Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Our client supports setting a higher homes requirement to reflect forecast jobs growth.

The proposed settlement hierarchy will not be effective at delivering required levels of growth to support the vitality of rural villages. Policy S/SH proposes to continue the current policy allowance for certain sized developments to come forwards in each tier of the settlement hierarchy, but in combination with Policy S/SB it will only allow development on sites that are within settlement boundaries.

For the majority of villages, current settlement boundaries are drawn tightly around the built up area and there are few if any sites suitable for redevelopment within them. As set out under Policy S/DS, to resolve this issue, we consider that some growth should be allocated to all settlements or a flexible policy should be adopted to allow a certain level of development on the edge of all villages according to their position in the settlement hierarchy. One such flexible policy would be to draw settlement boundaries more loosely so that they include small sites promoted for development on the outskirts of villages. In this way, it would be possible allow suitable sites to come forward under Policy S/SB.

We are also concerned that the proposed settlement hierarchy has not sufficiently distinguished between the sustainability of settlements based on access to high quality public transport connections. In this respect, we note that the accompanying assessment (Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Topic paper 1: Strategy (Settlement Hierarchy Review appendix) gives 1 point for settlements that are within 8km of Cambridge or a market town (where active travel is deemed possible) and 1 point for settlements with a railway station. It is clearly absurd to suggest that being able to cycle 8km to a nearby town is as sustainable as being able to walk to a railway station. People will not generally cycle 8km to work, but they will get on a train.

As set out under Policies S/DS and S/SH, we are very concerned that the proposed development strategy ignores the need for suitable levels of growth to come forwards in the rural areas in order to maintain the vitality of rural communities. Without growth, facilities and services in these villages will not be viable in the long term.

The proposed settlement boundary policy compounds this issue by severely restricting growth outside settlement boundaries. There will be a need for both market and affordable housing growth in all villages during the plan period and to resolve this issue, we consider that some growth should be allocated to all settlements or a flexible policy should be adopted to allow a certain level of development on the edge of all villages according to their position in the settlement hierarchy. One such flexible policy would be to draw settlement boundaries more loosely so that they include small sites promoted for development on the edge of villages. In this way, it would be possible allow suitable sites to come forward under Policy S/SB.

As set out in our comments to the development strategy, the Local Plan as currently drafted will fail to deliver any meaningful growth to rural villages and therefore fail to sustain their local facilities and services which are key to maintaining the sustainability of these areas.

In order to resolve this issue we consider that some growth should be allocated to all settlements or a flexible policy should be adopted to allow a certain level of development on the edge of all villages according to their position in the settlement hierarchy. This could be achieved either through policy criteria allowing a certain level of growth adjacent to rural settlements, or by drawing settlement boundaries more loosely so that they include small sites promoted for development on the outskirts of villages. In this way, it would be possible allow suitable sites adjoining existing built-up areas to come forward under Policy S/SB.

In light of the clear need to identify suitable and deliverable sites that can come forward to meet rural housing needs, we are pleased to promote our client’s site at Land off Whitecroft Road, Meldreth.

The site has now been submitted using the required site submission form (ref. RMCNVRWF) and I am pleased to enclose the following documentation for your information and review:

- Location Plan prepared by KJ Architects
- Layout Plan prepared by KJ Architects
- Transport Technical Note prepared by KMC Transport Planning

Site Description

The site comprises a strip of disused land totaling approximately 0.7ha (with a further 0.15ha forming the access road) that is located to the rear of existing properties at 19, 19a, 19b, 19c, 21 and 21a Whitecroft Road. These existing properties are arranged with numbers 19 and 21 fronting Whitecroft Road and the remaining properties located off two parallel private access drives that run between numbers 19 and 21. One drive serves numbers 21 and 21a and the other serves numbers 19, 19a, 19b and 19c.

The site is located on the western edge of Meldreth within walking distance of the railway station, primary school, shop and other key facilities. To the north of the site is Cam Valley Orchards and Farm Shop, to the north-east are the existing dwellings described above and a recent residential development at Melrose, to the south is an area of scrub/woodland and to the south-west is agricultural land.

The site is in Flood Zone 1 (i.e. Low Risk), it is not subject to any statutory environmental or heritage designations and it is located outside of the Green Belt. There is an existing public footpath at the far end of the site that runs between Chiswick Road and the railway line.

The Proposed Development

The proposal is for a distinctive development of 5 individual family homes with an emphasis on design and quality. As a local company who are currently developing land adjoining the site, Artisan has a unique understanding of the site, the sustainability of the local area and the local need for high quality family homes. Our client is bringing forward their proposed development to help meet this need and is also committed to ensuring environmental enhancements through the provision of an ecological enhancement area on site and the design of environmentally sustainable homes, including electric vehicle charging points and dedicated home office spaces. It is on this basis that we are promoting the site for allocation in the emerging Local Plan. The dwellings could also be delivered as custom build properties should there be an identified need in the local area.

The indicative proposal shown on the enclosed layout plan comprises:

- Housing: a sensitively designed residential development comprising 5 dwellings with a single dwelling located at the end of the proposed access road to terminate the existing vista and 4 dwellings located in a courtyard arrangement behind. The proposed dwellings would be designed to a high quality, reflecting local vernacular architecture and delivering environmentally sustainable homes.

- Access: would be achieved to Whitecroft Road by combining the two existing private drives to form a single 6m wide shared access road. The proposed access design is shown on the plans produced by KMC Transport Planning would provide clear highways benefits through the tidying up of the existing private drives and the provision of footways along White Croft Road to connect into the existing.

- Ecological Enhancement Area: a c.1,300m² area would be delivered to the rear of the suite to provide native grassland and woodland habitat. There is also the potential to deliver an informal connection from this point to the existing public footpath that adjoins the site. This would provide an additional public benefit in creating a new walking route.

The site is located outside of the currently defined development framework for Meldreth, but it is well contained such that its development would not encroach on the wider countryside beyond the immediate setting of the village. Nor would it extend the built form of the village any further west than the existing dwellings along Chiswick End and it would be seen in the context of the existing residential development at Melrose and recently approved development located to the north of the site.

The site is also well enclosed in views from the surrounding countryside with a mature tree belt and woodland to the south. The Council’s adopted Design Guide SPD identifies Meldreth as within the Chalklands character area where there is a mostly well-treed character to villages, which are often not visible in the wider landscape, despite adjoining open arable fields. The proposed development would help enhance this characteristic through the provision of an ecological enhancement area with significant tree planting to the south-west of the site.

Meldreth is identified as a Group Village in the emerging Local Plan, but should be considered to be significantly more sustainable as a location for growth compared to other group villages on account of its train station and proximity to Melbourn which provides easy access to additional services and employment opportunities (see enclosed Transport Technical Note). The site is in walking distance of the station and all key facilities in Meldreth and Melbourne, such that it is a highly sustainable location for development.

Emerging Policy S/SH defines Meldreth as a Group Village where, within the settlement boundary, schemes of 8 dwellings will be permitted. As set out in our comments on this policy, this approach will fail to deliver any meaningful growth to support existing facilities and services in Meldreth as the current settlement boundary (or development framework) is drawn so tightly that there is little to no room for natural expansion. This is demonstrated by the fact that recent developments (including 9 dwellings approved to the north of the site and our client’s adjoining development for 2 dwellings) have been approved outside the settlement boundary. In this context it is necessary to either allocate sites for development or to allow for flexible growth on the edge of the village. Our client’s site represents a highly sustainable and unconstrained location and we consider that it should be allocated for the proposed level of growth or at the very least included within the settlement boundary so as to allow development to come forward under Policy S/SB.

This section sets out that:

“We want our rural villages to continue to thrive and sustain their local services, but we don’t want to encourage lots of new homes in places where car travel is the easiest or only way to get around. We therefore propose some development in and around larger villages that have good transport links and services, and to support important employment clusters. In smaller villages, we’ll continue to support infill development and affordable housing on suitable sites, but we do not propose lots of village growth.

As set out in more detail under Policies S/DS, S/SH, S/SB and the ‘Rest of the Rural Area’ section, this strategy will fail to deliver any meaningful growth to rural villages and therefore fail to sustain their local facilities and services which are key to maintaining the sustainability of these areas. The strategy sets out that the Councils do not want to encourage lots of new homes in places where car travel is the easiest and only way to get around and yet villages with stations (e.g. Meldreth, Shepreth and Foxton) are not allocated any growth. This is perverse given that the very prospect of a station being provided in Cambourne at some point during the plan period is considered sufficient for a c.2,000 home allocation.

The rural area of South Cambridgeshire needs appropriate levels of growth to sustain the vitality of rural communities and any strategy that prevents this from happening is contrary to national policy at NPPF paragraph 79.