MELDRETH ROAD, SHEPRETH
Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth On behalf of Cambridgeshire County Council September 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. BRIEF
2. THE SITE & CONTEXT
3. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
4. BENEFITS OF DEVELOPMENT
5. DESIGNATIONS & CONSTRAINTS
6. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
7. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
SCDC Local Plan: Issues & Options Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth September 2012
1. Introduction
1.1 Brief
The Carter Jonas Planning Division on behalf of Cambridgeshire County Council (Strategy & Estates Dept.) is promoting selected land within the District of South Cambridgeshire as sustainable locations for future housing growth. This documents supports the development of land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth (‘The Site’) and provides a consultation response to the recently published Issues & Options South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) Local Plan.
The new planning system places emphasis on “front loading.” This involves proposals being assessed at an early stage in the plan process, which should allow for a more informed decision when the Local Development Framework (LDF) is finally published. This report therefore aims to assist South Cambridgeshire District Council in their consideration of those settlements and sites best suited for housing allocation within the district in anticipation of their emerging Local Plan.
SCDC Local Plan: Issues & Options Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth September 2012
PART A – SITE UNDERSTANDING
SCDC Local Plan: Issues & Options Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth September 2012
2. The Site & Context
2.1 The Site
The site area proposed for consideration extends to some 0.712ha/1.76acres. The land fronts onto Meldreth Road, to the western edge of Shepreth village. See red line area with white background, shown on site location plan.
2.2 Context
The land is bordered by landscaping and the railway line to the west, with agricultural land beyond. To the south west of the Site, an area also within the same ownership, has received planning permission for the erection of 12 affordable houses (blue hatching) and associated open space including BMX track (pink hatching) (S/0506/10/F). Beyond this is an existing scheme of 14 affordable units at John Breay Close. The majority of the southern boundary fronts onto the public highway, with existing residential properties to the opposite side. To the north east of the side is an existing industrial unit, of which the staff car park bounds the proposed site.
Shepreth is a well served village which lies 10 miles south of Cambridge and 6 miles north of Royston . It has easy access onto the A10 and M11 and train services towards London and Cambridge.
2.3 Current & Proposed Use
The land is currently vacant greenfield and the site offers the opportunity for a residential led mixed use development (medium density 30dph).
SCDC Local Plan: Issues & Options Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth September 2012
3. Site Photographs
4 5 3 2
1 1 2
3 4 5
SCDC Local Plan: Issues & Options Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth September 2012
4. Benefits of Development
4.1 Growth Strategy & Settlement Hierarchy
The site currently lies outside of the defined settlement framework for Shepreth. However South Cambridgeshire District must allocate land to provide space for housing growth to cover the Local Plan period up to 2031 (18,500 – 23,500 dwellings). The presumption, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, shall be for sustainable development. This therefore requires the Council to seek suitable and deliverable sites.. The delivery of homes and employment within settlements such as Shepreth in order to meet local needs and maintain a balanced and mixed community is key to the future long term viability and success of rural settlements and their economy.
The existing Core Strategy document identifies Shepreth as an Infill Village within the adopted settlement hierarchy. The current consultation document proposes for the village to retain this categorisation. There have however been recent developments within the village that have exceeded this ‘allowance’, notably the affordable housing scheme adjacent to the proposed site (12 units), and the existing Cambridge Housing Society scheme located at John Breay Close (14 units). The scale of these developments has been adequately absorbed into the settlement, and a similar approach should be taken for the Site. Consideration of these schemes is also important in terms of tenure for development of the Site. We are seeking a market-housing led scheme here in order to ensure a greater balance of tenures within this area of Shepreth.
4.2 Sustainable Development – existing services & facilities
Shepreth is a proportionally well serviced village, which hosts the following facilities:
Public house; place of worship; recreation area; village hall; wildlife park; and ‘teacake’ tearooms and basic provisions store (milk, bread, cheese & eggs). The nearest catchment primary schools are located in Barrington (2miles) and Melbourn . The secondary school serving this area is Melbourn Village College (2.8miles) and Bassingbourn Village College (direct bus service).
4.3 Sustainable Development – public transport availability
Public transport links from Shepreth are very good, with an hourly train service towards Cambridge and London Kings Cross from the train station (5 minutes walk from the Site). There is a direct school service towards Bassingbourn Village College (no.128) and an hourly Monday to Saturday bus service between Cambridge and Royston (no.26).
SCDC Local Plan: Issues & Options Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth September 2012
4. Benefits of Development
4.4 Opportunities offered by Development
The preceding information demonstrates that development within this location could provide a sustainable solution to the future growth requirements within South Cambridgeshire District. This Site has the ability to satisfy demand for housing within Shepreth, including providing market dwellings within an area which currently has a high concentration of affordable units. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, the council should seek to achieve ‘mixed and balanced communities’.
By virtue of the location of the Site, new residents who occupy any properties subsequently constructed here would be within easy walking distance of all village services. Sustainable growth in Shepreth would assist in maintaining the vitality and viability of a currently active rural community. The strength of the community and its desire for maintaining and supporting services within the village is demonstrated by the recent campaign to save the pub within the village and the re-opening of the old post office as a tea rooms and basic provision store.
The location of new development in Shepreth offers occupying residents sustainable travel to work links into Cambridge, through the presence of the railway station , which is within easy walking distance of the Site.
Development on the Site could be assimilated reasonably easily into the village given that it represents a logical ‘infill’ between existing/consented development and there is established landscaping on the Site’s northern boundary.
SCDC Local Plan: Issues & Options Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth September 2012
5. Designations & Constraints
5.1 Flood Risk
The Site is considered to be at low risk of flooding. Environment Agency online flood mapping classifies the area as flood zone 1.
5.2 Land Use Designations
The Site is not in the Green Belt, and is not the subject of any other land use designations.
5.4 Heritage Assets
The Site does not lie within the designated Cottenham Area. The proximity of the Conservation Area (dark blue hatching) can be viewed on the map extract taken from the existing Local Plan. It is not considered that views into or out of this area would be affected by development in this location. There are no listed buildings present within the Site or that fall within close proximity.
5.5 Ecology
According to Natural England mapping the Site is not designated as a SSSI; National or Local Nature Reserve; Country Park; Doorstep or Millennium Green. Magic Defra mapping also does not identify any constraints.
SCDC Local Plan: Issues & Options Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth September 2012
5. Designations & Constraints
5.6 Highways
It is anticipated that vehicular access could be provided off Meldreth Road, via the approved affordable housing site which will include a new junction and access road. The approved plan shown opposite demonstrates that there will be a gated access provided into the neighbouring field, which could be easily upgraded and continued on into any new development site.
5.7 Further work
This proposal will continue to evolve through the identification of any site constraints (both policy and physical) and it is proposed that these Potential shall be mitigated against or compensation measures put in place to access point leading into address any issues which may arise. This includes highways, flood risk proposed site and drainage, landscape, biodiversity, infrastructure and utilities e.g. gas, electricity and water.
The proposal will also progress through consultation with the relevant local authorities, including catchment schools, to identify if there is capacity to serve the needs of the new development, and if not, what improvements would be necessary e.g. physical expansion. In this case, financial contributions would be sought and agreed from the development as part of a legal agreement.
SCDC Local Plan: Issues & Options Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth September 2012
PART B – DEVELOPER RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS AND ISSUES
SCDC Local Plan: Issues & Options Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth September 2012
The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan – Issues and Options Consultation 6. Response to Questions
Question 3: How much employment do you consider the Local Plan should provide for? i. Lower Jobs Growth – 14,000 additional jobs over the Plan period (700 jobs per year) ii. Medium Jobs Growth – 23,100 additional jobs over the Plan period (1,200 jobs per year) iii. High Jobs Growth – 29,200 additional jobs over the Plan period (1,500 jobs per year)
We support a strategy for Medium/High Jobs Growth (1,200 - 1,500 jobs per year) over the Plan period commensurate with the quantum of housing to be delivered.
One of the three key components of sustainable development as defined in the NPPF (‘the Framework’) is the economic role the Planning System plays – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure.
The Cambridge economy has withstood the recent downturn better than anticipated, and over the last 20 years the area has seen the total number of jobs increase by an average of 1,600 additional new jobs every year. The lowest performing years (2008-2011, the start of the economic downturn) produced an output of 1,000 jobs per annum.
Given that this is a plan for the forthcoming 19 years, concern regarding the natural slowdown of the Cambridge Cluster/continuation of the downturn seems unnecessarily pessimistic and short-sighted. Whilst this may be the case for the next 5 years, as the previous 20 years have shown, there is the opportunity for growth in the mid to latter parts of the Plan period to sustain/exceed the ‘High Growth’ 1,500 new jobs annual average.
The Jobs Target policy should embrace the Cambridge area’s reputation as a global leader in research and knowledge based industries and higher education available by seeking to achieve the maximum level of jobs growth. The Cambridge area has the ability to retain and attract the top performing companies, despite significant domestic and international competition, but a coordinated statement from the Cambridge authorities needs to be given that jobs growth can be accommodated within a flexible, ambitious and responsive framework. A policy which advocates high growth will support this desired approach.
SCDC Local Plan: Issues & Options Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth September 2012
The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan – Issues and Options Consultation Response to Questions
Question 4: How much new housing do you consider the Local Plan should provide for? i. Lower Housing Growth – additional 4,300 dwellings (equal to 925 dwellings per year) ii. Medium Housing Growth – additional 7,300 dwellings (equates to 1,075 dwellings per year) iii. High Housing Growth – additional 9,300 dwellings (equates to 1,175 dwellings per year)
We support a strategy for High Housing Growth (23,500 dwellings) over the Plan period.
The second of the three key components of sustainable development as defined in the Framework is the social role of the Planning System – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being.
We have previously advocated a High Jobs Growth strategy and therefore a commensurate level of housing growth is necessary to reduce the burden of commuting through the district.
The 23,500 target for the next 20 years would provide the same average annual completions target as the Core Strategy (1999-2016) and East of England Plan (2001-2021) of c.1,175 dwellings. It was anticipated that the level of completions would not meet the target until later in the plan period once the major developments came forward. This may again be the case going forward, although the Council may this time choose to avoid a strategy which places too great a reliance on a small number of very large new settlements or urban extensions and instead prioritise large developments (e.g. Up to 500 dwellings) in key sustainable locations (such as Cambridge edge, Rural Centres) and/or medium developments (e.g. Up to 100 dwellings) in other sustainable locations (such as Minor Rural Centres, Group Villages). In such cases, housing completions could be achieved within a quicker timeframe (as less upfront infrastructural delivery) than previous very large urban extensions/new settlements. In 2007/2008 the annual completions was 1,274, demonstrating that an annual average completion rate of 1,175 is feasible.
A High Housing Growth target would also make the greatest contribution towards affordable housing completions, of which there is a severe shortfall.
SCDC Local Plan: Issues & Options Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth September 2012
The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan – Issues and Options Consultation Response to Questions
Question 5: Do you consider that the Plan should include an allowance for windfall development
We do not support the inclusion of a windfall allowance, if it forms a notional annual figure that is used to reduce the agreed growth target that is derived through a planned identification of deliverable and developable sites over a 5-15 year period. We accept that LPAs may however choose to make an allowance for windfall sites in the five-year supply if they have compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available in the local area and will continue to provide a reliable source of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends, and should not include residential gardens.
Question 6: What level of 5-year land buffer do you think the Council should plan for that would be capable of being brought forward from later in the plan period? i. 5% buffer ii. 20% buffer
We would support a 20% buffer. The Framework advocates that where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. SCDC have had a persistent under delivery through out their recent Plan, as described in the recent AMR (2010/2011):
Cumulative net housing completions: 1999 – 2011 = 9,285 Cumulative annualised requirement: 1999 – 2011 = 14,112 Shortfall/Surplus: - 4,827
SCDC Local Plan: Issues & Options Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth September 2012
The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan – Issues and Options Consultation Response to Questions
Question 9: What do you think is the best approach to the development strategy for South Cambridgeshire? All options are expected to involve some village development to provide flexibility and early housing provision: i. Cambridge focus (would require a review of the Green Belt) ii. New settlement focus iii. Sustainable village focus (would require a review of the Green Belt) iv. Combination of the above
We would support a development strategy focusing new development on the edge of Cambridge and on sustainable villages. Development around Cambridge is without question the most sustainable option for growth, offering opportunities to support High Jobs Growth within the City, and the provision of new transport infrastructure such as the Busway, the forthcoming Science Park Train Station and improvements to the A14.
The contribution of sustainable settlements is also important in the early delivery of housing growth. Many are large (in terms of population), have a strong services/facilities base (e.g. schools, public transport accessibility, employment, shops), lie within close proximity to Cambridge, and have the capacity to accommodate substantial housing and employment growth. Furthermore, development in Shepreth would not require a review of the green belt.
SCDC Local Plan: Issues & Options Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth September 2012
The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan – Issues and Options Consultation Response to Questions
Question 14: What approach do you think the Local Plan should take for individual housing schemes within village frameworks on land not specifically identified for housing? i. Retain existing numerical limits for individual schemes ii. Increase the size allowed for individual schemes iii. Remove scheme size limits for Minor Rural Centres, and if included for Better Served Group Villages, so they are the same as Rural Centres iv. Remove scheme size limits for all categories of village
We would support the proposal for increasing the size allowed for individual schemes as set out in Figure 6, although would advocate a higher threshold for Minor Rural Centres to 100, and for Better Served Group Villages to 50. Minor Rural Centres and Better Served Group Villages will have been awarded such status on the basis that they meet a certain existing level of service and facility provision and, in many cases, capacity exists to accommodate an enlarged population. Larger developments will typically provide more on-site affordable housing , which is a common local requirement, and larger developments will also often be able to accommodate on-site open space and contribute more significantly to strategic infrastructure requirements. The proliferation of a number of smaller scale developments does not typically offer the same on-site/strategic opportunities, in spite of the possibility that the same numbers of housing across the village will be achieved.
Question 15: Are you aware of any existing village framework boundaries that are not drawn appropriately because they do not follow property boundaries?
We would support the inclusion of land within revised village frameworks where exceptions housing has been created (such as John Breay Close) which in turn has led to the creation of small pockets of land that might be considered suitable for development (such as the subject site) without undue detriment to the village, providing this does not undermine the local needs aspect of the schemes which are secured through S106's anyway.
Question 45: Which of the following options do you agree with? iii. Include a policy with higher average target densities in the most sustainable locations and lower average densities in the least sustainable but allowing for variation from site to site to reflect local circumstances.
We would support the use of density guidance in policy to provide a point of understanding for developers, residents, and LPA officers/members.
SCDC Local Plan: Issues & Options
Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth
September 2012
The South Cambridgeshire Local Plan – Issues and Options Consultation Response to Questions
Question 50: Do you think new homes are often too small? How do you think we should deal with the size of new homes?
We believe this issue is closely linked to density, car parking provision and outdoor amenity and should therefore be addressed collectively. A majority of development sites in South Cambridgeshire should be able to achieve a reasonable minimum standard of amenity, such as at least 2 parking spaces, a specified amount of private outdoor open space, and a specified amount of internal residential space. This would help set a benchmark for developers, which if accorded with in a scheme, would help to minimise the antipathy of local residents objecting against new development (lack of on-site car parking is arguably one of the key concerns with applications).
It is important that developments remain design-led, but equally an awareness of what the minimum acceptable standards are for a scheme will then allow the developer to propose and justify alternative measures (e.g. Provision of a car club if on-site parking is reduced) if such baseline standards cannot be met.
The concern about not expressing expected design standards in policy is that it generates too much subjectivity into the decision-making process. From experience we find that quite often the case officer will understand the reasoning behind a proposal but the difficulty subsequently arises at Committee level when such arguments are not fully presented. Without a baseline standard, subjectivity will apply in every case which will give rise to inconsistency and lack of confidence.
We strongly support the principle of Lifetime Homes in new development and the County Council is committed to making such provision on land it is promoting.
The County Council is committed to developing in accordance with the Cambridgeshire Quality Charter for Growth which encourages a mixture of tenures and forms.
Question 53: What do you think the Local Plan should say about the development of residential gardens?
We would support the wording of (ii) that in seeking to resist inappropriate development the plan should allow for development of residential gardens in principle so long as the proposed development is consistent with the design policies of the Local Plan. The Framework categorically supports a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that the default position should be ‘yes’ to development subject to the satisfaction of all other material considerations. Accordingly, policy should be written with a positive approach but appropriately caveated where necessary.
SCDC Local Plan: Issues & Options Land at Meldreth Road, Shepreth September 2012