91 extra houses have been “piggybacked” into the 1,300-home Marleigh development on the edge of Cambridge in a stitch-up attempt to cram in more homes.
Phase 3 of the Marleigh development on Newmarket Road will continue plans for 1,300 new homes, with the Marshall car dealership relocating across the road.
However, in an eleventh-hour attempt to squeeze in more homes, a separate application to add 91 extra houses to the Marleigh development was submitted and approved by the Joint Development Control Committee on Wednesday.
This move takes the total number of homes up to almost 1,400 – which was argued to break South Cambridgeshire’s density rules.
There were also concerns whether the application complies with affordable housing requirements. The final phase of the development delivers 423 homes – but only 30% of the homes are affordable, well below the usual 40% for South Cambridgeshire.
Cllr Graham Cone (Fen Ditton and Fulbourn, Conservative) objected to the application, arguing the extra 91 homes were “piggybacking” on the existing development to skimp on developer contributions which would usually be “double or triple” this amount offered.
“In the past I have always supported this application as part of the Local Plan myself.
“However, I do object to the way in which this phase of the development has been brought forward, with the addition of 91 dwellings over and above the outline application granted. This is not a good way to conduct business.
“As a council, we have always projected 1,300 dwellings on this site as part of the outline application. The viability for this site has been done on this premise and decisions made on affordable housing and all the infrastructure as a result of there being 1,300 dwellings.”
Cllr Cone concluded with a plea to consider the site’s incoming residents:
“I’d like councillors to ask themselves: is it fair on residents who have already bought properties on the Marleigh site on the premise of there being 1,300 dwellings, when there will now be 1,391 dwellings – meaning their space will be far more highly populated than they had envisaged?”
The Committee later raised concerns that there were not enough parking spaces, with many socially rented apartments ending up without a parking space.
Perhaps there would be more room for parking if developer greed had not sneaked in 91 extra homes under residents’ noses.
