the character of the cemetery would be particularly affected. This would further add to the grieving of those people who have lost their loved ones.
• I believe that attempts have been made to remove this land from the Green Belt on previous occasions. No justification has been given as to why the circumstances have now changed and that the land should change status. Bold statements have been made and as they are given without any rationale substance they should be rejected. I would expect that if the land is removed from the green belt it would never be put back.
• The character of the villages would change dramatically. The affect on local residents should not be discounted. The quality of life of those living in the area would see a substantial fall.
• The development of brown filed sites, particularly in the centre of Cambridge is noted and indeed encouraged as this is closer to the place of work for many individuals who would otherwise have to suffer arduous commutes from places outside of the area. Brown field sites do in fact become available in the Great Shelford area and over the course of the next few years it should be expected that this will also be a source of extra housing if needed.

It is unclear as to whether these allocations are existing commitments or proposed allocations. There seems to be discrepancy within the wording and mapping along with inclusion within the main development strategy and the table included at page 32.

Huntingdonshire District Council has no comment.

Cambridgeshire County Council as landowner considers that the growth of the more sustainable villages must be part of the development strategy for emerging GCLP, and particularly those villages that contain a very good range of services and facilities, are accessible by a range of modes of transport, and where there is an identified need for affordable housing for those with a local connection to the village.

Cambridgeshire County Council is seeking to promote development at Robinson Farm, Sawston (reference 40146). The site is located within the Green Belt, and in these representations it is requested that the site is released to accommodate housing and affordable housing with reference to Chapter 13 of the NPPF.

Paragraph 140 of the NPPF allows Green Belt boundaries to be altered through the plan-making process provided exceptional circumstances exist, and those exceptional circumstances should be based on evidence and justified. It is considered that exceptional circumstances exist to release land from the Green Belt, which are related to the significant need for housing and affordable housing in Greater Cambridge and the need to support economic growth. The exceptional circumstances to release land from the Green Belt applies to all parts of Cambridge covered by this designation, and it is proposed that other land in Great Shelford/Stapleford and within the Rural Southern Cluster is released from the Green Belt for these reasons.

The land at Robinson Farm, Sawston is contained on both sides by infrastructure and bordered by residential and educational development to the south. It is well related to Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Unity Campus, and other employment opportunities within the Southern Cluster.

Paragraph 141 requires plan-making authorities to examine all other reasonable options to meet identified development needs before considering whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries i.e. make as much use of previously developed land, increase the density of development, and consider whether development needs could be accommodated in neighbouring areas. In the case of Cambridge increasing densities and reusing previously developed land is not straightforward and may be inappropriate because of heritage assets and the difficulty of finding alternative sites for existing uses. The adopted Local Plans for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire already identified previously developed land opportunities, and the emerging GCLP seeks to do them same. As such, previously developed land opportunities that are deliverable have already been identified within and on the edge of Cambridge.

Paragraph 142 requires any review of Green Belt boundaries to consider the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, and that where the release of land from the Green Belt is necessary, that priority is given to previously developed land or sites that are well-served by public transport. It is acknowledged in emerging GCLP and the associated Sustainability Appraisal that the edge of Cambridge is a sustainable location because of its close proximity to employment and the opportunity to travel by non-car modes of transport.

Sawston has rapid bus links to central Cambridge and is close to Whittlesford Parkway Station (which is proposed to become a new rural transport hub). The site borders Cambridge Road to the east and the A1301 to the west, with the potential for new bus links on both roads. The Cambridge South East Transport project by the Greater Cambridge Partnership includes a stop at Sawston. Sawston and the land at Robinson Farm are sustainable locations in transport terms, and additional development in this location would be consistent with Paragraph 104. Therefore, the release of Robinson Farm from the Green Belt would be consistent with the approach in national policy to give priority to those Green Belt sites that are well served by public transport.

Robinson Farm in Sawston makes a limited contribution to openness and the purposes for including land within the Green Belt, and does not contribute towards the wider landscape of Cambridge or Sawston, and should be released from the Green Belt in emerging GCLP.

Paragraph 79 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. Sawston is the largest settlement within the Rural Southern Cluster and has significant existing infrastructure, including a High Street, College, medical services, and employment parks. It is also centrally located for Granta Park, Babraham Research Park, the Biomedical Campus, and the newly approved Genome Campus at Hinxton. The promoted development of Robinson Farm, Sawston would support the existing services and facilities in the settlement. It would also provide housing and affordable housing for workers at these significant employment sites.

Paragraph 62 of the NPPF expects the size, type and tenure of housing needs of the community to be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including for example those with an affordable housing need, students, renters and self-builders. South Cambridgeshire District Council's 'Housing Statistical Information Leaflet' (December 2019) identified a need for 115 affordable dwellings in Sawston for those with a local connection to the village. This identified need cannot be met only by the allocation of site S/RSC/H/1 (c), which is for 260 dwellings. The promoted development by Cambridgeshire County Council at Robinson Farm, Sawston would include housing and affordable housing to meet local needs of the village, and there would be a policy requirement to include a proportion of self/custom build housing plots.

For all these reasons, additional allocations should be made in the more sustainable villages within the Rural Southern Cluster, including Sawston, because it is accessible by sustainable modes of transport, it is well related to employment opportunities, there is a need to support the existing services and facilities within the village, and there is an identified need for affordable housing in the villages which would not be met via other means. The affordable housing needs for Sawston would not be met by the single allocation for Sawston which is currently preferred.

Requested Change

It is requested that the development strategy for the Rural Southern Cluster includes an additional residential allocation at Robinson Farm, Sawston, as promoted by Cambridgeshire County Council, with the following policy requirements:
• Site Area of 14.8 Ha
• Capacity for approx. 300 dwellings, including affordable housing and self/custom build plots
• Retain and enhance existing trees and hedgerows at site boundary
• New pedestrian and cycle links between Cambridge Road and the A1301
• Provide open space and green infrastructure
• Upgrade existing vehicular access on Cambridge Road

Land to the rear of No 24 Brookhanmptopn St, CB10 1SP - 20 houses. ref 40536.
Unsuitable for development

This is the designation of the village of Stapleford.
The building of a new village at Hinxton has been approved providing housing and infrastructure for the employees at this Campus.
The A1307 has already been redesigned by the GCP to provide for expansion and travel needs to the Babraham Research Centre.
The proposal for 100 houses on a 10 hectare site in Stapleford is put forward as an exception site due to its excellent transport links! There is one train per hour from the Great Shelford Station to the next proposed stop at Cambridge South! The CBC is a 5 minute cycle away from the site so it is difficult to imagine why anyone would use the train to commute to work.
The proposed site is in Green Belt land, is very small compared to the site size and extends the village boundary to make it almost link to the City (especially once the new developments between the A1307 and Wort’s Causeway are built.). At the moment the village has unique landscape character assessments which include the Magog Hills and Wandlebury. This development destroys our relationship with both these valuable assets in our Parish environ and destroys the long views from Mingle Lane to the rolling chalk hills to the north. ( see sections 4.2 and 4.6.5 of the Stapleford draft conservation area appraisal and management plan )

The reference is 40297 (Land adjacent to Babraham, CB22 3AF, CB22 3AP, CB22 3AG, CB22 3AZ). The boundary has not changed. Please see document attached S/RSC Comments (1of 4 submissions due to high level of documents).

The reference is 40297 (Land adjacent to Babraham, CB22 3AF, CB22 3AP, CB22 3AG, CB22 3AZ). The boundary has not changed. Please see document attached S/RSC Comments (1of 4 submissions due to high level of documents).

The reference is 40297 (Land adjacent to Babraham, CB22 3AF, CB22 3AP, CB22 3AG, CB22 3AZ). The boundary has not changed. Please see document attached S/RSC Comments (1of 4 submissions due to high level of documents).

The reference is 40297 (Land adjacent to Babraham, CB22 3AF, CB22 3AP, CB22 3AG, CB22 3AZ). The boundary has not changed. Please see document attached S/RSC Comments (1of 4 submissions due to high level of documents).

The reference is 40297 (Land adjacent to Babraham, CB22 3AF, CB22 3AP, CB22 3AG, CB22 3AZ). The boundary has not changed. Please see document attached S/RSC Comments (1of 4 submissions due to high level of documents).

Ref 40536
Land to the rear of 24 Brookhampton Street Ickleton CB10 1SP
This land is totally unsuitable for development and should not be given “amber development status” as it would destroy the very rural character of this part of the village which has no street lighting and backs on to water meadows and the Welcome Trusts Wetlands Nature Reserve.
In addition Brookhampton street is very narrow at this point and could not support a major new junction and the increased vehicle movements and parking associated with the proposed 20 houses. It’s also next to a flood plane.

Ref 40536
Land to the rear of 24 Brookhampton Street Ickleton CB10 1SP
This land is totally unsuitable and “amber development status” should be removed. This is a conservation area. The development will destroy the character of the village and would create congestion on a narrow road. It is unnecessary in the light of much more significant housing developments going a head nearby.

S/RSC/HW Land between Hinton Way and Mingle Lane, Great Shelford
This land is currently within the Green Belt and has already been considered in the last Local Plan, and then dismissed, as unsuitable for. There are multiple reasons for this prior exclusion including: Adverse impact on the Green Belt changing 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.
There must be "exceptional circumstances" for release of Green Belt land.
What are the new factors that justify reassessment?
The Greater Cambridge Green Belt Assessment (GCGBA) report, which states the impact on Green Belt of use of this parcel of land as 'Moderate-High'. The report also states that the purpose of Green Belt is to "prevent communities merging into one" (GCGBA page 9), preserve "landscape that retains a strong rural character" (page 26), "prevent further coalescence of settlements" (page 28) and "prevent communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another" (page 42). This proposed development lies exactly on the boundary between the parishes of Great Shelford and Stapleford, which clearly contributes to the merging of the two villages into one continuous settlement.
- How have you assessed the poor quality access to this site?
The proposed access from Mingle Lane is not suitable for 100 houses. Mingle Lane is a narrow 20 mph restricted lane and accessed either through particularly narrow roads through the conservation area or from Hinton Way. The large increase in traffic onto Hinton Way will cause further issues at the already congested railway crossing. I note GCGBA states that the impact of development should consider the "degree of activity from the development (e.g. by traffic generation)" (page 16).
- What is the assessment of impact on local services (e.g. schooling, GPs etc)?
There is a great deal of local opposition to development of the site.
There has been no persuasive new rationale for use of this site, it is against the findings of the consultation, against the principles of the Local plan and does not materially contribute to new housing stock. I would note that the uncertainty and changeability on the part of the council are contributors to significant stress for the local residents.
Summary
What are the ‘exceptional circumstances’ that the council has to remove the land from green belt? Pollution and traffic congestion not considered on a narrow 20 mph road or the impact the busiest railway crossing in the UK
No consideration to the impact on the already over crowded local services Schooling and GP

Land between Hinton Way and Mingle Lane (the site)

I strongly oppose this 10 hectares of land being proposed for housing development for the following reasons:

1. The site is in the Green Belt and there are no exceptional circumstances for its release. The planners rely on the fact that there is a village railway station which they say provides “excellent” access to Cambridge and once the new Cambridge South station is open will do so to the Biomedical Campus. It is difficult to see that a railway station can of itself create “exceptional circumstances” otherwise any village with a railway station and surrounded by Green Belt land could find itself at risk of land being released from the Green Belt for proposed housing development. “Exceptional “ is a very strong word and signifies the need for a very strong reason before being categorised as exceptional.

On the facts one cannot say there is “excellent access” to Cambridge. Even at busiest times the trains run only approximately every 30 minutes and off-peak hourly, and the numbers using the down line towards Cambridge is very modest. The South Cambridge station has not been constructed and is only at the planning stage. Assuming it is built it is very difficult to envisage any substantial number of persons if they were to live on the site and work on the Biomedical Campus using the train for the short journey. They would have to walk or cycle to the station, leave plenty of time to get there in case the level crossing barriers were down (it is necessary to cross to the other side of the line and sometimes the barriers are down long enough for 3 trains to pass). Some will find the train does not fit with work patterns and probably use cars instead. It would probably be impossible for more trains to stop at Shelford as it would result in the barriers being down for even longer exacerbating traffic problems on Hinton Way at peak times (a survey a few years ago found that the crossing barriers are closed to traffic for approximately 22minutes in every hour). At peak times now waiting vehicles on Hinton Way can back up to Orchard Road and on Station Road to the main traffic light-controlled junction.

2. There are very few parts of Cambridgeshire where rising ground is a significant feature of the countryside and we are lucky that the Gogs generally with Magog Down is one of those. It would be a disaster if building developments were to impinge in anyway on people’s enjoyment of such natural landscape. The planners accept that views of the landscape are relevant because they say in their proposals that any development should have constraints and design “should preserve key views from Stapleford Conservation Area including from Mingle Lane past St Andrews Church and the adjacent vicarage”. Whilst that is a welcome sentiment it ignores the fact that “key Views” are going to be lost from many other properties by the development proposals. This should not be happening.

3. It is very concerning that the planners say that there might be potential for higher capacity of the site if an additional access could be found. It is not too difficult to envisage that such an access might be found. If this present proposal proceeds one may then be faced not merely with 100 houses (which would be an appalling situation anyway) but applications for probably twice that number or even more and it would seem that the planners might not be unsympathetic to that. This could be further aggravated if the proposed busway from Abington to the Biomedical Campus is approved despite much public hostility and anger towards it. One could end up with several hundred houses creeping up the slope towards the Gogs completely ruining the landscape, the protection of which was one of the reasons the Green Belt was put in place. To prevent the possibility of this happening, the 100 houses proposal should be removed from the plans straightaway.

4. Any development on site involving 100 houses (or possibly more if another access was obtained) would lead to a further blurring of the dividing line between Great Shelford and Stapleford. There is already some blurring in Mingle Lane and London Road but a large development on the site would make the position much worse and result in a large conurbation with the two villages own distinctive features being lost.

5. The access proposed is not a good one. Although one of the aims of the overall proposal is to cut down on car use the reality is that at most houses there will be one if not two cars. This will lead to more traffic in Mingle Lane with its several bends at the Stapleford end and at the Shelford end there will be the junction with Hinton Way and the problems arising from the presence of the level crossing at Shelford Station referred to in paragraph 1. above.

6. One has to ask who is going to live in these 100 houses. Whilst 40% are proposed to be affordable (and one knows how that figure is often reduced by developers saying a development is not viable unless it is reduced) at least 60% are likely to be high quality properties (particularly if the density is not as great as is often the case) way out of the reach pricewise of most people. One suspects that a number will be bought by people who have no real connection with the area and particularly not with Shelford or Stapleford, not an outcome that anyone dealing with these proposals would seek.

7. The proposal for 100 houses is a minute proportion of the 49,000 homes proposed overall. Apart from Green Belt incursions for the Biomedical Campus and the Babraham Research Campus and a very small estate at Oakington, the site proposal is the only proposal for a housing estate on its own in the Local Plan that requires release from the Green Belt. It is understood that the 49,000 figure is some 50% approximately more homes than the Government says is needed. The planners may well have over estimated the number of homes needed (which can be a very inexact science) and also have allowed over 4,000 houses for contingencies which may be a very over generous allowance. Bearing in mind the massive uncertainties about all the possible future needs the removal of 100 houses from the proposed 49,000 would be so small that it would not interfere in any way with the general objectives of the draft plan and it would remove most of the arguments about unnecessary incursions into the Green Belt.

8. On a personal note my property which I have occupied for the last 43 years is bounded on two sides by the Site. The proposals if accepted are clearly going to have a substantial deleterious effect on the use and enjoyment of my property and probably on its value. If this proposed development site were a brownfield site then protestations against the proposals for development might be more difficult but where the land is Green Belt I believe strongly that I and numerous other houseowners adjoining the site or affected or likely to be affected by it together with lovers of the countryside have every right to oppose strongly the development of this site unless there really are genuine “exceptional circumstances” justifying over-riding the serious objections put forward. I can see none here and request that the proposals for development be deleted from the proposed Local Plan.

S/RSC/HW Land between Hinton Way and Mingle Lane, Great Shelford: this is Green Belt, to be respected: if breached, more development will follow. Proposed development is on boundary of parishes of Great Shelford and Stapleford, so would merge the two into one settlement.. During COVID, path along suggested site was much used by residents: need to protect green spaces. Great local opposition because of poor access (Mingle *Lane*: 20m/ph / Hinton Way dangerously congested already) ..I have concerns regarding: water shortage, inadequate wastewater infrastructure; loss of arable land (considering UK food production needs); damage to our ecology/wildlife, pollution form development.