Cambridge development to get nearly 100 more homes
There'll be a total of nearly 1400 at Marleigh
Over 400 new homes are due to be built at the Marleigh development on the edge of Cambridge.
The development had originally been due to include a maximum of 1,300 homes, but the latest plans will see an additional 91 homes built taking the total to 1,391 homes.
Concerns were raised that over 90 new homes would create “extra pressures” on facilities in the area.
However, others said the additional homes within an existing development would be a benefit to the area.
Outline permission for the Marleigh development, off Newmarket Road, was granted back in 2016.
At the time the developer proposed to build up to 1,300 new homes, as well as a primary school, community facilities, and open spaces for people to enjoy.
Detailed plans for most of the development have since been agreed, with many homes now built and occupied.
The latest proposals put forward by the developer, Hill Marshall LLP, asked for permission to build the final 332 homes allowed by the original outline permission, as well as an additional 91 homes.
This would bring the total number of homes at the Marleigh development to 1,391.
Additional financial contributions were agreed to compensate for the impact of the extra homes, as well as some new facilities, including new football pitches and a community garden.
Representatives of the developer told councillors from Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council at a joint development control committee this week (November 20), that the extra 91 homes would be a “sustainable uplift”.
They said the increase was proposed to make “efficient use of a brownfield site” and to contribute towards the housing needs in the area.
The representatives said across the third phase 136 affordable homes would also be provided, through a mixture of shared ownership and affordable rented homes.
Concerns about the increase in the total number of homes were raised by some councillors.
Councillor Carla Hofman raised concerns about increasing the density of housing and said the additional homes would put “extra pressure” on existing community facilities.
Councillor Graham Cone said he wanted to praise the developers for their work up until now delivering the Marleigh development, but said he had issues with the latest proposal to increase the total number of homes from 1,300 to 1,391.
He said decisions had been made on affordable housing and infrastructure based on the assumption there would be a total of 1,300 new homes.
Cllr Cone also said people had bought homes in the development being told there would be a total of 1,300 homes.
He said: “Is it right to squeeze them on the site, potentially putting at risk some of the good work that has gone before?”
However, Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins said she believed the additional 91 homes were a good thing.
She highlighted that some new facilities had been agreed, and that 36 more affordable homes would be built, which she said would help to bring down the waiting list for housing in the area.
She said: “The benefits of having this in my view outweighs the potential harm of additional density.”
Questions about how parking spaces would be allocated were also raised at the meeting.
Councillors were told that the parking spaces for the blocks of flats would be allocated to specific homes, with the developer intending to sell one space with each private flat and each shared ownership flat.
However, officers said this would leave a shortfall in the spaces left for the affordable rented flats, with only 13 spaces available between 25 flats.
Councillor Dr Richard Williams said it “looks bad” for the councils to approve plans that would see “people in affordable housing at the back of the queue when it comes to parking”.
Councillor Katie Porrer said she shared this concern that some people in the affordable flats would be left without a car parking space “when those are people probably in need of it the most”.
Officers said the proposals were compliant with the parking policies. Councillors said they were “frustrated”, but accepted there was not much they could do if the proposals did not breach planning policies.