APPENDIX 1

East Cambridgeshire District Council

Draft Local Plan Consultation (pre-submission)

Summary of Representations

June 2013 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Contents

1 Introduction...... 4 2 The consultation process ...... 4 3 Summary of representations ...... 5 3.1 Part One – Spatial strategy and policies...... 5 Chapter 1: Introduction...... 5 Chapter 2: A Strategic Vision for East Cambridgeshire...... 6 Chapter 3: Delivery of sustainable growth ...... 15 Chapter 4: Housing ...... 55 Chapter 5: Employment ...... 71 Chapter 6: Environment and Climate Change...... 78 Chapter 7: Community services and infrastructure ...... 99 Appendices & District Policies Map ...... 108 General comments...... 109 3.2 Part Two – Town/Village Visions ...... 111 Aldreth:...... 111 Ashley ...... 111 Black Horse Drove...... 113 Bottisham ...... 114 Brinkley...... 138 Burrough Green ...... 138 Burwell...... 138 Chettisham ...... 203 Cheveley ...... 203 Chippenham ...... 209

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 1 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Coveney ...... 209 Dullingham...... 210 Ely ...... 211 Fordham...... 254 Haddenham...... 268 Isleham...... 273 Kennett...... 285 Kirtling and Upend ...... 286 Little Downham...... 288 Little Thetford...... 294 Littleport...... 295 Lode and Long Meadow...... 302 Mepal ...... 303 Newmarket Fringe...... 304 Prickwillow...... 305 Pymoor...... 308 Queen Adelaide ...... 311 Reach...... 312 Snailwell ...... 312 Soham ...... 313 Stetchworth...... 332 Stretham...... 332 Stuntney ...... 333 Sutton...... 334 Swaffham Bulbeck ...... 342 Swaffham Prior ...... 344

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 2 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Upware...... 347 Wardy Hill ...... 348 Wentworth ...... 348 Westley Waterless ...... 352 Wicken...... 353 Wilburton ...... 363 Witcham ...... 363 Witchford ...... 364 Woodditton and Saxon Street...... 366

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 3 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

1 Introduction

1.1 This document sets out a summary of the responses made to the Pre-Submission Local Plan, during the consultation period which ran from 11th February to 25th March 2013. Responses have been made to the summarised comments, and minor changes proposed in some cases. It is intended as a working document, to help inform Members, the public and the Inspector.

1.2 A full copy of all responses can be viewed on the Council’s website, from August 2013. A summary of the consultation process, results and main issues raised is also set out in the Council’s ‘Consultation Statement’. Both of these information sources/documents meet statutory requirements, as set out in Regulation 22 (1)(c) and (d) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012).

1.3 The proposed minor changes in this document have been taken forward into the Council’s ‘Schedule of Proposed Minor Modifications’ document, which will be submitted to the Inspector, and form part of the Council’s evidence base.

2 The consultation process

2.1 A total of 494 people/organisations made responses on the pre-submission draft Local Plan. A full breakdown of the number and nature of responses is set out in the Council’s ‘Consultation Statement’. It should be noted that this Summary of Representations document only includes responses where commentary/views were provided – some people responded to various policies by recording ‘no view’ only.

2.2 These responses also need to be viewed alongside the results of consultation from earlier stages of the Plan preparation – particularly the consultation results from the Village Vision work during 2011/12, when significant number of people were involved. Further information is set out in the Council’s ‘Consultation Statement.’

2.3 The full range of documents and further information on the Local Plan can be seen on the Council’s LDF webpage at http://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/local-development-framework/east-cambridgeshire-local-plan. For further information please call the Forward Planning team on 01353 665555 or email [email protected]

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 4 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

3 Summary of representations

3.1 Part One – Spatial strategy and policies

3.1.1 A total of 74 people/organisations made comments on Part One of the Draft Local Plan.

Chapter 1: Introduction Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Sian Derbyshire, Disagree - - Duty to co-operate: Paragraph 1.3.1 refers to the need Inclusion of reference to the Wicken Fen Amend the Duty to National Trust for Local Authorities to cooperate across boundaries. Vision is too detailed for this generic chapter. Cooperate Statement The Wicken Fen Vision extends into South However, the matter should be picked up in to refer to cross Cambridgeshire. A coordinated strategy across the the Duty to Cooperate Statement, as cross boundary working on boundaries of East Cambs and South Cambs is needed boundary working takes place on these strategic green to help deliver these strategic aspirations and bring issues, e.g. through Planning Policy Forum infrastructure forward the Wicken Vision. Reference to this should be and the Local Nature partnership. Could also projects. made in the text. be picked up under Policy COM 5 – see the St. Edmundsbury comments in that section below. Wendy Hague, We suggest explicit reference to: Want to avoid referring to specific studies in Proposed minor Cambs County - the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act this section as it would need to be a very modification to Council Section 38 (6) and Section 39 (2) long list. But agree would be useful to add para 1.2.3: - the Climate Change Act 2008 reference to ‘taking account of the plans and - the Minerals and Waste Local Development strategies of other organisations’ in para ‘……..economic, Framework (LDF) 1.2.3. Note that background documents are environmental and - the Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3)/Market Town already listed in the Local Development social impacts on the Transport Strategies. Scheme. But will update the list to include Local Plan. It has new strategies such as the Health and Well- also involved taking Likewise, it would be appropriate to refer to: being Strategy. account of the plans - the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment and strategies of - the Green Infrastructure Strategy (2011) other organisations. - the Health and Wellbeing Strategy The full range….’ - and other overarching strategies which may have shaped policy formulation.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 5 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Chapter 2: A Strategic Vision for East Cambridgeshire Sound/ Legally Name / Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID Disagree S L David Alberry- Agree Y Y Appears to be acceptable Support noted. No change. King Edward Keymer, Agree Y Y But it lacks Vision outside the "box" Comments noted. No change. Keymer Cavendish Richard Seamark, Agree Locational strategy is appropriate, and also recognises Support noted. No change. Carter Jonas LLP the need for infrastructure and community (on behalf of services/facilities to support residential growth and that Turnstone these will be delivered in a timely fashion to meet the Estates) needs of new residents straight away. The provision of a sports and leisure hub within Ely, on land at Downham Road, is in accordance with the proposed Spatial Vision, and the need has been identified. The development is available and deliverable. James Cutting, Agree [Spatial vision, fifth para] The county council welcomes Agree that clarification would be Proposed minor Suffolk County the commitment to improving sustainable transport links helpful. modification to Spatial Council between villages and service centres, and assumes that Vision, fifth para: this statement is intended to include reference to settlements outside of the district that service East ‘….Public bus services Cambridgeshire, such as Newmarket and Mildenhall. It between market towns may be appropriate to make a minor modification to and villages will be clarify this point. improved (including to settlements in neighbouring areas), and the A10 will be developed as a high quality public transport corridor….’ Rachel Hanbury, Agree Y Y We welcome the commitment to address climate change Support noted. No change. Turley Associates within East Cambridgeshire District and to increasing renewable energy production. We also support Strategic Objective 7 which includes promoting the use of renewable energy sources. Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Nick Hardy, GVA Agree Y ? Lidl UK agrees with the emphasis placed on Ely, Soham Support noted. No change. (on behalf of Lidl and Littleport as the location for most growth over the UK) plan period.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 6 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Garth Hanlon, Agree Y Y In general we support the broad District Wide strategic Comments noted. No change. Savills policies. Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y The spatial vision and the objectives will help East Masterplans are prepared for large No change. Endurance Cambs to grow, meet local needs and become more self strategic developments to ensure Estates sustainable. Also need to provide types of housing and appropriate phasing is considered to retail development that is not currently provided for. The enable the most efficient and effective objective to seek sustainable and exemplary delivery of schemes. This process development is commendable. However, need to ensure also ensures the Council’s aims for schemes are viable and can be delivered. For example, the development have been large development sites may deliver a quantum of incorporated into the proposal. affordable housing that could be too much for the local affordable housing operators to take on or pay for in the first phase of a development.

The Local Plan must have a degree of flexibility to This flexibility is inherent within the respond to changing local, national and global planning system and doesn’t need to circumstances (such as economic market performance be specifically referenced in the Plan. and environmental objectives).This needs to be explicit The Local Plan provides a starting within the Local Plan and it should be clear that the point for consideration of a planning Policies are a guide and should be interpreted with application, and account will be taken flexibility in the context of current circumstances prevalent of other matters, including material at the time a development if proposed. considerations. Ziyad Thomas, Agree Y - [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. The Planning Bureau Ltd (on behalf of McCarthy and Stone) Stephen Faulkner, Agree - - The County Council welcomes the strategic objectives set Support noted. No change. Norfolk County out in the Local Plan. Council Peter Harris Agree Y Y A well worked vision although opportunities for Support noted. No change. advancement. Richard Baty, Agree Y ? Para 2.3.1 The key issues are fine, (it would help if they Comments noted. No change. Transition Ely were numbered) but some of the detailed proposals in the plan conflict with these objectives.

Para 2.5 Strategic objectives - These are also fine, but are not followed through in the plan. Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Foundation East James Broad Disagree N Y The vision section lacks anything which is specifically These are useful methods, but too No change. directed to the enhancing of communities. I would detailed for the purpose of the spatial suggest the following: vision.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 7 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

 grants to local organisations which deal with transport, recreation, affordable housing, small Out-commuting can be tackled in businesses. various ways and it is within the remit  encouraging networking between such organisations of this Plan to try to limit further  community forums, involving local churches, schools, increases in out-commuting and businesses. Similar to Neighbourhood Panels. aspire to reduce levels over the plan period. I question the objective to "lower the level of out- commuting". Realistically, out-commuting is a factor which needs to be accommodated and worked into the plan. I don't see that it is realistic for this plan to try and change that. Will Lusty, Savills Disagree N Y The vision should include reference to re-use of The district does not contain a No proposed change. (on behalf of St. brownfield land (NPPF; para 111). The 3rd paragraph significant stock of unused/vacant Johns College) should therefore be altered to add at the end; "Decisions brownfield land, and most new should encourage the effective use of land and the development will need to be on District will be re-using previously developed, brownfield Greenfield sites. The retention of land, provided that it is not of high environmental quality". existing employment sites is a key priority for the Council, as outlined in Within the Objectives, text should be added within Policy EMP 1. objective 2 after; "2. Provide a range of new housing in appropriate locations..." To read; "which should include encouraging the reuse of brownfield sites, when suitable". Patsy Dell, Disagree Para.2.6.2 This deals with the 'triggers' for a plan review It is not considered necessary to refer Proposed minor Cambridge City in terms of targets. This should include publication of a specifically to the different types of modification to strategic Council revised Cambridge Housing Market Area (HMA) Strategic evidence changes that may take objective 6: Housing Market Assessment with significantly different place, within this paragraph. The figures than you propose. Para 2.6.4 could then follow on generic reference in 2.6.2 is 6. Protect the open directly from that. considered to be sufficient. The issue countryside and land relating to the 2013 SHMA is now within the Green Belt A small and easily rectifiable issue concerns the status of captured within proposed minor against insensitive and the Cambridge Green Belt. Each Local Plan carried over modifications to Policy GROWTH 1. sporadic development. the old Cambridge specific objectives from the 2003 Structure Plan. Green Belt objectives for Cambridge and It is proposed to add ‘Green Belts’ Cambridgeshire remain as a positive growth into the 6th strategic objective, to meet management tool and should be appropriately reflected in this point. local plans joint Green Belt Objectives, and need to positively support the Cambridge Green Belt purposes. Maeve Disagree Key issues and challenges [climate change and green Green Infrastructure is defined in the No change. Thompson- infrastructure] glossary and includes a network of Starkey  Given that “The district is particularly vulnerable to multi-functional green open spaces. the impacts of climate change such as flooding and Policy ENV 4 outlines the Council’s drought”, the plans for new housing provision need approach to sustainable construction. to be reconsidered Smaller developments, such as

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 8 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

 There is no clarification on what comprises the shops, schools and other community provision of green infrastructure. amenities will need to demonstrate  New housing needs to live up to the Passivhaus how this has been considered, standard - would be low cost. however meeting Passivhaus  Developments should also include larger gardens to standards may reduce viability of allow for home growing, and include allotments schemes.  Other development, including retail and community uses, needs to be carbon neutral, and incorporate more green space and trees.

Vision – para 3: “Wherever new housing is provided …” Further details are contained within This includes no specific requirements, which should be the relevant policies in Part 1 of the included. Local Plan.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Sian Derbyshire, Disagree - - Spatial Vision (para 2.4.1) The last sentence of the first Agreed. Proposed minor National Trust para should also refer to Green Infrastructure as having modifications to the Plan: a role in improving the peoples quality of life. Vision, para 6: Strategic Objectives (para 2.5.1) The list of strategic ‘…There will be better objectives for the district does not mention strategic The umbrella term “infrastructure” access to the countryside Green Infrastructure. Objective 9 should be amended to includes green infrastructure. and green spaces for refer to Green Infrastructure. However, reference could be included local communities which to ‘strategic and local’ infrastructure. helps improve people’s quality of life.

Strategic objective 9: Ensure a high quality of life by maintaining and delivering strategic and local infrastructure and facilities needed to support communities. Gabrielle Rowan, Disagree N N [Key Issues and Challenges] This section does not The Green Belt is referenced in para. No change. Pegasus Group mention the function or protection of the Green Belt in the 2.2.6, and the importance of ‘retaining (on behalf of Mr District which is clearly not in compliance with the NPPF. distinctiveness and character ‘ is David Chaplin) covered in the 8th bullet in section 2.3. There is no specific requirement in the NPPF to include reference to the Green Belt within the spatial vision and objectives. The importance of protecting the Green Belt from inappropriate development is covered in Policy ENV 10.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 9 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Neil Waterson, Disagree N N David Wilson Homes generally supports the spatial vision Strategic objective 2 already includes Proposed minor Bidwells (on and strategic objectives set out in Chapter 2. the phrase ‘’as far as possible.’ modification to the spatial behalf of David Therefore it would appear appropriate vision, para 3: Wilson Homes) However, disagree with the references in the spatial to reflect this within the Vision too. vision and objectives to meeting needs for different size Wherever new housing is and type of dwellings. Approach is overly prescriptive, not provided, it will match flexible, and not consistent with para. 50 of NPPF which respond to local needs states Council’s should take into account current and and requirements as far future market trends. as possible in terms of type, size and tenure. To make the Plan sound, the following amendments are proposed: Spatial Vision, third para: Wherever new housing is provided, it will match respond to local needs and requirements as far as possible in terms of type, size and tenure.

Strategic Objective 2: Provide a range of new housing in appropriate locations, which meets responds to local housing needs and requirements as far as possible. Mepal Parish Disagree N Y Para 2.2.2 - The statement that the part of the population Agree that clarification could assist. Proposed minor Council which does not live in Ely, Soham and Littleport is 'spread modifications: between around 50 villages' is incorrect. Some people live in dispersed locations outside villages. Para. 2.2.2: ‘…spread between Para. 2.2.5 - Flood risk is described as a key issue but The Agency’s Flood Risk maps show around 50 villages and the strategy makes no differentiation between those levels of flood risk, and need to take other parts of the areas shown on the Environment Agency map as account of managed defences. Their district. protected by flood defences (areas drained nearly 400 approach to management of flood risk years ago) and areas where water flow is not subject to varies between areas, and is a Para. 2.2.7: constant management - a significant difference, to be met detailed issue beyond the remit of the ‘…highest of rural areas. by different strategies Plan. However, as noted in the above paragraph, Para. 2.2.7 - The quality of life survey hides local Agree that it would be useful to add there are variations variation, particularly poverty arising from lack of reference to this. across the district, and accessible local services and need to maintain a car. pockets of deprivation exist.’ Para. 2.3.1 - The prosperity cited here fails to take account of pockets of rural deprivation including in our These issues are all picked up in the village, which arise from lack of local employment list of ‘key issues and challenges’. opportunity, low-paying employment where it exists, See bullets 1, 6 and 7. relatively poor transport facilities, and an ageing population living on capital which at present yields low interest rates.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 10 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Strategic objectives – Supported. Particularly welcome Support noted. The objectives are improved cycling and pedestrian routes (especially from district-wide and do not include site Ely to Mepal and beyond). However, should include the specific proposals or opportunities. proposed Block Fen redevelopment as nature/amenity site and also to promote the leisure opportunities offered by Mepal Outdoor Centre. They should include better access to the countryside and green spaces, and their preservation.

Michael Hendry, Disagree - - While the vision is generally to be applauded care must There is an identified need for extra No change. Grovemere be taken that by increasing employment opportunities employment space within the district Property Limited through additional allocation the Council does not risk the that should not put existing business vitality or continued success of the existing business at risk. parks. Stuart Cooper Disagree ? ? Comments relate specifically to Soham (see Soham (see Soham section below) (See Soham section section). The main concern is out-commuting and below) location of development to accommodate traffic movements. Ilinca Diaconescu, No view Y Y [No further comments made] Noted. No change. Traveller Law Reform Project Andrew Newton, Strategic objective 7: The Board would wish to see flood Agree that this could usefully be Proposed minor The Ely Group of risk/surface water flooding included in this bullet point. included. modification to strategic Internal Drainage objective 7: Boards Strategic objective 9: Infrastructure needs to include the main river flood defence system that helps protect the The phrase ‘infrastructure’ is an ‘….by reducing pollution District from flooding. umbrella term which captures this. and waste, maximinsing water and energy efficiency, dealing with flood risk and surface water management, and promoting….’ Ian Smith, Smiths Disagree Spatial vision – we generally support the spatial vision, in Noted Proposed minor Gore (on behalf of particular that market towns will be the focus for new modifications: Church development and that Ely, as the main centre, will Commissioners) accommodate the most growth. Spatial vision, para 3: Wherever new housing is We do not entirely agree with the phrase “Wherever new Agree that para. 3 could be amended provided, it will match housing is provided, it will match local needs in terms of to clarify. respond to local needs type, size and tenure” because, ultimately the provision of and requirements as far new housing is largely driven by market forces, and local as possible in terms of demand may not always coincide with local need. type, size and tenure.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 11 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

The vision refers to large housing developments being of Glossary (new entry): “exemplar quality” but provides no definition as to what Exemplar means ‘excellent model’ – Exemplar development the Council means by this. The dictionary definition of where a proposal demonstrates a – development that exemplar is “typical example” but the plan generally high quality of architectural design demonstrates a high seeks local distinctiveness and these approaches do not and sustainable construction/living. quality of architectural seem that compatible. This could be included in the design and sustainable Glossary. construction/ living. Rod Hart, East Para. 2.3 bullet on Climate Change: what does “green Green infrastructure is clarified within No change. Cambridgeshire infrastructure” mean? How will Climate Change be Policy Growth 3 and includes Climate Change mitigated? improvements to green open spaces Champion such as Ely Country Park. Designing areas of green open space within large developments can help reduce the impact on flood risk through reduced water run-off. Sustainable construction can help mitigate against climate change through various methods such as grey water systems, insulation and sustainable materials.

The paragraph says ‘the challenges embraced by climate change will have Spatial vision, last paragraph says, “Climate Change will been embraced’ rather than have been addressed”, how, it seems optimistic? addressed or solved. See above for actions.

Commuting can not only be damaging Why do ECDC feel it is so important to reduce “out- to the environment, the continual commuting”? With a decent public transport increase in fuel cost can cause infrastructure this is not so environmentally damaging financial strain and impact on quality and not convinced that there is an ability to create so of life. Reducing car journeys will also many local jobs and no direct link to local spend patterns help to reduce congestion on busy roads.

Spatial objectives, bullet 7: How? These matters are covered by detailed policies in Part 2 of the Local Plan. Ely Cycle Disagree with wording of strategic objective 8, as it The existing wording is considered to No change. Campaign implies everyone can live near where they work, which is be reasonable and legible. not realistic. Wording should be changed as follows: ‘Provide greater opportunities to reduce car use, by ensuring services, facilities, jobs and homes are accessible by other means; integrated public transport, safe

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 12 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

links within walking distance, making cycling safe with a joined up network of routes throughout the district, between and within settlements. Wendy Hague, Ideally the spatial vision or strategic objectives should We think the vision/strategic Cambridgeshire identify the need for sustainable travel to/from new objectives already captures these County Council developments and focus on the right types of jobs for points. local people to reduce commuting. Further improvements are expected to be needed for the A10 to enhance There is some reference to accessibility and mitigate impacts of growth. Enhanced sustainable development and climate rail capacity and frequency is also a key requirement. In change in the spatial vision and terms of small scale development in rural areas/villages, objectives – and the issues are consideration is needed in terms of infrastructure required captured in more detail in the policy to support growth and there should also be greater sections (e.g. GROWTH 5, ENV4 emphasis on ensuring that infrastructure supports etc). alternative sustainable methods of travel e.g. new footpath/ cycle ways etc. There is no longer a NPPF/or legal requirement to include monitoring There is an opportunity within a new preamble to this indicators within the body of the Local section to restate the authority’s commitment to Plan. They also get quickly get out of sustainable development and to measures designed to date, so we propose to capture these address mitigation and adaptation to climate change. within the AMR. However, we would be happy to prepare a draft list of Monitoring and review, para. 2.6.2 - it is stated that the potential indicators prior to the Annual Monitoring Report “will set out the appropriate Examination hearing, as a Statement indicators and targets.” We suggest that the existing of Common Ground. indicators and targets be clearly identified within the Local Plan, as this will ensure monitoring is effective. They should include matters affecting mineral and waste safeguarding areas. Sue Bull, Anglian I particularly support “objective 7”. Support noted No change. Water Katharine Spatial Vision - the vision is disappointing in its Agree that specific references could Proposed minor Fletcher, English references to the historic environment. The opportunity to be included to the historic modifications: Heritage consider the district’s distinctive heritage as a positive environment. attribute within an enhanced future state has been Spatial Vision, last missed. The wording in the final paragraph should be paragraph: amended to reflect terms more applicable to the historic ‘The overall diversity and environment: ‘The overall diversity and quality of East quality of East Cambridgeshire’s countryside and natural environment Cambridgeshire’s will have improved and the historic environment countryside, natural conserved and enhanced’. environment and built heritage and natural Strategic objectives - We are concerned that a specific environment will have

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 13 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

reference to the historic environment is not included in improved and the the strategic objectives. Recommend that Objectives 4 historic environment and 5 refer specifically to the historic environment in a conserved and way that accords with the core planning principles enhanced. There will be (paragraph 17) and the strategic priorities (paragraphs better access…’ 156 and 157) of the NPPF. Strategic objective 5 : Protect and enhance the quality, local distinctiveness and diversity of the natural, historic and built environment. Newmarket Town Newmarket is a market town which is the international Comments noted. No change. Council and historic home of Horseracing and Breeding and is of vital importance to the national and local economy. It is essential that development does not have an adverse impact on this key industry with its delicate eco-system. Horses travel throughout the town and traffic is at a significant state of congestion already. It is imperative that any developments in or near the town should not significantly increase vehicle movements. Any development which harms the long term viability of studs, racing stables, other racing facilities or Newmarket as the international and historic home of horseracing must not be permitted.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 14 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Chapter 3: Delivery of sustainable growth

Policy Growth 1: Levels of housing, employment and retail growth Sound/ Legally Name / Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID Disagree S L Neil Watersons, Agree Y Y Support for Policy Growth 1 and the Support noted. No change. Bidwells (on behalf Council's commitment to provide 8,500 to of David Wilson 9,500 new dwellings in accordance with Homes) the Councils evidence base. It is considered that in making provision in accordance with the upper end of this range the Council are taking a positive approach to the supply of new housing in accordance with NPPF. As such, we consider that Policy Growth 1 is sound and legally compliant. Cambs County Agree Support the proposed level of jobs Support noted. No change Council growth (9200) as there is close correlation with proposed housing growth, and this level of job growth is necessary to try and improve the current job density ratio of 0.54 and reduce out- commuting - key aspirations of the strategy.

The scale of new employment land (61 ha) may be high given the scale of existing provision - approx 110 ha, but some existing allocated sites may not be viable and it is important for a full range of sites/premises to be available so that potential inward investment or relocation / expansion enquiries can be offered. Emma Ousbey, Agree The level of provision of jobs and Support noted. No change. Carter Jonas LLP employment land is supported as it is (on behalf of the based on a sound evidence base. It is RM Smith Will encouraging to note the allocation of Trust) 172ha of employment land is a minimum requirement. The promotion sites, both FRD5 and the additional land at Snailwell Road are available, viable and

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 15 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

deliverable. Emma Ousbey, Agree The level of provision of housing (8500- Comments noted. No change. Carter Jonas LLP 9500 dwellings) is supported as it is (on behalf of based on a sound evidence base. The Cambs County Council should allocate land which will Council) allow a supply of at least 9,500 dwellings. The promotion site, land at Harry Palmer Close, is available, suitable, viable and deliverable. James Broad Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Stuart Cooper Agree As average life spans increase, then Comments noted. No change. there will be a greater requirement for housing. Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y The District has seen considerable Comments noted. No change. Endurance Estates growth over recent years. This process needs to continue if the town centres such as Ely are to develop to provide the level and range of services required. Population growth and the provision of opportunities for new business and infrastructure improvements will aid vitality and help towns to become more self sustainable. Phil Rose, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Peter Harris Agree Y Y ..but do wonder whether it might be Comments noted. No change. preferable, in the end, for East Cambs to host a new town? Keith Hutchinson, Agree [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Planning Mepal Parish Agree Y Y Data and proposals broadly sound. Support noted. No change. Council Ian Poole, St. Agree The Borough Council does not object to Support noted. No change. Edmundsbury the provision for growth in this Policy. Borough Council Garth Hanlon, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Savills Matthew Clarke, Disagree N N The housing requirement for East Cambs The Council is aware of the No change. Boyer Planning is too high, and will result in dispersal of strategic context, and has taken (on behalf of RLW strategic Cambridge-related growth. account of this in the Council’s Estates and DIO) Cambridge is the principal driver of Housing Requirements Paper. growth and major growth should locate The Council’s aim is to provide close to Cambridge. Market towns and additional housing, and boost the

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 16 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

other settlements should receive growth supply of jobs at the same time to commensurate with their needs, but ensure more self-containment. should discourage growth at a higher The proposed level of housing level as it risks a return to the dispersal provision is higher than the RSS, strategy (abandoned through 2003 but does not present a return to Structure Plan), and associated failure to the old dispersal strategy. meet Cambridge housing needs, and long-distance commuting. The technical report and Strategic Housing Market Assessment have Concern that East Cambs Plan is being now been published (May 2013), prepared in advance of Cambridge City following an extensive period of and South Cambs Plans, and in advance joint working and cooperation with of publication of the Strategic Planning neighbouring authorities. Early Units technical work. Need proper drafts of these documents consideration of an objectively assessed informed the preparation of the housing requirement that also has regard pre-submission draft Plan. to the evolving strategy for the Cambridge sub-region. Decisions regarding the appropriate level of growth to pursue within the Plan Period have therefore not been made effectively. Richard Baty, Disagree N Para 3.2.5, point 2. We cannot see how The Council is aware of these No change. Transition Ely this level of housing growth can 'reduce strategic issues and has taken levels of out-commuting'. It will have the account of this in Policy GROWTH opposite effect. 1. The Council’s aim is to provide additional housing to meet needs, Para 3.2.8 The job density ratio in Ely and boost the supply of jobs at the will not improve if housing increases at same time to ensure more self- the proposed rate - the gap between containment. This should help to houses and job opportunities within Ely ensure that levels of out- will widen, with increased out-commuting commuting are less than they and carbon emissions. would have been with a focus on housing development only. Policy GROWTH 1 proposes allocating land for employment which theoretically matches the level of housing provision. Experience of development in Ely over the past decade demonstrates that the houses get built but the jobs don't come. This is an unrealistic aspiration. There will be more out-commuting and more carbon emissions. There is a need to significantly reduce the scale of housing development proposed for North Ely.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 17 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Patsy Dell, Disagree N N Contrary to the NPPF para. 159 - level of The technical report and Strategic Proposed minor modifications: Cambridge City housing need should be assessed at Housing Market Assessment have Council Housing Market Area level rather than now been published (May 2013), Policy GROWTH 1 solely by an individual authority. Work following an extensive period of Supporting text, para. 3.2.5: ongoing on the SHMA. In this joint working and cooperation with ‘The District Council’s evidence indicates circumstance, it is impossible to be sure neighbouring authorities. A that…..Details regarding delivery are set out the draft housing target meets objectively memorandum of cooperation has in Policy GROWTH 4 below. In addition, assessed housing needs. If it could be also been published by the under the duty to cooperate, the District shown to do so, it would not be Cambs authorities and Council has reached agreement to deliver necessary to make representations on Peterborough which accepts that an additional 1500 or so dwellings above the draft Local Plan. We are concerned a proportion of the forecasted the upper threshold to meet the needs of the proposed target would imply some need for East Cambridgeshire in the Housing Market Area in the period houses needing to be distributed the SHMA should be met 2011-31 (as identified in the Strategic elsewhere – and this has not been elsewhere in the sub-region, for Housing Market Assessment 2013 and agreed with other authorities. At this sustainability reasons. However, it the Memorandum of Cooperation). ‘Phase stage there is insufficient evidence to also states that East 2’ sites from the Soham and Littleport justify any target, but with the finalisation Cambridgeshire should Masterplans (as referred to in the Soham of a jointly agreed SHMA this should be accommodate 11,500 new homes and Littleport Visions within this Plan) rectifiable. in the period 2011 to 2031, which are identified as broad locations where is around 1,500 more than the this additional growth can be The duty to cooperate requirement has upper threshold currently accommodated in the latter part of the not been met. East Cambs is engaging indicated in the draft Local Plan. Plan period. This approach accords with with others authorities on the SHMA, but The District Council accepts that paragraph 47 of the NPPF. The next no consensus on the final number was on this basis, the Plan needs a review of the Local Plan will provide an reached before the Council proceeding to modification to confirm that these opportunity to identify specific site draft submission consultation stage. This additional dwellings will be boundaries and look in more detail at decision would fail the test of catered for. This will involve bringing forward phase 2 Masterplan demonstrating the NPPF requirement to inserting reference in Policy sites in the later part of the Plan period.’ 'engage constructively ' and on an GROWTH 1 to the ‘phase 2’ of the 'ongoing basis'. None the less in recent Soham and Littleport Masterplans, Policy GROWTH 1: days there has been significant progress as broad locations where the In the period 2012 to 2031 the District towards reaching County and HMA wide additional growth will be Council will: agreement so we hope that this can be accommodated in the latter part of  Identify a sufficient Make provision for resolved and this objection subsequently the Plan period. Reference to this a deliverable supply of land to deliver withdrawn. source of supply is already accommodate in the region of 8,500 to included in the Plan, in the Soham 9,500 new dwellings in East and Littleport chapters. The Local Cambridgeshire – on specific Plan already identifies specific deliverable/developable sites and deliverable sites for nearly 8,000 from windfall sources. dwellings, and therefore accords  Plan for the delivery of additional with para. 47 of the NPPF. The dwellings required in relation to the next review of the Local Plan will Memorandum of Cooperation – to be provide an opportunity to look at provided in broad locations on ‘phase delivery of the phase 2 Masterplan 2’ areas identified in the Soham and sites in the later part of the Plan Littleport Masterplans, in the later

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 18 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

period. part of the Plan period.

Policy GROWTH 4 focuses on the Policy GROWTH 4, supporting text, Para. delivery of allocation sites – but 3.5.2: the supporting text does include ‘….Allocating new land or identifying broad information on overall housing locations to meet the remaining shortfall supply. Therefore it will be (and over-allocating, can ensure that necessary to alter the supporting appropriate levels of growth are delivered.’ text and table 3.2 to include reference to the additional Policy GROWTH 4, supporting text, Para. dwellings provided through broad 3.5.6: locations. ‘Table 3.2 summarises how and where housing is likely to be delivered in East The Soham and Littleport Vision Cambridgeshire over the Plan period. It chapters in the draft Plan include identifies there will be sufficient overall reference to the phase 2 sites, supply of land to meet the district’s housing and to housing supply. Minor requirement of 8,500 – 9,500 dwellings on alterations to the text are therefore specific sites and windfall sites, as set out necessary, to capture the new in Policy GROWTH 1. It also includes position. reference to the additional dwellings that will be provided in the later part of the Plan period, on phase 2 sites in the Soham and Littleport Masterplans (as set out in Policy GROWTH 1)’.

Policy GROWTH 4, supporting text, Table 3.2 [Insert two new rows at the end. The first entitled ‘Broad locations’ and detailing delivery of 1,750 dwellings. The second entitled ‘TOTAL’ and listing 11,150 dwellings].

Littleport Vision, page 234, third para.: The town has further capacity to expand to the south – but it is considered vital that the identified Local Plan housing allocations come forward first, to support the Vision for the town. Potential ‘phase 2’ housing areas to the south are shown indicatively in the Littleport Masterplan. Phase 2 sites are identified in Policy GROWTH 1 as broad locations where housing could come forward in the later part of the Plan period. It should be noted that these are not

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 19 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

precise or accurate allocations, and further investigative work on site deliverability and suitability will be required in the future, prior to allocation in a development plan. The next review of the Local Plan will provide an opportunity to undertake further investigative work relating to delivery and site boundaries. Given the significant amount of housing supply in Littleport (from windfall sites and Local Plan allocations) it is anticipated that only parts of the phase 2 areas will be required within the Plan period, with some areas coming forward beyond 2031. The phase 2 areas are not anticipated to be required until the period beyond 2031. However, this situation will be monitored as part of the annual review process – and a partial or full review of the Local Plan instigated if necessary.

Littleport Vision, page 234, Table of housing supply – re-title as follows: ‘Estimated housing supply in Littleport 2012- 31, from specific sites and windfall supply’

Soham Vision, page 280, first para.: The town has further capacity to expand to the north and south – but it is considered vital that the identified Local Plan housing allocations come forward first, to support the Vision for the town. Potential ‘phase 2’ housing areas to the north and south are shown indicatively in the Soham Masterplan Vision. Phase 2 sites are identified in Policy GROWTH 1 as broad locations where housing could come forward in the later part of the Plan period. It should be noted that these are not precise or accurate allocations, and further investigative work on site deliverability and suitability will be required in the future, prior to allocation in a development plan. The next review of the Local Plan will provide an opportunity to undertake further investigative work

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 20 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

relating to delivery and site boundaries. Given the significant amount of housing supply in Soham (from windfall sites and Local Plan allocations) it is anticipated that only parts of the phase 2 areas will be required within the Plan period, with some areas coming forward beyond 2031. The phase 2 areas are not anticipated to be required until the period beyond 2031. However, this situation will be monitored as part of the annual review process – and a partial or full review of the Local Plan instigated if necessary.

Soham Vision, page 280, Table of housing supply – re-title as follows: ‘Estimated housing supply in Soham 2012- 31, from specific sites and windfall supply’ Caroline Hunt, Disagree This letter provides a holding objection in See ECDC response above. See proposed change above. South Cambs respect of the housing target. Pending District Council the completion of a revised SHMA, ECDC does not have a sufficiently robust evidence base available to support the housing target in its draft Local Plan. There is a risk that East Cambs may not have allocated sufficient land to meet its objectively assessed housing needs and may approach other Councils, potentially including SCDC, to ask them to make up any housing shortfall under the Duty to Cooperate.

It is hoped that on completion of the SHMA and any other joint work under the Duty to Cooperate will provide clarity on the situation and resolve the current uncertainty. If the work reaches a satisfactory conclusion that reflects SCDCs interests, we will be happy to withdraw our objection. Nicola Penfold, Disagree Question whether the proposed housing See ECDC response above. See proposed change above. Gladman requirement has been based on capacity Developments and past delivery rates rather than an The SHMA captures data on the objective assessment of housing need. ageing population and factors this

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 21 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Concerned how the proposed in. requirement fits with the strategy for the Cambridge sub-area – local authorities at The basic scale of growth (9,000 different stages in plan-making. The to 10,000 dwellings 2011-31) is housing requirements present a modest greater than the level in the RSS policy approach falling under Option 2 (500 dwellings per year versus ‘continuation of growth’, and falls 430 dwellings per year), significantly short of a number of representing a 14% increase – demographic and economic projections. and therefore in line with the Gladman believe that the proposed NPPF requirement to boost the requirement may be arbitrarily low, and supply of housing. the Council needs to identify its full objectively assessed needs in line with the NPPF. Housing Requirements Paper not sufficient - need to have a SHMA.

The population is ageing, and certain areas are attractive to an ageing population. The SHMA should factor in the need for the additional households that would be required to offset the loss of working age population.

Gladman acknowledge that East Cambs has a good track record of delivering housing, having previously delivered above the RSS level (+37% on RSS target). However Gladman believe that the Council should be adopting a more positive policy approach and seek to boost significantly the supply of housing in line with NPPF. Framework paragraph 47). Brian Flynn, Disagree N We object to the proposed housing target See ECDC response above. See proposed change above. Januarys (on because it has been set at a level which behalf of Hill does not meet objectively assessed The basic scale of growth (9,000 Residential) housing and affordable housing needs, to 10,000 dwellings 2011-31) is and does not boost significantly the greater than the level in the RSS supply of housing. Plan is unsound as it (500 dwellings per year versus is not positively prepared, and not 430 dwellings per year), consistent with the NPPF. No recent representing a 14% increase – SHMA. Starting point must be to identify and therefore in line with the objectively assessed housing needs in NPPF requirement to boost the full, then consider whether constraints supply of housing. exist which prevent those needs being

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 22 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

met. If constraints exist, then discussions The revised SHMA (May 2013) need to take place with neighbouring indicates a lower affordable areas to meet that need elsewhere. housing requirement East Cambs, of 310 dwellings per year. It is Landscape and Green Belt policy estimated that 134 of this may be constraints are no reason not to identify met through re-lets/mortgage full development needs. Our clients land purchase schemes etc, with the off High Street in Bottisham should be rest delivered through new build released from the Green Belt and schemes. allocated for housing. The site has no constraints and Bottisham is one of the largest villages in East Cambs.

Affordable housing is being delivered at a rate of19% of housing completions - which is significantly below the target specified in policy. Action should be taken through the Local Plan to address the previous under-delivery of affordable housing.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Edward Keymer, Disagree N Y They need to be updated to embrace A technical report and SHMA See proposed change above. Keymer Cavendish 2011 census and March 2013 Housing have now been published which Projections capture the 2011 census results.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Will Lusty, Savills Disagree It is difficult to see how a target of 8,500 - A technical report and SHMA See proposed change above. (on behalf of St. 9,500 homes can be arrived at when the have now been published (May John’s College) SHMA is still missing. The target is 2013). A memorandum of therefore not sufficiently justified. cooperation has also been published which accepts that a REQUEST TO APPEAR AT proportion of the forecasted need EXAMINATION for East Cambridgeshire in the SHMA should be met elsewhere in the sub-region, for sustainability reasons. Mrs Jane Howell Disagree N [comment made against Ely vision, but Comments noted. This relates to Proposed minor modification to Page 18 applies here] the district as a whole, but more 3.2.5 6th bullet to read ‘44% support Ref: Page 18 3.2.5 Statement 'High level balanced wording required. considered the housing targets were of support from the local community about right in consultation on strategic (44% support on strategic matters in matters in March 2012’

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 23 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

March 2012). 173 people responded to the consultation. 44% thought the housing targets were about right, 39% thought that they were too high. The difference in the percentages is not significant and does not indicate a high level of support. Ian Smith, Smiths Disagree We object to the dwelling range (8,500- Forecasting the housing needs of No change. Gore (on behalf of 9,500) because it is too vague to act as a an area over a 20 year period is a the Church clear policy target. The range is a challenge, and difficult to predict Commissioners) variation of almost 12%. Suggested with 100% certainty. The change to bullet 1 – ‘Make provision for a proposed range of dwellings is deliverable supply of land to considered to be a sound and accommodate in the region of up to reasonable conclusion based on 9,500 8,500 to 9,500 new dwellings in an assessment of the available East Cambridgeshire. evidence (as set out in the We object to the level of housing growth Council’s Housing Requirements proposed for villages because we do not Paper). understand how this relates to actual village Development Envelopes. There is The total estimated supply in limited capacity within development villages is based on outstanding envelopes so don’t understand how there commitments, allocations, known is windfall capacity for 842 dwellings large sites with potential, and a shown in Table 3.2. We cannot equate small site windfall rate. This totals the figures in Table 3.2 with the details in 1884 dwellings and is detailed in the Table in Policy GROWTH 4 (page Table 3.2. The table in Policy 31). Suggested change - would like GROWTH 4 relates to allocations further clarification and explanation. only, totalling 684 dwellings. The text in Policy GROWTH 4 refers to the Council’s ‘Housing Supply’ Background Paper for further details of the housing trajectory and sources of supply. The windfall rates are considered to be reasonable, and are based on an assessment of historical completions rates, estimated available capacity and economic conditions. Michael Hendry, Disagree N Y The level of employment land is too great The reasons for the over- No change. Grovemere and risks the oversupply of employment allocation of employment land is Property Ltd. land in the District. The Council should explained in para. 3.2.10 of the maintain Core Strategy allocations but draft Local Plan. Namely, the resist additional allocations. Proposed need to provide choice and quality provision is over 100 hectares greater and cater for specific known

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 24 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

than the requirement identified by the demands (including failure of sites employment land study in 2008. The to come forward), the need to proposed additional allocation is not reduce out-commuting, the need supported by the evidence base, making for flexibility in employment land the Plan unsound. It is acknowledged provision and to recognise that that some residential allocations, such as employment densities can vary North Ely, will require additional widely. employment land allocations; however, these should not be to the detriment of the existing commitments. It is proposed that the new allocations be reduced to 30 hectares. Total supply would still be more than double the minimum requirement identified in 2008.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Nick Hardy, GVA No view N Lidl has responded 'no view' on the basis Policy GROWTH 1 looks at the No change. (on behalf of Lidl that the level of employment overall levels of employment UK) development set out Policy Growth 1 is development estimated to take difficult to understand when compared place in the Plan period (176ha). It with Policy Growth 4 and the evidence includes outstanding base reported in the supporting text. As a commitments, plus allocations. consequence, it is difficult to conclude Policy GROWTH 4 focuses on whether the employment figures in Policy only the allocation element of this. GROWTH 1 are fully justified, and The sources of supply are clearly whether the new employment land set out in Table 3.3. allocations set out later in Policy Growth 4 are justified. The LPA should provide greater clarity in both the supporting text and policy about what new land is required. Rod Hart, East  Para. 3.2.6 – how will the The revised Strategic Housing No change. Cambs Climate undersupply of affordable housing be Market Assessment (May 2013) Change Champion managed? indicates a lower affordable housing requirement East Cambs,  Para 3.2.8 – Concern that there is of 310 dwellings per year. It is not a post-agricultural economy. estimated that 134 of this may be Need to produce food to meet met through re-lets/mortgage population growth, and deal with purchase schemes/empty homes diminishing petrochemical supplies. etc, with the rest delivered through Agricultural employment will increase on-site provision on general during the Plan period. market schemes (30%/40%), rural exception schemes, and Community Land Trusts.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 25 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

 Para. 3.2.8 – estimate of 460 new jobs per year is unrealistic. Year 6 of The role of agriculture is an unprecedented recession that is recognised in the Jobs Growth predicted to last at least a Strategy. generation. The council should consider how to manage population Forecasting the number of jobs growth without matching economic over a 20 year period is difficult. growth. The Jobs Growth Strategy looks at the evidence and provides a  Para. 3.2.12 – 2000m2 of additional suitably challenging target which retail food space. How does this sit takes account of the evidence. with the Strategic Health Trusts obesity targets? Additional floorspace is required to serve the needs of new  Policy Growth 1, 1st bullet - does this population, and should not directly mean new land over and above that affect obesity levels. already held in developers land banks? Is this ECDC owned land or The housing target includes some private land? Will compulsory land with outstanding planning purchase be considered? permission, and relates to land which is largely in the hands of  Policy GROWTH 1 – a target of private developers. The 8,500-9,500 new dwellings may outstanding commitments and produce less than one potential allocations are considered to be employee of working age seeking deliverable and available. employment. Therefore 9,200 new jobs will assume an almost zero out- Jobs provision is a key part of the commuting. This is highly unlikely strategy to provide a better especially with the planned improved balance between jobs and homes rail transport facilities. This target for in the district. Reducing the jobs growth should be radically number of jobs but not houses will reduced downwards. increase out-commuting.

 Policy GROWTH1 - 6,400m2 of The additional requirement covers comparison retail floor space seems a 20 year period, and will be unrealistic given high retail closures needed to serve the significant in Ely High Street and growth in on- population increase planned for line retailing. the district.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 26 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy Growth 2: Locational strategy Sound/ Legally Name / Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID Disagree S L Neil Watersons, Agree Y Y Support the general approach and considers it draws an Support noted. No change. Bidwells (on behalf appropriate balance between directing growth to the most of David Wilson sustainable locations whilst also supporting rural Homes) communities. This approach is consistent with NPPF, and consider it is sound and legally compliant. Cambs County Agree We support the locational strategy for employment with a Support noted. No change. Council focus on the market towns or A14 proximity but with some small scale provision in villages. Richard Seamark, Agree Y Y Agree - The aim of this policy, to focus the majority of Support noted. No change. Carter Jonas (on development on Ely, Soham and Littleport, is considered to behalf of be sound and legally compliant. Turnstone Estates) Stuart Cooper Agree It is logical - mainly due to the roads' network to focus Support noted. No change. developments on the market towns. Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y Directing majority of growth to the main settlements will help Comments noted. No change. Endurance Estates them attract more investment and develop a wider range of facilities and services, and in turn will help the District to become economically stronger and more self sufficient. Phil Rose, Agree Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Nick Hardy, GVA Agree N Lidl agrees the majority of growth should be provided within The paragraph is included to clarify the No change. (on behalf of Lidl the market towns. However, not sure why the third Council’s approach to the location of UK) paragraph on location of retail development is included – it retail development. It cross refers to repeats, in effect, the NPPF sequential approach. Policy COM 1 and Part 2 of the Plan for clarity. Peter Harris Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Planning Mepal Parish Agree Y Y Broad strategy sensible but see comment on HOU 5. [need Support noted. Other issue dealt with No change. Council to find way to allow dwellings where the couple/survivor under HOU 5. running agricultural holdings are ageing and their continued life there is dependent upon the part time help of a son/daughter/other relative who can work outside the holding but assist with tasks] Ian Poole, St. Agree The Borough Council fully supports the strategy of focusing Support noted. No change. Edmundsbury most development in Market Towns and the approach to

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 27 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Borough Council development within the villages adjoining St Edmundsbury. Garth Hanlon, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Savills Will Lusty, Savills Agree Y Y Agree. However there should be text added within Paragraph 3.3.4 focuses on the main No change. (on behalf of St. paragraph 3.3.4 which encourages the re-use of brownfield strategic aim, which is to focus Johns College) sites, in order to minimise development of fields and development within towns and villages countryside. Text should be added after the paragraph and minimise unnecessary "However, the overall aim is to focus development within or development in the countryside. The on the edge of towns and villages and to minimise issue of re-using brownfield land is unnecessary development of open fields and countryside separate from this. In many cases, it areas of the district." To read; "This includes encouraging may not be appropriate to develop the reuse of brownfield sites, where appropriate, to help brownfield sites in the countryside for accommodate growth." housing, due to distance from services and shops and other sustainability reasons. Alistair Ingram, Disagree N Waitrose supports the Town Centre first approach. Waitrose Agreed that the policy should be Proposed minor Barton Willmore is however concerned that the sequential approach consistent with NPPF. modification to (on behalf of requirements within the Policy refer to out-of-town locations Policy GROWTH 2, Waitrose Ltd) after edge-of-centre locations. This is not consistent with the third paragraph: NPPF (paragraph 24) in which out-of-centre follows edge-of- centre in the sequence. For consistency with the NPPF, the ‘…and alternatively, Policy should clarify that out-of-centre rather than out-of- if there are no town locations follow edge-of-centre, with preference given suitable sites to accessible sites, well connected to the Centre. available, on edge of centre sites, then out of centre town sites…’ Daniel Hewett, Disagree The principles of this policy are supported, however greater Policy GROWTH 2 second paragraph No change. Carter Jonas LLP emphasis should be placed on the delivery of residential recognises the role that housing can (on behalf of Ely development in sustainable settlements. Particularly those play in villages – helping to support Diocesan Board of locations such as Fordham, which benefit from its own local services, shops and community Finance) services and facilities and as well having good links to needs. The draft Plan proposes a Soham. The delivery of larger sites takes longer, therefore reasonable level of growth in villages, the contribution from smaller sites is crucial in meeting as set out in Table 3.2 on page 28. delivery targets. Emma Ousbey, Disagree Greater emphasis should be placed on the location of The Plan recognises the importance of No change. Carter Jonas LLP employment land which is within close proximity to the the A14 and Fordham area, by (on behalf of the strategic road network. The Jobs Growth strategy 2012-2031 allocating a very significant amount of RM Smith Will highlights the strong market towards the south 'due to the new land south of Fordham (see Trust) influence of the A14 corridor and access to the eastern Fordham Village Vision). Policy region ports', particularly around Fordham. Focusing GROWTH 2 recognises the employment growth in the market towns is therefore in importance of flexibility and contradiction to the needs of businesses, and the evidence responding to the needs of base. The Jobs Growth Strategy states that consideration businesses, and supports employment

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 28 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

should be given to additional land allocation close to the A14 development in the countryside in corridor. numerous circumstances. Emma Ousbey, Disagree The principles of this policy are supported, however greater Policy GROWTH 2 second paragraph No change. Carter Jonas LLP emphasis should be placed on the delivery of residential recognises the role that housing can (on behalf of development in sustainable settlements. Particularly those play in villages – helping to support Cambs County locations such as Fordham, which benefit from its own local services, shops and community Council) services and facilities and as well having good links to needs. The draft Plan proposes a Soham. The delivery of larger sites takes longer, therefore reasonable level of growth in villages, the contribution from smaller sites is crucial in meeting as set out in Table 3.2 on page 28. delivery targets. Nicole Penfold, Disagree East Cambs has a number of different housing market East Cambs falls wholly within the No change. Gladman areas. Each area has their own requirement for housing and Cambridge Housing Market Area. Developments this should be reflected in the spatial distribution of housing supply within the Local Plan. This decision should be based Policy GROWTH 2 second paragraph on the findings of the evidence base. recognises the role that housing can play in villages – helping to support Support the principles of focusing growth on Market Towns, local services, shops and community but believe smaller sustainable settlements should be taking needs. The draft Plan proposes a a degree of growth, to help meet their local needs. reasonable level of growth in villages, as set out in Table 3.2 on page 28. Gladman believe that the defined development envelops are too restrictive and may act to stifle development. This Development envelopes help to approach is contrary to the NPPF which emphasises the prevent sprawl and are therefore in need to boost significantly the supply of housing (paragraph line with the Government’s aim in the 47) and places great weight on the presumption in favour of NPPF to protect the countryside for its sustainable development (paragraph 14). intrinsic sake. The Plan allows numerous exception development in Whilst Gladman support the general concept of sustainable the countryside, in recognition of local urban extensions, the Council need to ensure that delivery housing and economic needs, as timescales are realistic, and should identify enough smaller listed in Policy GROWTH 2. The Plan sites to ensure delivery in the short to medium term and proposes to boost the supply of maintain a rolling five year housing land supply. Over housing by making significant new reliance on large sites may affect the implementation of the allocations in sustainable locations. Plan as a whole, and its soundness. The housing trajectory indicates that a 5 year supply should be maintainable. Many of the allocation sites are small. Edward Keymer, Disagree N Y Too few sites will limit delivery. Plan needs to be updated to The housing trajectory indicates that No change. Keymer Cavendish embrace 2011 census and March 2013 Housing Projections the allocations should be deliverable within the Plan period. REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION David Chaplin, Disagree The proposed allocation at BOT3 is clearly not in compliance The proposed allocation at BOT3 is in No change. Pegasus Group with the policy aim to focus growth in Market Towns and limit line with Policy GROWTH 2 – see last development in the countryside, or with the NPPF. The bullet. A technical assessment of

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 29 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

BOT3 allocation will harm the open countryside in this BOT3 site demonstrates its suitability, location. availability and deliverability.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Don Proctor, RPS Disagree At the public Examination into the Core Strategy the The approach to small windfall rates in No change. (on behalf of Mr K Inspector concluded that the Council’s approach to the draft Local Plan fully accords with Wallis) identifying small brownfield windfall sites in the District was Government guidance in NPPF. The unsound, and there was a need for identification of approach taken in the last Plan additional housing land outside existing settlement included a windfall rate for the early boundaries. For this Plan, the Council have included a small years of the Plan period, which was windfall sites rate, informed by historical completions but contrary to previous Government discounted by 25% to take account of decrease in land guidance in PPS3. availability. Policy GROWTH 2 second paragraph In view of this expected declining availability of windfall sites, recognises the role that housing can and in the light of the Inspector’s conclusions on the Core play in villages – helping to support Strategy, the draft Local Plan should provide more certainty local services, shops and community of housing supply to support larger villages such as needs. The draft Plan proposes a Witchford, by allocating more sites adjacent to villages reasonable level of growth in villages, (particularly those that are brownfield). as set out in Table 3.2 on page 28. Ian Smith, Smiths Disagree We are in broad support of this policy insofar as it identifies Policy GROWTH 2 is intended to No change. Gore (on behalf of Ely as a suitable location for growth. However we object to broad a broad strategy for growth the Church the policy on two grounds. Firstly, the policy treats Ely, across the district. Specific levels of Commissioners) Soham and Littleport equally, but they are very different in growth are covered in Policy terms of their size, population, geography and GROWTH 4. Nevertheless, the first attractiveness. Those differences should be reflected in the paragraph recognises Ely’s policy and we wish to see some direction as to the relative dominance, and indicates it will proportions of planned growth for each settlement. provide a key focus for growth. A Secondly, the policy states that more limited development settlement hierarchy was not will take place in villages but provides no context or considered necessary as the Council quantification as to what more limited means. We would is not proposing to restrict certain expect to see some form of village hierarchy with scales of development in different corresponding policy guidance as to the level of settlements. If a site is available within development appropriate to different villages. As drafted we the development envelope, its do not think the policy is particularly effective. development for housing will be judged on site-specific merits. James Firth, Strutt Disagree We consider that this policy focuses growth too heavily on The Sustainability Appraisal includes a No change. and Parker LLP large settlements and does not give enough recognition of ‘development strategy’ option (on behalf of wider sustainability benefits of growth in the smaller villages. appraisal relating to more scattered Dalham Estate) There appears to have been no assessment of the potential dispersal of development. This is in in sustainability terms for housing to be located in smaller general terms, not relating to Ashley villages, and in Ashley in particular. The Site Assessment individually. This is considered to be Paper does not assess sites on the edge of villages where sufficient sustainability appraisal growth was not favoured during community consultation in testing of reasonable options.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 30 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

2011/12. The Sustainability Appraisal does not assess the potential need or opportunities for sustainable growth on the The policy is consistent with the edge of Ashley, even though this is a reasonable alternative. Sustainability Appraisal preferred option, which involves taking account The policy does not appear to be consistent with the of various factors when determining preferred option in the Sustainability Appraisal for housing to how much/where growth should take be distributed taking account of the needs, size and roles of place. settlements and the desire of local communities for growth.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Richard Baty, Disagree Y Para 3.3.2 Ely does not have 'a wide range of jobs'. We Support for the location strategy noted. No change. Transition Ely agree with the location strategy subject to the objection to The Council’s aim is to provide the total level of growth to be accommodated in Ely North. additional housing to meet needs, and boost the supply of jobs at the same time to ensure more self-containment. This should help to ensure that levels of out-commuting are less than they would have been with a focus on housing development only. Rachel Hanbury, Disagree N Y The locational strategy which lists the range of development Policy GROWTH 2 is meant to set out No change. Turley Associates that may be permitted outside of the defined development a general approach, with further detail envelopes (including renewable energy schemes) is provided in the specific policies supported. However the requirement within the policy for elsewhere in the Plan. Policy there to be '...no adverse impact on the character of the GROWTH 2 cross refers to Policy countryside...' is not sound as it is not consistent with ENV 6, which sets out more detailed Paragraph 97 of the National Planning Policy Framework requirements in relation to renewable (the 'Framework'), which requires planning policies to energy development, and makes it maximise renewable and low carbon energy development clear that impacts on the countryside while ensuring adverse impacts are 'addressed need to be mitigated and addressed. satisfactorily'. Similarly, paragraph 98 of the Framework states that applications should be approved 'if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable'. REG Windpower request the wording of this policy to be amended to be more closely aligned with the wording within the Framework.

The policy should be reworded as follows: 'Development will be restricted to the main categories listed below, and may be permitted as an exception, providing THE IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE COUNTRYSIDE ARE (OR CAN BE MADE) ACCEPTABLE, and that other Local Plan policies are satisfied.'

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 31 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Matthew Clarke, N N It is agreed that the strategy of focusing growth on the The Council is aware of the strategic No change. Boyer Planning Ltd Market Towns represents the most sustainable option. context, and has taken account of this (on behalf of RLW However, as noted in our representations to Policy in the Council’s Housing Requirements Estates and DIO) GROWTH 1, the level of growth being pursued within the Paper. The Council’s aim is to provide Local Plan is unsustainable in respect of the distributional additional housing, and boost the strategy across the Cambridge Sub-region. It results in supply of jobs at the same time to significant dispersal of development that should be focused ensure more self-containment. The closer to Cambridge (either within the City or just across the proposed level of housing provision is border in South Cambs). As such it is considered that Policy higher than the RSS, but does not GROWTH 2 is not effective. present a return to the old dispersal strategy. Cambridge Past, The city is a major focus for residential, employment, retail, All relevant Council’s have worked No change. Present and and recreational use, so planning needs to be integrated at closely together, as part of the duty to Future the sub-regional level. We need joined-up planning between cooperate commitment. Many of the all three county and district councils which should also link PPF comments focus on the merits of into the emerging Local Plans of neighbouring authorities in issues and options within Cambridge adjacent counties that use Cambridge as their centre. We City and South Cambs. welcome the production of a joint City Fringe document between the City and South Cambs but where is the contribution from the County through its Transport Strategy? The provision of reliable and affordable transport links between centres of employment and new residential areas is of fundamental importance to the planning of the wider Cambridge sub-region yet this key component is lacking. Transport is a fundamental consideration in assessing the merits of proposed locations for new homes. We would prefer to see new housing located along existing transport corridors such as the Guided Bus, the railway connecting to the proposed new Science Park station, or major roads where a decent bus/Park & Ride system can be provided. We will examine the South Cambs proposals critically in the light of the adequacy of their current and potential transport links (which is not elped by the absence of the Countys Transport Strategy, see point 1 above). The South Cambs development proposals seem to be based on a mix of City Fringe, strategic villages, and major new settlements. We would like to see consideration also given to the reasonable expansion of local Market Towns. What is being proposed by neighbouring local authorities for Royston, St Neots, Haverhill, Huntingdon, and Newmarket? Wendy Hague, Concerned about the pockets of dispersed development The Plan proposes small scale growth No change. Cambs County identified in the draft local plan. In what is a predominantly in a number of villages, to meet local Council rural District, dispersed development make infrastructure housing needs. This is considered to planning and provision more difficult. be a sustainable approach, as highlighted in the Sustainability

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 32 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Appraisal. Most of the proposals will have minimal impact on County Council infrastructure requirements. In the few cases where they are issues (particularly in relation to school capacity) these are not fundamental constraints, but have been detailed in the infrastructure section of the relevant Visions. Policy Growth 3: Infrastructure requirements Sound/ Legally Name / Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID Disagree S L Neil Waterson, Agree Y Y Concerned that the list of infrastructure Policy GROWTH 3 provides a general list No change. Bidwells (on behalf requirements is not consistent with the Council’s of some of the main infrastructure of David Wilson Regulation 123 list. The Regulation 123 list requirements, which will have various Homes) should be updated to reflect the infrastructure sources of funding, including CIL and requirements in Policy GROWTH 3 which will S.106. The Regulation 123 list has a make it clear as to which elements will be narrower focus as it just lists CIL projects. deliverable through CIL rather than Section 106 It is also important to note that the agreements. Regulation 123 will be regularly updated on at least an annual basis. James Broad Agree Y Y No further comments provided. Support noted. No change. Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y The source of funding and any shortfalls for the The Local Plan Infrastructure Study No change. Endurance Estates services and facilities needed to support future includes potential funding sources, and growth should be identified. this issue will be further explored in the Council’s annual CIL Delivery Plan (due out later this year). Funding sources may change over time and therefore the Local Plan is not the most appropriate place to include details.

Peter Harris Agree Y Y [No further comments provided.] Support noted. No change. James Broad Disagree N Y Serious doubts about the conclusion of the The Water Cycle Strategy was prepared No change. Water Cycle Strategy, as expressed in 3.4.6. with and signed off by Anglian Water and Given the changing weather patterns, and the the Environment Agency. Anglian Water’s state of the water supply at the end of March latest position is clearly summarised in 2011, should be more discussion on this. The Table 3.1 of the Local Plan. projections for electricity supply should be reviewed, in the light of the national situation, as UK Energy Networks has not provided

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 33 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

well as the current lack of information from UK any further information as part of the pre- Energy Networks. submission consultation. Stuart Cooper Disagree ? ? The town centre in Soham has limited parking Policy GROWTH 3 is a general policy on No change. spaces so people travel to Ely and Newmarket infrastructure, and lists some of the key supermarkets for larger weekly shopping infrastructure requirements in the district. expeditions. Furthermore the ability of existing The Soham Vision includes an objective businesses to expand is being limited by to improve the Fountain Lane carpark cramming further housing all around them. area.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Katherine Fletcher, Disagree N Serious concerns regarding the impact of the As set out in the Ely Vision, the County No change. English Heritage proposed Ely Southern Bypass on the setting of Council has investigated options for the historic city and, in particular, the cathedral. delivery of improvements. In September English Heritage would support the underpass 2012 the County Council as highways option which would avoid harm to the setting of authority resolved that the bypass option the City and the cathedral. Consider bypass offers the best solution. This reference in route B would result in the most damage of all Policy GROWTH 3 reflects this County the bypass options considered. Council resolution.

Reference to the Ely Southern bypass should be omitted from Policy GROWTH 3. Policy GROWTH 3 should refer to the need for major improvements to the A142 or refer to a solution that resolves congestion at the level crossing that does not harm the setting of Ely. Nick Hardy, GVA Disagree N The policy should differentiate between those Funding sources may change over time No change. (on behalf of Lidl projects which will be funded by CIL and by and therefore the Local Plan is not the UK) amongst other things Section 106 agreements – most appropriate place to include details and should be clear that additional contributions of funding and shortfalls. Some of this is sought via s106 should be subject to ensuring picked up in the Local Plan Infrastructure that the viability of development will not be Study, and will be further detailed in the adversely affected. Council’s annual CIL Delivery Plan (due out later this year). Further guidance on S.106 agreements is set out in the Council SPD on Planning Obligations (May 2013). Mepal Parish Disagree N Y Proposed nature reserve/visitor amenity at Specific reference could be included to Proposed minor modification Council Block Fen/Langwood Farm should be added to the Block Fen / Langwood Fen area in to Policy GROWTH 3, 10th the list of infrastructure requirements. the list of projects from the Cambs Green bullet: Infrastructure Strategy. Strategic green infrastructure The network operator has not identified a improvements as outlined in Concerned that electricity infrastructure need to upgrade sub-stations in the the Cambs Green upgrades may not solve problem of supply Mepal area to cater for growth. Infrastructure Strategy,

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 34 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

breaks in Mepal village. including the provision of Ely Country Park and Block Fen nature reserve, improvements to Soham Town Commons…..’ Richard Baty, Disagree N ? New leisure centre at Downham Road is located Planning permission for the leisure pool No change. Transition Ely outside of the development envelope, will and sports facilities on the site has increase car use and is in conflict with Policies already been granted. Development of a GROWTH 2 and COM 1. cinema/other leisure uses on the site will provide some synergies. The proposal for the Ely Southern Bypass (proposed route B) is in conflict with policies As set out in the Ely Vision, the County ENV1, ENV2, ENV9, ENV12 and will greatly Council has identified the A142 crossing increase carbon emissions. as a serious transport problem, and resolved that a bypass would offer the best solution. Chris Swain, Disagree N N We concur with much of the background text in Para. 3.4.6 could be altered to include Proposed minor modification Environment respect of water availability. However the policy reference to the need to aim for water to supporting text to Policy Agency does not include the recommendations of the neutrality – and include cross reference GROWTH 3, para. 3.4.5: Water Cycle Strategy – that is, for growth to to Policy ENV 4. seek to achieve water neutrality and to bring ‘…The report concludes that about retrofitting of existing properties to enable Reference is made to these issues in there is an adequate water long term sustainability and security of supply. paragraphs 3.4.6 and 3.4.9 of the Local supply within East We suggest either a new policy on water Plan. Cambridgeshire to efficiency or including water efficiency in ENV4. accommodate additional [for full details, see EA comments on ENV4] growth – although there is a need to aim for water In Soham, Haddenham, Witchford, Littleport and neutrality in order to reduce Witcham, phasing may be required to ensure demand and achieve waste water treatment is within environment security of supply…..’ capacity. We advise that the plan may need to be flexible with respect to certainty around waste water treatment works. Confirmation should come from Anglian Water as the asset planning process unfolds this year. This would help the plan to stay within environment and Water Framework Directive limits, whilst guarding against higher emission waste water treatment infrastructure.

In Littleport, Ely, Soham and Bottisham, sewer capacity may be constrained and hence phasing and / or developer funding may be needed to deliver development.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 35 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Matthew Clarke, No guidance provided on the priority being Policy GROWTH 3 provides a general list No change. Boyer Planning Ltd given to transport infrastructure schemes listed. of some of the main infrastructure (on behalf of RLW The Council should set out its strategy for the requirements, Further details are set out Estates and DIO) A10 corridor. including whether the whole of the in the Council’s Infrastructure Strategy A10 should be dualled or public transport (background paper to the Local Plan). spending is the priority. Cambridgeshire Education The policy already includes reference to Proposed minor modification County Council Additional early years and childcare places will pre-school and nursery places. to Policy GROWTH 3 (new be required. To be delivered alongside new Reference can be added to the new bullet under Education primary schools in Ely, Soham and Littleport, or requirement for a special needs school in heading): through existing/new providers in areas where Littleport. ‘New special education no new school is planned. The policy should needs school in Littleport’ include reference to the provision of a new We can add some of these transport Special Education Needs school at Littleport. suggestions (although GROWTH 3 is not Proposed minor modification meant to be an exhaustive list). to Policy LIT 1 to refer to the Transport new SEN provision. See Paragraph 3.4.1 – should include reference to The IIP already refers to A14 Littleport section below for the need for sustainable transport infrastructure improvements, and the Transport Team suggested text. e.g. walking, cycling and public transport. has not advised previously that any additional references need to be Proposed minor modification The policy should also mention the need for: included. to supporting text to Policy  Additional cycle parking at Littleport station GROWTH 3, para. 3.4.1:  Better cycle and pedestrian access to Many of the delivery aspects are too When development takes railway stations. detailed to include in the Local Plan, and place it makes additional  Bus infrastructure in new developments will be captured in the CIL Delivery Plan demands on infrastructure,  Sustainable transport infrastructure at North and other agreements between the including water and energy Ely (not just highways improvements) e.g. District Council and County Council. At supply, wastewater disposal, cycle routes to city centre and rail station. this stage many of the specific sustainable transport requirements are still to be determined. infrastructure, roads….’ Strategic scale infrastructure projects that will The District Council will continue to work support growth in East Cambs should also be with Cambs County Council and other Proposed minor modifications included in the Infrastructure Investment Plan partners to identify CIL and other to Policy GROWTH 3 under (IIP). E.g. proposed A14 improvement plans for infrastructure projects and delivery. the Transport heading: Ellington to Milton  Highway and sustainable The Council’s SPD makes the split transport infrastructure Infrastructure and funding between CIL and S.106 clear, and improvements associated clarifies what may be expected from with the development of The County Council are keen to continue to developers in relation to planning North Ely, including work closely with ECDC to agree priorities for obligations. This wording is considered pedestrian and cycle CIL and to develop a methodology for too detailed for the policy itself, but could routes to the station and prioritising CIL receipts. Need to clarify and be included in the supporting text. the town centre. agree what critical infrastructure is required to pedestrian and cycle enable growth and what essential infrastructure routes to the station and is required to make the development acceptable the town centre.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 36 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

in planning terms, and the timescales for  Improvements to Ely delivering these and what CIL funding will be Railway station available. (passenger transport interchange, improved The IIP should prioritise and identify critical pedestrian and infrastructure requirements, and include details segregated cycle access of where funding comes from (in addition to and increased car and S.106 receipts). It should also look at the cycle parking) and potential impact on the delivery of development Littleport Railway Station schemes and the Local Plan, if infrastructure (increased car and cycle remains un-funded – including robust risk parking) assessments.  Improvements to pedestrian and cycle ECDC needs to work with partners and local networks within communities to ensure that neighbourhood CIL settlements and between receipts are used effectively. We recommend settlements (including that the current IIP forms the basis for such segregated cycle routes discussions and that priorities relate to with appropriate infrastructure necessary to support growth. crossings at key points).

CCC are already supporting key transport Proposed minor modification infrastructure projects e.g. Ely crossing, and re- to supporting text to Policy opening of Soham Station. The Ely crossing GROWTH 3, para. 3.4.4: project is likely to cost £28m which the County ‘….This may be provided on- Council is borrowing. CIL funding will be site (secured through planning critically important to this project. conditions or S.106 agreements) or through financial contributions from S.106 v. CIL developers secured via S.106 agreements. Section 106 Object as the policy is not clear. CIL and S.106 agreements will need to both apply in East Cambs so it is important to meet tests set out in be clear in a policy when each will be used. In Regulations, and may be relation to education provision it is essential that sought for a variety of new schools are provided for on the largest infrastructure and benefits, sites and this provision is secured through a including: S106 legal agreement. We suggest the  Community facilities following wording could be incorporated into and including library and amended policy: public health services; ‘When granting planning permission, the  Education facilities Council may seek planning obligations from including primary, applicants and developers in accordance with secondary and special Government policy and regulations. All such schools; obligations must meet the five test set out in  Sport, leisure, open regulations. Obligations may be sought to

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 37 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

secure one or more of the following: space and recreation  Community facilities including library and facilities; public health services;  Transport infrastructure;  Education facilities including primary,  Flood mitigation and secondary and special schools; improvement measures,  Sport, leisure, open space and recreation and; facilities;  Environmental  Transport infrastructure; improvements  Flood mitigation and improvement Further details are set out in measures, and; the Council’s SPD on  Environmental improvements Planning Obligations……’

It is supported that developer contributions for play facilities should be sought for 20 dwellings or more. Ely Cycle Proposed changes to the transport section of Agreed that it would be useful to include Proposed minor modifications Campaign Policy GROWTH 3 as follows: reference to ‘segregated’ cycle routes, to Policy GROWTH 3 under and to the cycle parking at Littleport the Transport heading:  Improvements to Ely Railway Station station. Some of these points were also  Highway and sustainable (passenger transport interchange, improved raised by Cambs County Council – see transport infrastructure pedestrian and segregated cycle access above. improvements associated and increased car and cycle parking) and with the development of Littleport Railway Station (increased car and North Ely, including cycle parking). pedestrian and cycle  Improved rail and bus services. routes to the station and  A segregated network of cycle routes the town centre. across the district, connecting the  Improvements to Ely villages to Ely with crossings of the A10 Railway station and A142 where needed. (passenger transport  A segregated cycle route to the station interchange, improved via Back Hill. pedestrian and segregated cycle access and increased car and cycle parking) and Littleport Railway Station (increased car and cycle parking)  Improvements to pedestrian and cycle networks within settlements and between settlements (including segregated cycle routes with appropriate

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 38 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

crossings at key points). Richard Seamark, The provision of a new multi-screen cinema has The proposed multi-screen cinema will be No change. Carter Jonas (on been identified as a leisure infrastructure a commercial leisure facility. Therefore it behalf of requirement by the District Council and local is not considered necessary to include Turnstone Estates) residents. Reference should be made to multi this in the list of key infrastructure screen cinema in Policy GROWTH 3 consistent requirements for the district as outlined in with policies GROWTH 4, ELY 10 and the draft Policy GROWTH 3. Ely Vision Statement.

Andrew Newton, Surface water systems in the District are at Drainage and discharge matters are a Proposed minor modification The Ely Group of capacity and will not be able to cope with any vital issue, and it would be relevant to to supporting text to Policy Internal Drainage new surface water run-off. We see this as a key refer to these here – and include cross- GROWTH 3, para. 3.4.8: Boards challenge to the Council in the future. Should reference to Policy ENV 8 which covers include reference to surface water this more fully. ‘....on a site by site basis. It accommodation in section 3.4. should also be noted that surface water systems in There should be no new increases in discharge parts of the district are at to any treatment works without prior The Council’s SPD on Planning capacity, and new consultation with the Board. Obligations (May 2013) refers to drainage development will have to and flooding matters as issues which ensure appropriate surface Could developer contributions be used in S.106 could cover. They could also water drainage and connection with developments where IDB theoretically be covered by CIL, providing discharge arrangements are surface water accommodation is required? no double charging takes place and legal secured. This will involve Drainage Boards have a long term plan to tests are satisfied. The IDB are invited to liaising with the relevant improve/refurbish pumping stations under their discuss these matters with the Council’s Internal Drainage Board as control. Lack of grant funding from Environment CIL officer. well as Anglian Water (for Agency. further details see Policy ENV 8).’ Norfolk County It is unclear whether developer funding through Developer contributions will provide an No change. Council CIL and/or Section 106 contributions would be element of funding. Cambs County sufficient to deal with Ely Southern bypass and Council is planning to borrow a significant redevelopment of the Station area. proportion of the monies required to fund the Southern bypass. The Rail Industry is an active partner in the redevelopment of the station area. St Edmundsbury The provision of a new rail station at Soham is Support noted. No change. Borough Council supported as it could reduce journeys by residents travelling to Bury St Edmunds for work and education. Ian Smith, Smiths Disagree Objection to the policy. Noted. No change. Gore (on behalf of Church A number of the infrastructure requirements The policy relates to infrastructure Commissioners) listed are required as a result of under-provision needed to support growth identified in the and this should be made clear in the policy. Local Plan – as set out in the Council’s

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 39 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Infrastructure Plan. No need to repeat legal requirement for CIL contributions in Local Plan policy. The policy needs to refer to the CIL procedures – with further details provided The two entries for Princess of Wales hospital in the adopted SPD. should be combined. A new Doctors surgery and The two entries for the dualling of the A10 and redevelopment of the POW hospital are improvements to the A10 should be combined. separate matters and facilities, and therefore require separate bullets. Unclear why electricity is highlighted unlike other utilities. Reference to electricity should be The specific project on the edge of Ely is deleted from paragraph 3.4.9. key and should therefore be separately referred to.

Electricity supply has been identified as a particular infrastructure challenge, and is therefore highlighted here. Suffolk County The County Council welcomes the commitment Support noted. No change. Council to securing improvements to the A14/A142 junction at Newmarket, which is in line with the Suffolk 2011-2031 Local Transport Plan.

Policy Growth 4: Delivery of growth Sound/ Legally Agree/ Location Name / Org. & ID compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree S L Ashley James Firth, Strutt and Disagree It is considered that Policy GROWTH 4 should be Community engagement in No change. Parker LLP (on behalf amended to include an allocation of land to the Ashley indicated low levels of Dalham Estate) south of Ashley for small scale housing of support for additional development. [see map attached] allocations on the edge of the village. This position was REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION confirmed by the Parish Council. Bottisham Neil Waterson, Bidwells Agree Y Y David Wilson Homes Eastern agree with Policy Support noted. No change. (on behalf of David Growth 4 and in particular the inclusion within the Wilson Homes Eastern policy of the housing allocation on Land East of Ltd) Bell Road at Bottisham for approximately 50 dwellings. This site is a sustainable and deliverable site in an area of high housing demand close to Cambridge that can deliver a high quality

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 40 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

sustainable development. The site is suitable and available for development now with no constraints to delivery and can therefore help to meet future housing needs within the District. As such, we consider that this policy is both sound and legally compliant. Bottisham David Chaplin Disagree N N Object to the proposed allocation of employment Comments noted. The site No change land at BOT3. was identified in the adopted  The site is Green Belt land and there are Core Strategy (2009) as an other brownfield areas available in the area for employment village of equal size with better traffic development to provide access. additional jobs in Bottisham.  Viability will be a struggle. Any allocation A Masterplan will be should be supported by independent prepared which will address demonstration of commercial demand by the many of the issues raised. landowner/agent.  When this site was first consulted on in the Bottisham Vision Questionnaire (July 2011) the housing development closest to this area was neither constructed or occupied, hence the findings have no relevance.  The development will block views of open countryside to many existing new homes, be imposing and over dominant on the local residents views into green belt land.  Concern about suitability of highway access and impact on traffic levels in the village.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Bottisham Beacon Planning (on Disagree N The former A1303 service station site (including Comments noted. Options No change behalf of Brian McKay) the owner’s property and neighbouring properties) for employment were should be allocated as an employment site for B1 assessed in the and B2 use. It is a sustainable location for Sustainability Appraisal and employment growth, is brownfield land, would not Technical Assessment with have harm the Green Belt or the countryside, BOT2 & BOT3 being the could deliver employment growth within the plan preferred sites. This site was period, and is supported by local people. not included in those appraisals being separated The site was put forward as an employment from the village on the south growth site in the consultation on district-wide side of Newmarket Road matters in March 2012. However the Council did (A1303). The site lies partly not include the site within their Site Assessment in South Cambridgeshire Results Technical Background Paper (February District and has been the 2013). subject of a refusal of

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 41 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

planning permission for The site is partially within South Cambs. Under the employment purposes. duty to cooperate in the NPPF, ECDC should work co-operatively with South Cambs to meet the objectively identified needs of the local area, and identify the site in both Plans.

Bottisham Katherine Fletcher, Policy BOT1 is unsound. Amend the housing Comments noted. English No change English Heritage capacity figure relating to Policy BOT1 to reflect Heritage has since the need for an additional buffer area close to the confirmed that they are scheduled monument. happy to be consulted on this matter through the preparation of the Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road. Burwell Beacon Planning (on No view Y The table contained within the policy states a Comment noted. It is Proposed minor behalf of Mr P. Cornes minimum growth job target for the Reach Road accepted that there is an modification to Policy and co-owners) site (BUR 2) as 95, but the Jobs Growth Strategy error in the table which GROWTH 4,Table: gives a target of 337. It is assumed that this is a appears in policy GROWTH typographical error which should be corrected. 3. ‘Reach Road 2.5 ha (95 337 jobs)’ Ely Garth Hanlon, Savills Agree Y Y Ely clearly provides the focus for new sustainable Support noted. A planning No change. development having regard to its existing range of application for a mixed use jobs, services and facilities retail/employment scheme was submitted in 2013 and Support allocation of the Octagon Business Park is in the process of being for employment and retail/leisure uses. Recent determined. application in Feb. 2013 should allow the Council to complete the floorspace details in the table. Ely Richard Seamark,, Agree The inclusion of 'land at Downham Road' as a Support noted. No change. Carter Jonas LLP (on retail/leisure allocation for 'sports centre, pool and behalf of Turnstone cinema' is supported and is considered 'sound' Estates) and positively prepared by ECDC. It represents an appropriate strategy, taking into account that the existing consent for the leisure centre (10/01020/FUM) and the results of the Cinema site options public consultation. The allocation is effective, being deliverable over the plan period; the scheme is viable and the land is available. Ely Michael Hendry, Disagree N Y Table 3.1 should include both Lancaster Way and Table 3.1 does not refer to No change Grovemere Property Octagon Business Park as existing commitments employment Land. Limited as both benefit from extant outline planning The recommended jobs permissions. target for strategic sites is indicative based on CLG

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 42 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

The suggested mix of employment development at guidelines in relation to jobs North Ely, Station Gateway, Octagon Park and Ely per square metre etc and Road and Rail Distribution Centre should be taken from the Lancaster revised to exclude B1 (b and c), B2 and B8 Uses Way planning application. to ensure that these noisy and bulking operations See recommended job are focussed towards Lancaster Way Business targets for strategic sites in Park to enable the site to deliver the percentage table on page 162 mix of uses required by the extant planning permission. Also see comments in Policy Ely 10 section. The residential nature of North Ely makes it an inappropriate location for B2 uses and should be restricted to B1 uses.

The Ely Road and Rail Distribution Centre should be restricted to B2 and B8 uses requiring a rail distribution link. Other types of B2 and B8 uses should be redirected to Lancaster Way Business Park.

The estimation that Lancaster Way Business Park could provide a further 1973 new jobs is inaccurate making the Plan unsound. The Environmental Statement (ES), submitted as part of the approved planning permission (08/00563/ESO) on the extension land estimated that the site could provide between 2,518 and 3,194 jobs. In acknowledgement of the difficult economic times I suggest that 2,250 new jobs should be quoted.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Ely Ian Smith, Smiths Gore We object to this policy and to associated Table The exact retail floorspace in See proposed minor (on behalf of the 3.4 in respect of proposed retail provision at North North Ely is a detailed modifications Church Ely: matter which will be covered regarding two local Commissioners) through preparation of the centres under Policy  The centre can no longer be termed a Strategic Masterplan for the ELY1 neighbourhood centre as it is designed to site. purely serve future local residents. Proposed minor  Table 3.4 should include guidance on the It is agreed that there will modification to estimated retail floorspace supply for Ely. only be two local centres. supporting text of  North Ely cannot commercially support a See comments under Policy Policy GROWTH 4, Neighbourhood Centre and 2 local centres. ELY1. para. 3.5.10: Our work has so far shown little market Would be useful to include On mixed use

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 43 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

interest in such proposals, and we can find clarification relating to housing/ no Council evidence that supports this achievement of the jobs employment stance. Recommended change – amend to growth targets. schemes it should refer to 2 local centres, unless there is be noted that the evidence to the contrary. employment  Agree with reference to job numbers rather hectarage and jobs than specific amount of land - but the policy growth targets are should reflect the fact that some of the provided as a guide required jobs this will be achieved through – and that an initiatives such as homeworking rather than element of the jobs new build employment space. targets may be achieved through initiatives such as homeworking rather than new build employment space. Ely Katherine Fletcher, Station Gateway and Octagon Business Park. We The allocation policies (ELY No change. English Heritage have serious concerns regarding the lack of 7, 8 and 9) include indicative available analysis of the capacity of the station dwelling numbers to provide gateway to accommodate development. The table broad guidance, but no on page 31 is incomplete in terms of both the specific employment station gateway and the proposed Octagon floorspace, as it is fully Business Park. The proposals are unsound in the recognised that further absence of the masterplanning work necessary to detailed masterplanning establish the capacity of the station gateway, and work is required. This work the potential for harm to the character and setting has commenced, with a draft of Ely. SPD due to be published in Summer 2013. English The references to specific amounts of Heritage will be consulted on development in the station gateway should be the draft Masterplan omitted until the capacity of the area has been established through masterplanning. Ely Nick Hardy, GVA (on No view N As per comments on GROWTH 1, unclear how Comments noted. Proposed minor behalf of Lidl UK) the 131 ha of allocated employment land has been It is proposed that both the modification in Ely derived from the evidence base. On that basis we Octagon Business Park and Vision. Add to end of are unable to either agree or disagree with the the Ely Station Gateway will 1st para.under Station delivery strategy. be mixed used Gateway on page developments not primarily 173 to read, The table has an asterix for employment uses in retail or residential ‘EMG Ford site, Ely rather than specific hectarage. If the Octagon respectively. Angel Drove has Business Park is developed primarily for retail planning development, and the Station Gateway area Its Table 3.5 (not Table 3.4) permission for 1430 primarily for housing or retail, the 172 ha in Policy that refers to comparison sqm of Growth 1 will not be delivered. retail supply, however this comparisons refers to allocations not goods.’

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 44 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Unclear whether the Octagon Business Park is planning permissions. one of the retail sites "listed below" in the policy. If However could make it is, the amount of retail development ought to be reference to recent planning specified. permission at EMG Ford, angel Drove in the Ely Table 3.4 should be revised to refer to the Section 1,430sqm comparison goods commitment on Lidl's land at EMG Ford, Angel Drove. Fordham Daniel Hewett, Carter Disagree Object to omission of land east of Collins Hill, As indicated in the No change. Jonas LLP (on behalf of Fordham as a housing allocation. Sites FRD1, Sustainability Appraisal and Ely Diocesan Board of FRD2 and FRD3 are more distant from the village Sites Assessment Finance) centre. FRD1 will require relocation of a document, the Collins Hill pedestrian crossing. FRD2 and FRD3 will cut site is an attractive field in a through an existing cycle path, and FRD3 is sensitive setting close to the crossed by a main sewer. The Collins Hill site is church. It is considered that more sustainable and has no access problems or development on this site constraints. The allocated sites in Fordham are would have significant not the most appropriate strategy, when potential to harm the considered against reasonable alternatives - character and setting of therefore the document is not sound. Fordham and the locality.

The inclusion of land at Fordham Garden Centre These two sites are likely to and Bassingbourn Manor Farm in the housing become available for delivery figures is unsound as both sites are development within the Plan occupied and not available. There is also potential period. to affect a listed building at the latter site. The two sites should be excluded from the housing delivery figures – leaving an unmet requirement of 54 dwellings in Fordham. Land east of Collins Hill should therefore be allocated in Policy GROWTH 4 and the Fordham Village Vision. Fordham Emma Ousbey, Carter Support the allocation of FRD5 for employment. The additional land is part of No change. Jonas LLP (on behalf of But object to omission of additional land adjoining a Scheduled Ancient the RM Smith Will FRD5, for the following reasons: Monument – and English Trust)  The allocation of further employment land at Heritage and the County Fordham is justified taking in to account the Council’s Archaeologist levels of growth proposed and the have confirmed their conclusions of the Jobs Growth Strategy. objection to the proposal. It  The site is deliverable and suitable – Access is suggested that the Assessment and Phase 1 Habitat survey applicant liaises with English completed. Heritage and carries out  Site is a Scheduled Ancient Monument necessary investigative (SAM)/site of a Roman villa/evidence of Iron work. The investigations will Age settlement. However, the determine the exact extent of the development area.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 45 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Cambridgeshire Archaelogical Unit hold very The District Council is keen little information and the impact of any to support jobs growth and development is currently unknown. The employment development, archaeological condition in the policy is and Policies EMP 2 and 3 sufficient protection. allow extensions/new  The NPPF advocates support for existing employment development in business sectors. The extension site (alone the countryside. or in combination with FRD5) may provide an ideal opportunity for a new or existing business wishing to expand within the Local Plan period. Fordham Emma Ousbey, Carter Object to omission of land at Harry Palmer Close, Site options were thoroughly No change. Jonas LLP (on behalf of Fordham from the list of housing allocations. Site assessed, in accordance Cambs County Council) is clear infill opportunity and more suitable than with due process and the proposed allocations. Development on legal/policy requirements. FRD1/2/3 would have a greater negative impact Site suitability and on character and appearance of the locality than deliverability were taken into Harry Palmer Close. The District Council have account, and the views of simply taken forward the Parish Council's the local community and preferred options for development sites, and Parish Council were also although it is recognised that the local community sought. The process is have an important role to play in the planning considered to be sound and process, decisions must be based in sound justified. evidence and planning justification. Fordham Will Lusty, Savills (on Disagree N Y Support the estimated employment land supply, Modest housing growth is No change. behalf of St. Johns especially the new allocations proposed at proposed at Fordham to College) Fordham. But there should be sufficient houses to meet local housing needs. It support this level of employment growth. An is not considered necessary additional site at Bassingbourne Manor Farm to identify additional housing should be allocated for residential development. allocation given the amount of housing proposed There should be less reliance on windfall sites, elsewhere within the district. particularly in villages. More sites should be allocated for development within the Local Plan.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Hadden- Keith Hutchinsons, Agree Y Y In particular support the additional housing Support noted. No change ham Hutchinsons Planning allocation at Rowan Close, Haddenham, which will provide a logical rounding off and conclusion to development in that area Isleham Katherine Fletcher, English Heritage objects to the allocation ISL 4 Comments are noted. Members to consider English Heritage due to its impact on the setting of Isleham Priory EH comments. and considers it unsound judged against the requirements of the NPPF. Recommendation -

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 46 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

omit the allocation. Soham Stuart Cooper Disagree N Brook Street - concerned about access capacity, Brook Street and Eastern No change potential for jams and accidents. Should provide Gateway - The County direct access to the Bypass. Also issue about Highways Officer has not building on or adjacent to a flood plain. raised objections to the principle of the scheme, but Eastern Gateway - should be mainly the policy requires industrial/retail use, thereby creating jobs. Should developers to demonstrate be accessed via bypass with no link past through a Traffic Impact Weatheralls, due to risk to pupils from busy road. Assessment that the site can be safely accessed. Land east of The Shade - should be designated as housing, with access to the roundabout and Brook Street - Only part of Northfield road. This would also support the new the site is an area of high School and the proposed supermarket, whilst flood risk. The policy states reducing traffic pressure on the rest of the Town. that applicants will need to demonstrate that flood risk Employment allocation east of A142 – the on the site can be proposal is totally indefensible. Purpose of the by- adequately mitigated. pass is to provide a clear barrier between urban area and countryside. The proposed development Employment allocation east could be incorporated within the existing by-pass of A142 - The policy envelope. recognises the need to minimise visual impact and REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION create an attractive development scheme when viewed from the A142. The policy refers to design, layout and the need for significant landscaping and a buffer zone adjoining the A142. Sutton Mepal Parish Council Disagree N Y Concern that the employment opportunities in The owners of the existing No change. west of the district will not be provided unless the business park at Sutton factors preventing the bringing forward of land have indicated that the site already designated at Sutton are analysed and should be deliverable. mitigation put in place. Gen. Garth Hanlon, Savills Agree Y Y The policy appropriately acknowledges the need Support noted. No change. to provide a deliverable supply of land for dwellings, whilst maximising opportunities for jobs growth and supporting retail growth. Support that minimum levels are identified for new employment and new retail floorspace.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 47 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Appropriate that the Council should look to provide significant numbers of new jobs. Number of jobs has failed to keep pace with the increase in resident population (leading to very high out- commuting from new estates). Gen. Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y We agree with this strategy subject to the Comments noted. The Plan No change. Endurance Estates following caveats. It is important to ensure that includes a mix of types of jobs are provided alongside new houses. allocations, and takes However, there is a growing trend of working from account of home working home and so the provision of jobs should not potential. simply be calculated on the basis of employment floorspace being delivered. It will also not always be acceptable or desirable to build jobs and homes on the same sites. Therefore, the delivery of jobs and houses needed to be examined in the round and looked at on a District wide basis. Gen. Peter Harris Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Gen. Phil Rose, Foundation Agree Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. East Gen. Edward Keymer, Disagree N Y Too few sites will limit delivery. The Plan proposes a No change. Keymer Cavendish significant number of new REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION allocations, in addition to outstanding commitments and potential windfall supply. Delivery will be carefully monitored through the Annual Monitoring Report, and a review of the Plan instigated if necessary. Gen. Environment Agency The plan does not appear to address water See ENV 4. See ENV 4. (Chris Swain) resources in the context of climate change and growth outside the District. Need to include development management policies to be effective. Recommended change - we suggest either a new policy on water efficiency or including water efficiency in ENV4. [see comments on ENV4]

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 48 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy Growth 5: Presumption in favour of sustainable development Sound/ Legally Name / Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Seems sensible and logical, although somewhat idealistic. Support noted. No change. Phil Rose, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Edward Keymer, Agree [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Keymer Cavendish Will Lusty, Savills Agree Y Y The policy meets the requirements of the NPPF. Support noted. No change. (on behalf of St. Johns College) Keith Hutchinsons, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Planning Nick Hardy, GVA Agree [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. (on behalf of Lidl UK) Garth Hanlon, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Savills Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y The presumption in favour of sustainable development is Support noted. No change. Endurance Estates a sound planning principle established by the NPPF – so should be included in the Local Plan. Neil Waterson, Agree Y Y Agree and welcome the Council’s commitment within the Support noted. No change. Bidwells (on behalf policy to working proactively with applicants to find of David Wilson solutions. The policy is both sound and legally compliant. Homes Eastern Ltd) Ian Smith, Smiths Disagree Object to this policy, our experience with the current Comments noted. The Council No change. Gore, Church planning application at Highflyer Farm (Nov. 2011) raises already has performance indicators Commissioners issues in this regard. For this policy to be effective it relating to the time taken to decide needs to be measurable. We suggest that the Council planning applications. The AMR also develops some form of performance indicators to ensure contains a performance indicator its application to development control processes. relating to number of decisions approved contrary to policy. Mepal Parish Disagree N Y Policies should not be allowed to become out-of -date with The Government, through the No change. Council the result that their purpose is disregarded. Should the Planning Inspectorate, requires that Council have insufficient resource to refresh policies, old this policy is included in all Local policies should remain in place. There is little point in Plans. agreeing policies only to find them negated by passage of time. Include protection for 'old' policies if the Council has

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 49 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

had insufficient resource to refresh them. James Firth, Strutt Disagree Presumption in favour of sustainable development is The strategic objectives in the Local Proposed minor and Parker LLP generally supported – but we have some objections to the Plan may still be relevant so could be modification to Policy (on behalf of current proposed wording. The last bullet refers back to taken into account – therefore this GROWTH 5, final Dalham Estate) the Local Plan objectives and to policies within Town and reference should remain in the bullet. bullet: Village Visions. As these all form part of the Local Plan However, it is accepted that reference they may be similarly out of date, so not relevant to the to policies and proposals in the Town ‘Strategic objectives decision. The last bullet point is not part of the Planning and Village Visions is not helpful. This of the Local Plan and Inspectorate model policy wording and is not justified or reference should be altered to refer to policies and consistent with paragraph 14 of the NPPF. The last bullet strategic objectives within the Town proposals contained point should be removed. and Village Visions (which exist for within including Ely, Soham, Littleport and Burwell). those within Town and Village Visions.’

Policy Growth 6: Community-led development Sound/ Legally Name / Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree It seems logical although there should always be a Support noted. No change. mix of affordable housing and private to ensure that the development cannot be allowed to drift into a negative atmosphere. Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y This gives communities the ability to meet local Support noted. No change. Endurance needs through community led development. This Estates is important and a key mechanism that supports the wider strategy and policy objectives. Mepal Parish Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Council Peter Harris Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Richard Batey, Agree Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Transition Ely Will Lusty, Savills Agree Y Y No issues relating to community-led development. Support noted. No change. (on behalf of St. Johns College) Phil Rose, Agree N N Foundation East is the regional support body for The policy is intended to ensure that Proposed minor modifications: Foundation East Community Land Trusts (CLTs) and are already the price which landowners receive working with a number of communities in East is limited in some way, to ensure Supporting text to Policy Cambs. The policy will create an opportunity for that CLTs retain as much profit as GROWTH 6, para. 3.7.3: local communities to respond to local needs, and possible for the benefit of the develop community-owned assets, which benefit community – and also, to avoid ‘….However, in certain

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 50 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

the local economy. Therefore supportive of the disparity with Rural Exception circumstances it may be policy. Schemes (ensuring that Housing appropriate for an element of Associations continue to bring these open market housing to be However, concerned about the wording of the forward). Even at Housing provided as part of a penultimate bullet point and would urge the Association prices, land owners community-led schemes Council to delete the words ‘and that it does not should still be incentivised to bring where the applicant can increase the land sales value above that which forward land, as the uplift in land demonstrate through a would be likely for a 100% affordable housing value between agricultural and financial appraisal that the scheme on the site'. These words are unnecessary Housing Association land value is inclusion of the open market and could compromise the policy as community- currently about £270,000 per housing is required to enable led developments are likely to include a greater hectare. Nevertheless, it is the delivery of affordable range of community benefits than just affordable accepted that some value also housing or other community housing. By making a specific reference to needs to be attached to the other benefits assets, with valuation based on just one element, the Council community assets of CLT schemes, significant benefits accruing are potentially inhibiting the ability of a CLT to and factored into the equation. It is directly to the CLT through compensate landowners for the additional land that proposed that these detailed cross-subsidy. significantly is needed to deliver mixed-use developments matters would be better included in increase the land sales value using land cross-subsidy. To illustrate, 100% rural a SPD on CLTs. which the District above that which would be exception housing schemes tend to be small, are Council intends to produce in 2013. payable for a 100% affordable developed at a high density, and are not expected Therefore a minor modification is housing scheme. In addition, to deliver community contributions (exempt from proposed to the penultimate bullet applicants will be expected to CIL) or other community assets. CLTs are likely to (and supporting text), referring to demonstrate that the be brought forward on larger sites at lower the forthcoming SPD. community benefits of such a densities, with other assets. The scheme (such as the level of Stretham/Wilburton scheme will include affordable housing or open workspaces, community buildings and green space) are significantly space. To achieve this the landowner needs to be greater than would be persuaded to release more land that they would delivered on an open market otherwise want to do. However, we agree they housing site. Further details should not receive excessive windfalls for doing relating to the application of so. With Stretham CLT, we have spent time this policy will be set out in developing a carefully balanced financial model a Supplementary Planning that ensures market housing within the proposal is Document on Community sufficient to enable delivery without creating a Land Trusts, which the significant financial windfall for the landowner. District Council proposes to produce in late 2013. REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Policy GROWTH 6 (penultimate bullet): It is demonstrated through a financial appraisal that this is essential to enable the delivery of affordable housing or other community benefits on-site, and that it does not

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 51 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

increase the land sales value above that which would be likely for a 100% affordable housing scheme on the site; and Robert Hopwood, Disagree Welcome ECDC's support for community-led See ECDC response above. See Proposed Minor Bidwells (on behalf development. However, ECDC must also Modification above. of Peterhouse and recognise that landowners need to be incentivised LHD) to provide land for CLTs. Therefore welcome the proposal to permit an element of open market housing on schemes. However, concerned about:  The requirement that the open market housing should not significantly increase the land sales value above that which would be payable for a 100% affordable housing scheme. We believe this could be constraining and not attractive to the intending landowner.  The requirement that applicants will be expected to demonstrate that the community benefits of such a scheme (such as the level of affordable housing or open space) are significantly greater than would be delivered on an equivalent open market site.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION James Firth, Strutt The wording of this policy does not provide See ECDC response above. See Proposed Minor and Parker LLP sufficient incentive to achieve the delivery of Modification above. (on behalf of homes. Mixed schemes involving both market and Dalham Estate) affordable housing should be allowed, as could help to meet housing needs.

The penultimate bullet should be altered as follows: ‘It is demonstrated through a financial appraisal that this is essential to enable the delivery of affordable housing or other community benefits on-site, and that it does not increase the land sales value SIGNIFICANTLY above that which would be likely for a 100% affordable housing scheme on the site.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Keith Hutchinson, Disagree N The policy is mainly sound – but the final bullet See ECDC response above. See Proposed Minor Hutchinsons should be relaxed. Restriction of sales value to the Modification above.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 52 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Planning same as 100% affordable, although allowing for an element of open market housing, makes it less likely that community-led schemes will come forward.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Ian Allen (District Disagree N Would like policy wording tightened up and Comments noted. See ECDC See Proposed Minor Councillor) changed. Concerned that: response above. Modification above.  The last bullet would allow the building of exclusively private housing with the addition of an oversized open space (as community gain) if 'the community' supports it. It would be possible to grant permission to a market development, supported by a nebulous community group, with an unusually large (cheap) open space. If that is not the intention then the policy must be rewritten, and if it is then it should be rewritten also.  The policy allows development in the countryside outside agreed development envelopes. Development envelopes were supported by 66% of respondents and give certainty to communities. Para 3.3.7 and Policy Growth 2 do not mention or permit private market housing in out of envelope locations. CLT developments need to be seen as the exception and to be clearly subservient to the need to protect development envelope strategic policy.  Large out of envelope CLT developments need to be robustly consulted upon, and if supported, there needs to be a measurement of that acceptance, as in the 66% support for developments mentioned above.  The management makeup of CLT membership, including land ownership and business interest declarations must be clear.  The source of the financial appraisal is critical. Are a variety of funding options going to be assessed independently?  The policy could be a charter for village extensions, with unmeasured consultation and ill defined and judged community gain. Cambs County The access related bullet points listed in Policy Inclusion of this bullet it not seen as No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 53 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Council HOU 9 should also be included in Policy GROWTH strictly necessary as the 7th bullet in 6., i.e. "safe and convenient vehicular access to Policy GROWTH 6, states that the local highway network can be provided proposals needs to ‘with all other together with adequate space to allow for the policies in the Plan.’ E.g. Policy movement and parking of vehicles" + "there is no COM 7 which covers access issues. adverse impact in terms of highways access and movement".

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 54 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Chapter 4: Housing

Policy HOU 1: Housing mix Sound/ Legally Name / Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID Disagree S L Mepal Parish Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Council

Will Lusty, Savills Agree Y Y We agree that these policies are relevant Support noted. No change. (on behalf of St and justified. John’s College)

Neil Waterson, Disagree N N Object - policy is unduly prescriptive and Market behaviour forms part of the Proposed minor Bidwells (on behalf onerous in seeking to impose a district wide methodology which was applied in the modifications of David Wilson housing mix on developers and would not Cambridge Sub-Region Property Size Guide. Homes) necessarily take account of market indicators However it is acknowledged that the Supporting text to Policy and local circumstances as required by para. evidence contained in Size Guide was HOU 1, para. 4.2.2: 158 and 50 of the NPPF. There are current at the time of publication (August differences across the District in terms of the 2010) and will be subject to review. ‘The Size Guide (and any housing market. Further flexibility is required successor document), to ensure houses are delivered that people It is therefore proposed to include reference along with any additional actually want rather than those the Council to the need to review the Size Guide in the information relating to suggests they need. Accordingly, we Local Plan. housing size and type in consider that Policy HOU1 as currently The evidence provided in the Size Guide is locality…’ worded is unsound in that it is not positively intended to inform discussions that the prepared, justified, effective or consistent District Council has with developers. The Supporting text to Policy with national policy. final mix of dwelling types and sizes will be HOU 1, para. 4.2.6: subject to negotiation with the applicant as stated in the final paragraph of Policy HOU 1. ‘Where applicants propose an alternative mix of housing/types to that identified in locally available evidence they will be expected to demonstrate that this can be fully justified by providing evidence to…to the District Council’.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 55 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy HOU 1:

‘Applicants proposing an alternative mix of housing will be required to provide evidence to demonstrate that the proposed housing mix it can be justified. Wendy Hague, Disagree - - We object to Policy HOU1. The minimum The majority of new development in East No change. Cambridgeshire threshold (50) relating to Lifetime Homes is Cambs will come forward on allocated sites County Council unacceptably high. This policy should be of 50 or more dwellings – and will therefore amended to ensure all new homes are built be captured by the Lifetime Homes to a Lifetime Home standard. Retrospectively requirement. Lifetime Homes standards seeking to adapt homes has substantial and includes aspects relating to wheelchair unnecessary cost implications. We also accessibility. suggest that 10% should be wheelchair accessible. Phil Rose, Disagree ? ? Policy HOU 1 should require that all housing The District Council is supportive of Proposed minor Foundation East schemes of 100 dwellings should provide at community led development and self build modification to paragraph least 10% of community owned housing, co- housing by individuals and community 4.2.5: operatives, housing delivered by Community organisations including Community Land Land Trusts and self builders. This approach Trusts (CLTs). ‘The development of self- is embodied in the Cambridgeshire Quality build properties by Charter for Growth, which recognises the Policy GROWTH 6 outlines the criteria which individuals or community important role that community involvement will used to determine applications for groups (including can play in delivering housing. affordable housing to be developed by CLTs Community Land Trusts) or other community organisations. can also contribute to REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION meeting the need for It is considered that it would be difficult to additional housing within require 10% of housing on larger housing the district, and provide a sites within the District to be developed by more diverse housing community led organisations as stock……..’ dependent upon community support to enable the establishment of Community Land Trusts or similar community led organisations.

Reference could be included to Community Land Trusts as an organisation which could develop self build properties in the supporting text to Policy HOU 1.

Phil Rose has since written to confirm that

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 56 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

this proposed minor modification would meet his concerns, and that he no longer wishes to object on this basis or appear at the Examination (email dated 3 June 2013) Peter Harris Disagree N Y [No further comments made] - No change. Ian Smith, Smith Disagree N - We object to this policy and its justification Market behaviour and size mix Proposed minor Gore (on behalf of (paras 4.2.1 to 4.2.7): Market behaviour forms part of the modifications: Church methodology which was applied in the Commissioners) Market behaviour and size mix Cambridge Sub-Region Property Size Guide. Supporting text to Policy  While Table 4.1 purports to reflect However it is acknowledged that the HOU 1, para 4.2.2: ‘market behaviour’ – there is no evidence contained in Size Guide was evidence how market behaviour has current at the time of publication (August ‘The Size Guide (and any been taken into account. Housebuilders 2010) and will be subject to review. It is successor document), build to market demand and this is the therefore proposed to include reference to along with any additional most important factor in actual housing the need to review the Size Guide in the information relating to mix provided. Needs to be referenced in Local Plan. housing size and type in para. 4.2.2. locality, will be used to  The assessment presented in Table 4.1 The evidence provided in the Size Guide is inform negotiations is a snapshot at a point in time (2010 intended to inform discussions that the between the district council data so already 3 years old) and market District Council has with developers. Para and applicants to behaviour changes. The table and para 4.2.6 includes reference to other sources of determine the appropriate 4.2.2 should make it clear mix should be evidence, including financial viability and mix of housing on schemes reviewed on a regular basis. deliverability. Policy HOU 1 refers to the fact of 10 or more dwellings. that the final mix of dwelling types and sizes Self-build including will be subject to negotiation with Supporting text to Policy  Would like clarity on the definition of the applicant. HOU 1, para. 4.2.6: ‘self-build’. In recent pre-application discussions, officers are interpreting this Self-build ‘Where applicants propose as ‘custom-design’ approach whereby Local Planning Authorities are required to an alternative The final the primary objective is to achieve plan for a mix of housing including providing mix of housing/types will design variety. for those who wish to build their own home be subject to negotiation  We can find no evidence underpinning (paragraph 50 of the NPPF). with the applicant. the minimum 5% level of self-build and Applicants they will be believe this is an arbitrary figure Support for self build housing was expressed expected to provide  On large sites we question the as part of the Strategic Issues consultation demonstrate that this can practicality of self build housing and also conducted in March/April 2012 (38%). be fully justified by believe it will have impacts on viability providing robust evidence and deliverability. It is only proposed to seek self-build relating to the identified  Concern about demand, as most self- schemes on large sites (100+ dwellings) level of housing need, builders seek house plots in villages. where viability will support its inclusion. As financial viability or stated in the final paragraph of HOU 1, the deliverability to support Wording final mix of dwelling types and sizes will be their proposals to the The final paragraph of the Policy includes subject to negotiation with the applicant . District Council.’ two sentences that appear contradictory.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 57 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

The first sentence states that the mix of Wording Policy HOU 1, final dwelling types will be subject to negotiation Agree that the wording could be clearer and paragraph: i.e. a process of discussion. The second should be amended. sentence says that anyone proposing an ‘The final mix of dwelling alternative mix (presumably from that types and sizes will be stipulated in Table 4.1) will have to justify it. subject to negotiation with The process is either one of negotiation or the applicant. Applicants one of accepting a stipulated mix but it proposing an alternative cannot be both. The final paragraph of HOU mix of housing will be 1 needs some clarification. required to provide sufficient evidence to support their proposals. demonstrate to the Council that it can be justified. Ben Hooton, Disagree Y Y The housing mix and type should be seen as Para 4.2.6 includes reference to other No change. Endurance Estates more of a guide. The empty bedroom tax will sources of evidence, including financial be coming into effect on the 1 April 2013 and viability and deliverability. Policy HOU 1 this could result in a major shift in the types refers to the fact that the final mix of dwelling of property being developed by Registered types and sizes including will be subject to Providers. Therefore, Policy HOU1 needs to negotiation with the applicant. be far more flexible and allow developers to bring forward schemes that meet market Local Planning Authorities are required to driven needs and demands. plan for a mix of housing including providing for those who wish to build their own home There should not be a policy requirement to (paragraph 50 of the NPPF). have 5% of houses delivered as self build. Support for self build housing was expressed This should be something that is as part of the Strategic Issues consultation encouraged, but this should not be a policy conducted in March/April 2012 (38%). requirement. It is only proposed to seek self-build REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION schemes on large sites (100+ dwellings) where viability will support its inclusion. As stated in the final paragraph of HOU 1, the final mix of dwelling types and sizes will be subject to negotiation with the applicant . Keith Hutchinson, Disagree N - Whilst the provision of self-build properties is Local Planning Authorities are required to No change. Hutchinsons desirable, there is no justification for a plan for a mix of housing including providing minimum of 5% on developments of 100 or for those who wish to build their own home more dwellings, which appears to be an (paragraph 50 of the NPPF). arbitrary restriction. Support for self build housing was expressed REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION as part of the Strategic Issues consultation conducted in March/April 2012 - 87% of respondents expressed support for the development of more self build housing, with

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 58 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

13% wanting to see fewer self build properties.

It is only proposed to seek self-build schemes on large sites (100+ dwellings) where viability will support its inclusion. As stated in the final paragraph of HOU 1, the final mix of dwelling types and sizes will be subject to negotiation with the applicant . Nicole Penfold, - - - It is unclear whether the 5% self build See response above. No change. Gladman approach is justified by evidence. Gladman Developments suggest that this may be an unrealistic policy which may act as an additional barrier for bringing forward sites for housing development. Daniel Hewett, The inclusion of a self build requirement Local Planning Authorities are required to No change. Carter Jonas LLP within this policy is not ‘consistent with plan for a mix of housing including providing (on behalf of Ely national policy’ as there is no reference for those who wish to build their own home Diocesan Board of made to it in the NPPF. Inclusion of this (paragraph 50 of the NPPF). Finance) policy in its current state renders the plan Support for self build housing was expressed unsound. as part of the Strategic Issues consultation conducted in March/April 2012 (38%). Policy HOU 2: Housing density Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Neil Waterson, Agree Y Y Policy HOU2 provides a flexible approach in relation to Support noted. No change. Bidwells (on behalf of housing density and this approach is supported. David Wilson Homes) Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y Policy provides flexibility by seeking to deliver housing at Support noted. No change. Endurance Estates a density suitable for the location of the development. Strategic Land Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Will Lusty, Savills (on Agree Y Y We agree that these policies are relevant and justified. Support noted. No change. behalf of St John’s College) Peter Harris Disagree Y Y [No further comments made] - No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 59 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Stuart Cooper Disagree Y ? Policy HOU 2 should include reference to the provision of Policy HOU 2 refers to the need to No change. parking spaces to avoid inadequate parking. accommodate parking areas when determining the appropriate density of individual housing schemes. The parking standards for residential developments are set out in Policy COM 8: Parking Provision. Katharine Fletcher, The density and disposition of buildings should also take Agreed that it would be useful to refer Proposed minor English Heritage account of designated and undesignated heritage assets. to heritage assets in this context. modification to Policy For instance, there may be archaeological sensitivity HOU 2, bullet 2: which requires parts of a site to be left undeveloped as open space.  ‘The biodiversity Recommendation of the site and its We suggest that the third bullet is amended to read surroundings and ‘…surroundings, its archaeological interest and other any heritage heritage assets within or adjoining the site.’ assets within or adjoining the site.’

Nicole Penfold, Gladman support the policy approach that housing Support noted. No change. Gladman density should be judged on a site by site basis. Developments Policy HOU 3: Affordable housing provision Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Foundation East

Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change.

Will Lusty, Savills (on Agree Y Y We agree that these policies are relevant and justified. Support noted. No change. behalf of St John’s College) Rob Hopwood, Disagree ? ? [Comment appears to relate to Policy HOU 4 rather than See ECDC response in Policy HOU 4 See Policy HOU 4 Bidwells (on behalf of Policy HOU 3. Therefore it is included in the HOU 4 section below. section below. Peterhouse and LHD) section below]

Stuart Cooper Disagree Y ? The limit should be 10 houses not 5 to ensure the viability. Viability testing indicates that the No change. proposed threshold is appropriate and reasonable.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 60 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Ben Hooton, Disagree Y Y This policy should refer to minimum targets to explicitly The policy already includes flexibility No change. Endurance Estates state that there is flexibility in terms of the delivery of in terms of numbers and size mix. affordable homes. The Policy should also acknowledge See para. 4.4.5 and the third bullet in that on large schemes the number of affordable units the policy which refers to the fact could be a different mix to than required by the Registered these are matters for negotiation Provider (implications of the empty bedroom tax). between applicants and the Council. Therefore, there could be other economic reasons why the level and mix of the provision of affordable homes may need to be adjusted and these could be factors outside of the applicants control. The affordable homes policy should, therefore, be more flexible.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Peter Harris Disagree N ? Doesn’t address the causes, e.g. not enough houses. Comments noted. Affordable housing No change. Could release small area of land on the edge of each may include housing for the elderly settlement. The 40% proportion is too high but if it and disabled accommodation in includes elderly and disabled accommodation this would some cases. be ok. Keith Hutchinson, Disagree N - Disagree with the principle of requiring a higher provision Viability testing carried out by the No change. Hutchinsons in certain parts of the District. For example, there is no Council indicates that the proposed justification for different requirements between Soham geographical split is justified, and that and Fordham. We are concerned that 40% affordable is the proposed proportion of affordable too high and will seriously affect the viability of housing housing should not adversely impact developments. on the viability of schemes.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Policy HOU 4: Affordable housing exception sites Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y ? [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Endurance Estates Strategic Land Peter Harris Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Rob Hopwood, Disagree ? ? Both Policy HOU3 and Policy HOU4 impose a restriction The policy incentivises landowners, No change. Bidwells (on behalf of whereby a financial appraisal must be provided to as the uplift value from agricultural to Peterhouse and LHD) demonstrate that open market housing is essential to affordable housing value is estimated enable delivery and that it does not significantly increase to be about £285,000 per hectare. the land value above that which would be payable if The proposed requirement to restrict

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 61 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

sufficient grant were available to provide 100% affordable the land value to this level is intended housing. This restrictive approach is contrary to para. 54 to ensure that RSLs can continue to of the NPPF. ECDC must seek to ensure in its policies afford to bring forward rural exception that landowners/developers are incentivised to bring schemes. It should also help to forward affordable housing. provide a balance between encouraging rural exception schemes Proposed Amendment: The following wording should be to meet local need, and avoiding a included within Policy GROWTH 6 and HOU3, and significant proliferation of sporadic potentially within relevant Town/Village Visions: "An development in the countryside appropriate element of open market dwellings at least (contrary to NPPF). 25% on rural exception sites will be allowed within or adjoining existing villages where it can be demonstrated that the additional revenue created by the developed proposal is essential to enable the delivery of affordable housing and the required community benefits and the number of open market dwellings is the minimum number in order to achieve viability."

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Phil Rose, Disagree ? ? An additional criteria should be included to make sure that The views of Parish and Town No change. Foundation East such developments are only permitted if they have the Councils together with those other firm support of the local parish or town council. A number organisations and individuals are of applications have been approved despite objections considered by the District Council in from the local representative bodies. These schemes can the determination of planning have significant impact on a local community, particularly applications for exception sites. in rural areas, and local opinions should play a determining role in decision-making. Keith Hutchinson, Disagree N - [No further comments made] - No change. Hutchinsons

Policy HOU 5: Dwellings for rural workers Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y - [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Endurance Estates Strategic Land Peter Harris Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 62 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Stuart Cooper Agree Y ? [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Mepal Parish Council Disagree N Y Need to provide extended or additional housing for Extensions may be permitted under No change. relatives who assist with the running of holding where Policy HOU 8. New rural worker owners are elderly and need help with some manual tasks dwellings may be permitted under at evenings/weekends, but where they still work Policy HOU 5 where it is essential to elsewhere. the needs of the business. Will Lusty, Savills (on No view ? ? We agree that these policies are relevant and justified. Support noted. No change. behalf of St. Johns College) Policy HOU 6: Residential care accommodation Sound/ Legally Name / Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID Disagree S L Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y - [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Endurance Estates Mr Ziyad M. Agree Y Y We commend the Council on the positive approach Support noted for para. 4.7.3 noted. Proposed minor change to Thomas, The to providing accommodation for the elderly, and the The exception for care/nursing homes 4.7.4 to clarify – see Planning Bureau reference to flexible forms of residential care is proposed as there is a very level of comment from Ltd (on behalf of accommodation (para 4.7.3) However, concerned these facilities in the district (see Cambridgeshire County McCarthy and about the proposed exception to allow care and response to Cambridgeshire County Council below. Stone) nursing homes on sites outside the settlement Council below). The criteria ensures envelope. The ideal site for residential care schemes are only supported in accommodation is located within a settlement.We appropriate locations within close see no reason to differentiate between various types proximity to local services and facilities. of accommodation for the elderly. Mepal Parish Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Council Peter Harris Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change.

Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Stuart Cooper Agree Y ? [No further comments made] Support noted. No change.

Cambs County Disagree - - Location is important to ensure integration of 4.7 captures the importance of locating Proposed minor modification Council residents with local facilities and services. To locate care accommodation within or close to to the Plan: (supporting text residential care or sheltered housing in isolated settlements with a range of facilities 4.7.4)

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 63 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

locations is not acceptable or conducive to and services. Evidence from CCC in However, as an exception, sustainable patterns of living. ‘Guidance Note: Adult Social Care and approval may be granted for planning Policies for housing’ (May care or nursing homes Clarification is sought to ensure that nursing homes, 2013) shows that East Cambridgeshire adjoining or close to a residential care, rest homes and sheltered housing has the lowest level of nursing/care settlement – recognising that is captured by this policy. homes per population in the county. developers have to compete Therefore the exception policy is on the open market for land, Request that additional criteria are added to the included to permit provision of this type and that here may be a lack policy: of facility. The criteria ensures schemes of suitable sites within  The development provides adequate are only supported in appropriate settlement boundaries accommodation for on-site warden/staff; locations within close proximity to local current provision of  The development incorporates usable, services and facilities. nursing/care homes within attractive areas of communal garden; the district are at the  The internal and external layout and design All types of residential care lowest level per population meets the needs of people with mobility accommodation are captured by Policy in Cambridgeshire problems. HOU 6. However the three exception (Guidance Note: Adult criteria only relate to care or nursing Social Care and Planning homes to address provision. Policies for Housing Developments (CCC; These suggested criteria would be 2013). In these considered as part of a proposed circumstances it will scheme to ensure the scheme was particularly important for appropriate and of good design. Policy applicants to Nevertheless, ENV 2 sets out design criteria for all applicants will need to developments and Policy ENV 4 sets demonstrate localised need out the need to consider the Code for for such provision, having Sustainable Homes. regard to the Cambridge Sub-Region Strategic Housing Market Assessment and other County strategies. Will Lusty, Savills No view We agree that these policies are relevant and Support noted. No change. (on behalf of St. justified. Johns College Ian Smith, Smiths We object as we do not understand why the policy The requirement to prove need is See above proposed minor Gore (on behalf of requires applicants to provide evidence of need for related to the need of the locality of the modification in the County Church such provision when paragraph 4.7.1 clearly states site. This is to ensure viability and that Council’s comments – Commissioners) that there is a need in the district. Presumably, it is facilities are located in the most clarifying that an applicant to meet a defined local need and therefore why appropriate locations. needs to look at evidence of burden applicants with a requirement to prove need. localised need. The approach is not positively planned, is not justified and is inconsistent with NPPF, therefore the requirement to demonstrate need should be deleted.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 64 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy HOU 7: Mobile homes and residential caravan parks Sound/ Agree/ Legally Name / Organisation Disagree/N compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID o View S L Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y - [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change.

Peter Harris Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Stuart Cooper Agree Y ? [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Will Lusty, Savills (on No view ? ? We agree that these policies are relevant and Support noted. No change. behalf of St. Johns justified. College) Chris Swain, Disagree N Y Reference to flood risk should be included as Agreed. Proposed minor modification to Policy HOU 7 Environment Agency per criteria set in Policy HOU 9 as NPPF does (new bullet): not differentiate between different types of residential caravans. ‘Ensure there is no unacceptable risk of flooding. Policy HOU 8: Extension and replacement of dwellings in the countryside Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y - [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Peter Harris Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Stuart Cooper Agree ? ? [No further comments made] Support noted. No change.

Will Lusty, Savills (on No view ? ? We agree that these policies are relevant and justified. Support noted. No change. behalf of St. Johns College) Mepal Parish Council Disagree N Y Need to provide extended or additional housing for Policy HOU 8 will permit extensions No change. relatives who assist with the running of holding, where or replacement dwellings in the owners are elderly and need help with some manual tasks countryside where criteria are met.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 65 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

at evenings/weekends, but where they still work elsewhere.

Policy HOU 9: Gypsies, travellers and travelling showpeople sites Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Dean Jordan, Disagree N N The District Council has allocated more Gypsy and Following the publication of the Local No change. Cheffins (on behalf of Traveller sites than the 10 year requirement. A total of 22 Plan a further 3 pitches have been landowners) pitches have now been approved by the District Council. granted on planning appeal (Land at There is only a need for 1 pitch in the 10 year period. Hod Hall, Haddenham).

The site at Muckdungle Corner, Bottisham is unsuitable Assuming that all of the Gypsy and when assessed against the criteria set out in Policy CS3 Travellers sites which have the of the Core Strategy and policy HOU 9, and is not benefit of planning permission are deliverable. developed there will be requirement  This site meets 1 of the 7 criteria outlined in Core for a further 3 (23-20) pitches to be Strategy policy CS3. provided in the first 10 years of the  This site meets 2 of the 9 criteria outlined in Local Local Plan. The Local Plan proposes Plan policy HOU 9. sites for 4 pitches. Government  It scores poorly when assessed against the guidance states that Local Plans Sustainability Appraisal objectives meeting 7 of the should identify specific sites for a 22 criteria. minimum of 10 years supply – therefore Policy HOU 9 accords with this.

The site at Muckdungle Corner is an extension to an existing gypsy site, and is considered to be an appropriate option. Chris Swain, Disagree N Y The term significant flood risk should be defined. Unclear how to provide a definition of Proposed minor Environment Agency Residential caravans are not acceptable in fluvial or tidal surface water flood risk for residential modification to policy flood zone 3. The NPPF does not state where caravans caravans given that it is not defined HOU 9: are acceptable in terms of other sources of flood risk. at the national level. ‘There is no significant risk of flooding or land contamination.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 66 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

‘There is no unacceptable risk of flooding. Peter Harris Disagree N Y I support sites for Gypsies and travellers just so long as The District Council proposes to No change. they are manageable and containable. Why not add those provide sites to meet the needs 2 pitches to, for example, the gypsy settlement by the A14 identified within East Cambridgeshire (Milton) in South Cambs to show joined up thinking with in the Gypsy Assessment. There is neighbouring Local Plans. no need to enter into an arrangement with South Cambs under the duty to cooperate on this aspect. Keith Hutchinson, Disagree N - With regard to gypsy and traveller sites, we are Following the publication of the Local No change. Hutchinsons concerned that under provision at this stage will lead to Plan a further 3 pitches have been the provision of sites on an "ad hoc" basis, contrary to the granted on planning appeal (Land at principles of good planning. Hod Hall, Haddenham). Therefore the Local Plan no longer ‘underprovides’ in terms of the requirement in Government guidance to identify a minimum of 10 years supply.

Applications for Traveller sites will be assessed by criteria in Policy HOU 9 to ensure sites are appropriately sited and designed. Beverley Carpenter, Disagree N N We are concerned that this site could lead to escalation, The site at Muckdungle Corner is an No change. Creative Traveller in spite of assurances that this will not happen, as the site extension to an existing gypsy site, Literacy Project Co- is already not in any way an asset to the village. Some and is considered to be an ordinator people have experienced conflict when walking down the appropriate option. right of way alongside the existing site. Michael Hargreaves, Disagree N N 1. Gypsies and Travellers should always be referred to 1. Agreed that this should be Proposed minor Irish Traveller with initial capitals. changed in the Plan. modification to Movement 2. Section 4.10 should reflect the importance of Gypsies 2. Agree that would be useful to section 4.10 and and Travellers as a long established ethnic minority refer to the established nature Policy HOU 9: within the district, the scale of the national and local and size of the East Cambs *All references to accommodation shortage, and the central importance travelling community. The Gypsy and Travellers of meeting accommodation needs importance of meeting and Travelling 3. Paras 4.10.2 and 4.10.3 treats the targets as residual accommodation needs is already Showpeople to have requirements, which by implication should not be covered. capital letters* exceeded. This is inconsistent with both the wording 3. The residual targets are used to in Policy HOU9 that they are minimum figures, and identify the minimum number of Proposed minor with the district making a positive contribution to pitches and plots required within modification to addressing the local and national accommodation the district within the period. It supporting text, para. shortage. reflects Government guidance. 4.10.1 (new

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 67 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

4. Policy HOU9 is too restrictive and not sufficiently 4. Similar criteria are used for other sentences at start): proactive. Much of it repeats national and other local housing allocation policies. plan policies. The requirements for there to be no 5. The GTAA uses established ‘The gypsy and adverse impacts on the character and appearance of robust methodology and is traveller community the countryside, the setting of settlements and the considered to be a sound basis in East amenity of nearby residents invite objections to for assessing need in the county. Cambridgeshire is proposals, and may be unnecessarily restrictive. It is supported by evidence from long established, 5. The Cambridge Sub-Region GTAA, 2011 is not the District Council’s ‘Gypsy and and comprises sound and does not represent an adequate basis for Travellers Sub-district Needs about 90 or so the plan’s proposals for accommodation for Gypsies Assessment ‘(2007) which families living on a and Travellers. It ignores net immigration into the included engagement with the mix of private sites area, underestimating need from housed Travellers, majority of travelling families in and Council sites, overestimating turnover in sites, ignoring the district. plus other families overcrowding on private sites, and taking an 6. The District Council has not in permanent unjustified approach to discounting a proportion of been approach by neighbouring dwellings (as at needs from unauthorised sites. To have a sound authorities to help address need, 2013). ‘ Local Plan the Council will need to commission a under the duty to cooperate. robust assessment, engage the Gypsy, Traveller and wider communities in its preparation, and take 7. Following the publication of the account of its findings in its proposals. Local Plan a further 3 pitches 6. The Council has failed to take account of the duty to have been granted on planning cooperate in regard to planning accommodation for appeal (Land at Hod Hall, Gypsies and Travellers. Given the relatively high Haddenham). Therefore the level of need (itself seriously underestimated by the Local Plan no longer 2011 GTAA) and green belt constraints in ‘underprovides’ in terms of the neighbouring South Cambs, there is a strong requirement in Government strategic argument for East Cambs contributing to guidance to identify a minimum accommodating some of South Cambridgeshire’s of 10 years supply. needs. 7. The Council has failed to identify a 5 year supply of deliverable sites, and at least a 6-10 years supply of developable sites or broad locations for growth – contrary to para. 9b of Government guidance ‘Planning for Traveller Sites.’

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Andrew Leggetter Disagree N N Policy HOU 9 should include reference to the following The fifth criteria encapsulates this: No change. statement ‘sites should respect the scale of, and not “The scale of the proposal is not dominate the nearest settlement community’.(Circular disproportionate to the size of the 01/2006; Chapter 54) nearest settlement…” The second criteria also states there will be no adverse impact on the setting of settlements. Ilinca Diaconescu, Disagree N N We are concerned that a number of national planning 1 and 2 - Following the publication of No change. Traveller Law Reform policy requirements have not been met and therefore the the Local Plan a further 3 pitches

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 68 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Project policy is unsound. have been granted on planning 1. Policy doesn’t allocate sufficient sites to meet appeal (Land at Hod Hall, requirements of Paragraph 9 of the Planning Policy Haddenham). Therefore the Local for Traveller Sites. Plan no longer ‘underprovides’ in 2. No evidence of joint working with neighbouring terms of the requirement in authorities in order to meet the outstanding Government guidance to identify a requirement, through the duty to cooperate (para 179 minimum of 10 years supply. of NPPF). 3. Paragraph 6 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 3. The Council has a Gypsy Liaison requires local authorities to pay particular attention to Officer who has extensive links and early and effective community engagement with both regular communication with the settled and traveller communities and co-operate gypsy and traveller community. The with travellers, their representative bodies and local GTNA is supported by the District support groups, other local authorities and relevant Council’s ‘Gypsy and Travellers Sub- interest groups keep up-to-date records of district Needs Assessment ‘(2007) accommodation needs. This is not evident from the which included engagement with the policy pre-text and supporting documents. majority of travelling families in the district. Traveller Solidarity Disagree N N 1) Site assessment criteria should be equal to those for 1. The criteria in Policy HOU 9 are No change. Network for other local housing development, in particular social sound planning points and are Cambridgeshire housing. The requirements and reasons for refusal in consistent with those in policies HOU 9 are unfairly stringent and invite and give relating to other land uses. weight to racist sentiment and prejudicial fears 2. Following the publication of the among local communities. Local Plan a further 3 pitches 2) Concerned by the timeframe for site allocation and have been granted on planning development. There should be a serious financial appeal (Land at Hod Hall, consequence for failing to allocate sufficient sites to Haddenham). Therefore the provide accommodation for the local Gypsy/Traveller Local Plan no longer community. ‘underprovides’ in terms of the 3) New developments should allocate Traveller sites requirement in Government through partial allocation within the scheme, through guidance to identify a minimum funds, or land allocation, as with social housing. of 10 years supply. 3. The Council proposes to allocate REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION 2 sites which are extensions to existing gypsy sites. This number of pitches accords with the requirement in Government guidance to allocate sites for a minimum of 10 year supply. Traveller Solidarity Disagree N N 4) Site assessment criteria should be equal to those for 4. The criteria in Policy HOU 9 are Network for other local housing development, in particular social sound planning points and are Cambridgeshire housing. The requirements and reasons for refusal in consistent with those in policies HOU 9 are unfairly stringent and invite and give relating to other land uses. weight to racist sentiment and prejudicial fears 5. Following the publication of the among local communities. Local Plan a further 3 pitches

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 69 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

5) Concerned by the timeframe for site allocation and have been granted on planning development. There should be a serious financial appeal (Land at Hod Hall, consequence for failing to allocate sufficient sites to Haddenham). Therefore the provide accommodation for the local Gypsy/Traveller Local Plan no longer community. ‘underprovides’ in terms of the 6) New developments should allocate Traveller sites requirement in Government through partial allocation within the scheme, through guidance to identify a minimum funds, or land allocation, as with social housing. of 10 years supply. 6. The Council proposes to allocate REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION 2 sites which are extensions to existing gypsy sites. This number of pitches accords with the requirement in Government guidance to allocate sites for a minimum of 10 year supply. Bottisham Parish We already have our allocation, and further additions The site at Muckdungle Corner is an No change. Council would encroach on village amenity (the walking area and extension to an existing gypsy site, link up with all the neighbouring villages). This site has and is considered to be an technically changed to a scrap yard with permission. appropriate option. P.W. and A. W. We are concerned that this could lead to escalation. See above. No change. Bullock Some people have experienced conflict when walking down the right of way alongside the existing site. Andrew Newton, The - - - The provision for surface water disposal and foul water All proposals will need to accord with Ely Group of Internal disposal should be part of the criteria for these sites. Policy ENV 8 – e.g. provide adequate Drainage Boards surface water and foul water disposal. Therefore it is not considered necessary to repeat this within each allocation policy.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 70 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Chapter 5: Employment

Policy EMP 1: Retention of existing employment sites and allocations Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Phil Rose, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Foundation East Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Stuart Cooper Disagree N If a low level employment building (5 or less people) cannot Policy EMP4 allows for No change be commercially maintained, but housing could be provided residential re-use in the that doesn't negatively impact the area then the change countryside subject to clear should happen viability or other evidence being provided. Will Lusty, Savills (on Disagree N Y The NPPF states that (paragraph 22); "Planning policies Comments noted. All No change behalf of St Johns should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment sites are to be College) employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a retained to meet predicted site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be needs unless valid reasons regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of are given in accordance with a site being used for the allocated employment used, the flexibility allowed within the applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should policy. be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities." It is therefore unclear why, within this policy, the Council seeks to retain employment uses on every single employment site in the District. The policy should include text to state that, where there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for that purpose, no employment use should be retained. It also does not appear as though the Council has carried out site assessments of existing employment sites to determine whether they are suitable or viable for continued employment uses and the policy as proposed is unduly restrictive regarding the possibility of alternative uses.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Officer comments Permitted Development Changes 2013: B1 Office to C3 Suggest retain policy as it Proposed minor Dwelling covers a longer period to 2031 modification to

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 71 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy currently seeks to retain land or premises currently or but add in additional supporting text and policy last used for employment purposes (B1,B2 and B8). paragraphs to supporting text to read, Exceptions for mixed use development are allowed in certain and policy, cross referencing ‘The Permitted circumstances. to PD changes. Development Changes The PD changes allow a wider of change of use of office to 2013 permit change of residential albeit for a limited period of 3 years from use from office to 30/05/2013. residential for a period of 3 years from 30/05/2013 to 30/05/2016. Applicants will need to apply to the District Council to see if prior approval is needed.’ Policy EMP 2: Extensions to existing businesses in the countryside Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Phil Rose, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Foundation East Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Hutchinsons Policy EMP 3: New employment development in the countryside Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Phil Rose, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Foundation East Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Hutchinsons

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 72 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Stuart Cooper Disagree Y Not outside a clear envelope - ie Soham, Fordham, Witchford Comments noted No change by-pass. Edward Keymer Disagree N Y 2 "one-off" equestrian/employment facilities are required Comments noted. If proposals No change 1. An equestrian research and production park adjacent to the come forward they will Newmarket Equine Hospital. positively considered in 2. At Cambridge County Polo Club (CCPC) at Lode - 6 new accordance with the Local owner/player's yards, each with Owner's House, groom's Plan policies accommodation, stabling and 10 ha grazing. This would reduce horse box traffic to the polo club and raise the profile of CCPC to a premium Regional facility. Its land profile and soil type is unique in UK Polo and its growth cannot be accommodated within the "box".

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Policy EMP 4: Re-use and replacement of existing buildings in the countryside Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Phil Rose, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Foundaation East Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Hutchinsons Michael Hendry, Disagree N Too prescriptive and is ineffective in its aim to secure the Comments noted. The policy No Change PlanSurv Ltd employment reuse of buildings within the countryside. The supports re-use of many existing policy currently assumes that all buildings within the buildings subject to a number of countryside that can make a useful contribution to criteria, which are already fairly wide employment are of visual and architectural merit or are of ranging. historical significance, which is too simplistic a view. The current wording of bullet point two means that a redundant grain store or aircraft hangar could not be reused for B8 storage as they would not be of visual and architectural merit or of historical significance. Bullet Point two of Policy EMP4 should be revised to read as follows: ‘The form, bulk and design of the building is worthy of conversion, appropriate to the proposed use and is in general keeping with its surroundings.’ Stuart Cooper No view Y No further comments Noted No change

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 73 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Officer comments Permitted Development Changes 2013: Agricultural Suggest retain policy as it covers Proposed minor building to A1, A2, A3, B1, B8, C1 or D2 (up to 500sqm) existing buildings that exceed modification to Policy already positively supports re-use of existing 500sqm but add in additional supporting text and buildings in the countryside for business (B1, B2 and B8), paragraphs to supporting text and policy to read, tourism (C1), outdoor recreation or community related policy, cross referencing to PD ‘The Permitted uses (D1). However the PD changes allow a wider range changes Development of uses A1, A2, A3 and D2 on buildings up to 500sqm. Changes 2013 This could have significant implications with typical town permit change of centre uses eg shops and financial services being able to use from locate in the countryside. agricultural building to A1, A2, A3, B1, B8, C1 or D2 (up to 500sqm). Applicants will need to apply to the District Council to see if prior approval is needed if the building is between 150sqm and 500sqm.’ Policy EMP 5: Equine development Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Phil Rose, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Foundation East Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Hutchinsons Suffolk County Agree No further comments Support noted No change Council John Holden, Agree Y Y Newmarket Horseman’s Group (NHG) agrees with the comments at Support noted No change Pegasus Group paragraph 5.6.1 which indicates that ECDC will support equine development that maintains environmental quality and the character of the countryside. Policy EMP5 is similar to Policy DM32 of the Joint Development Management Policies Submission Consultation Document produced by Forest Heath District and St Edmundsbury Borough Councils. NHG welcomes the coordinated approach being adopted by the Councils to the issue of equine development. As noted at paragraph 6.7

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 74 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

of the Joint Development Management Policies Submission Consultation Document prepared by Forest Heath District and St Edmundsbury Borough Councils, commercial horse-related developments such as stud farms and thoroughbred training yards can make a significant contribution to the rural economy and are particularly important around Newmarket. NHG agrees with the observation at paragraph 5.6.1 of the ECDLP that horse racing and other equestrian-related activities are an important component of economic development in the countryside, particularly in the southern part of East Cambridgeshire around Newmarket. NHG endorses the observation of ECDC that these uses, including stud farms and training establishments, can fit in well with agricultural activities and help to diversify the rural economy. Newmarket Town Agree We support this policy as written with the following exception: Page 55 – Comments noted. It is No change Council 6th bullet point. We would like to see the word 'significant' removed. considered appropriate to retain ‘significant’ otherwise REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION it could restrict any development as having an adverse impact. Policy EMP 6: Development affecting the horse racing industry Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Phil Rose, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Foundation East Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Hutchinsons Suffolk County Agree No further comments Support noted No change Council John Holden, Agree Y Y Newmarket Horseman’s Group (NHG) welcomes the protection of the Support noted No change Pegasus Group horse racing industry centred upon Newmarket. Policy EMP 6 compliments Policy CS1 of the Forest Heath Core Strategy and is supported by the NHG. Newmarket is recognised as the headquarters of the horse racing industry and its presence has resulted in a unique area of landscape associated with the town, arising in both Forest Heath and East Cambridgeshire. Relevant policies contained within the Forest Heath District Council and St Edmundsbury Borough Council Joint Development Management Policies Submission Consultation Document aim to safeguard the horse racing industry and enhance unique character that it

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 75 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

has created in Newmarket and its surrounding landscape. Policy EMP6 of the ECDLP is similar to that to be found at Policy DM48 of the emerging Joint Development Management Policies DPD for Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury. NHG welcomes the coordinated policy approach being taken by FHDC and ECDC when considering development proposals likely to have a material adverse impact upon the horse racing industry. Newmarket Town Agree We endorse this policy but would like to propose a change to the wording Comments noted. No change Council of this paragraph; as follows: ‘Given that Newmarket is the historic and international home of horseracing, and its importance to the local and national economy, it is essential that development does not have an adverse impact on the industry. Development that harms the long-term viability of racing stables, studs and other racing facilities or the racing industry as a whole, will not be permitted’.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Stuart Cooper No view Y No further comments Noted No change

Policy EMP 7: Tourist facilities and visitor attractions Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Phil Rose, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Foundation East Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Hutchinsons Policy EMP 8: Tourist accommodation Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Phil Rose, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Foundation East Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 76 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Hutchinsons Policy EMP 9: Holiday and seasonal occupancy conditions Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Phil Rose, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Foundation East Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Hutchinsons Other Comments

Page/Para./ Name / Summary of response ECDC response Action Policy No. Organisation & ID

New 5.11 & Ely Cycle Campaign Propose inserting new policy (EMP 10) and supporting text on cycling for leisure, The importance of cycling No change EMP 10 sport and tourism. Cycling for leisure, sport and tourism is a growing trend within the networks and segregated routes UK and ideal in flat East Cambs. The policy would specify support for cycling for is already picked up in Policy leisure, sport and tourism, refer to segregated cycle routes to main A roads in order GROWTH 3 and the to create connected routes, and propose signpost, publicising and mapping cycling Village/Town Visions. Not for leisure, sport and tourism considered necessary to have routes. this additional policy.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 77 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Chapter 6: Environment and Climate Change

Policy ENV 1: Landscape and settlement character Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y ? [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Endurance Estates Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Peter Harris Agree Y - [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y - [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Roslyn Deeming, Agree Y Y Written justification within Chapter 6 recognises and Support noted. No change. Natural England identifies the relevant National Character Areas (NCAs) at para 6.2.2. The profiles for each NCA include a description of the key ecosystem services in each character area and how these benefit people, wildlife and the economy. Natural England strongly supports this policy as it will provide a framework to conserve and enhance the character of all local landscapes Richard Baty, Agree Y ? Downham Road Ely Leisure Centre proposal and Route B Support noted. Please see responses No change. Transition Ely Bypass conflict with this policy. to policies ELY 10 (Leisure allocation, land at Downham Road) and Infrastructure and Community Facilities (Ely Southern Bypass). Katharine Fletcher, - - - We are concerned that the Ely Environmental Capacity Comments noted. The District No change. English Heritage Study is not being updated to inform the local plan Council’s site assessment process allocations, as a key part of the evidence base guiding and Sustainability Appraisal report decisions in the local plan. The study remains useful in its considered the visual impact of present form but the assessment of sites and the local potential allocation sites on the plan sustainability appraisal would have benefited from a landscape character of Ely including revised capacity study the setting of Ely cathedral.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 78 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy ENV 2: Design Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y ? [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Endurance Estates Mr P Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Peter Harris Agree Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Katharine Fletcher, - - - We support policy ENV 2 but would suggest that some Para. 2 - Policy ENV 2 requires Proposed minor English Heritage changes are made to reflect the emphasis in the NPPF applicants to have regard to local modifications to (para 58 and 61). context when designing Policy ENV 2: 1. Para 2: The architectural traditions of the district developments which would include should be mentioned including scale, form and the architectural traditions within the [second para] massing, material selection, plan form, window to district. But could add specific ‘Design which fails to wall ratios, window proportions and architectural reference to architectural traditions to have regard to local detailing, as well as location on the plot and how make it clearer. Further details would context including buildings are grouped to enclose spaces (both be included in the SPD Design architectural formally and informally). The contribution of hard and Guide. traditions and does soft landscaping in place making should also be not take advantage of addressed. Para. 3 – NPPF para 128 sets out opportunities to 2. Para 3: It would be suitable to note that outline requirements for determining preserve, enhance or applications in historically sensitive locations will planning applications which are enrich the character, need to be accompanied by sufficient information so expected to have an effect on appearance and that the impact on the setting of heritage assets can heritage assets. The District Council quality of an area will be properly assessed. also has a Validation Checklist which not be acceptable.’ 3. Para 5: It would be appropriate to state here that is subject to review. It is therefore creative good modern architecture should be founded considered unnecessary to refer to [fifth para] on an understanding of the architectural traditions of the submission requirements in ‘The Council will the area, even if there are no direct references to Policy ENV 2. May be more encourage innovative, them in the final design. appropriate to add reference in the creative good modern SPD Design Guide. architectural design that complies with the Para. 5 – Agree that this could be principles set out useful. below. Schemes should be founded on an

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 79 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

understanding of the architectural traditions of an area, even if there are no direct references to them in the final design. All new development proposals….’ Ian Smith, Smith - - - Object to requirement for large schemes to go through a The National Planning Policy No change. Gore (on behalf of formal design review process at cost to developer. If the Framework (NPPF) requires Local Church Council wish for this, they should be prepared to pay for it Planning Authorities to have local Commissioners) as it is over and above the statutory process. Also, size of design arrangements in place to schemes should not be a determining factor, but on a ensure high standards of design case by case basis. (para 62 of the NPPF). Suggested Amendment: Reference to formal design review processes should be The Cambridgeshire Quality Panel deleted. Failing that, there should be some definition as to considers proposals for major growth which schemes this applies to and it should be a matter of sites within Cambridgeshire with the discussion with the Planning Authority on a site-specific aim of improving the quality of the basis. development being proposed.

The costs of proposals being considered by the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel are considered to be relatively small in comparison to other costs associated with development within the District. The Design Council (formerly CABE) also charges for proposals to be considered by their Design Review Panel. Richard Baty, Agree Y ? Downham Road Leisure Centre proposal and Route B Support noted. Please responses to No change. Transition Ely bypass conflict with this policy which aims to 'protect policies ELY 10 (Leisure allocation, important views into and out of settlements'. land at Downham Road) and Infrastructure and Community Facilities (Ely Southern Bypass).

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 80 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy ENV 3: Shop fronts and advertisements Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Phil Rose, Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Foundation East Peter Harris Agree No further comments Support noted No change Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Hutchinsons Policy ENV 4: Energy efficiency and renewable energy in construction Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y ? [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y - [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Richard Baty, Agree Y ? [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Transition Ely Mr P Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Ben Hooton, Disagree Y Y Requires all new development to meet code for The policy only requires Code 4 from No change. Endurance Estates sustainable homes level 4. This should be redrafted to developments of 5 or more houses. state that 'developments be delivered to a Code Level This is technically achievable and prevalent at time of implementation'. only involves a minimal cost addition. The Council’s adopted SPD on REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Design also seeks Code 4. Peter Harris Disagree N ? [No further comments made] Noted. No change. Chris Swain, Disagree N Y This addresses energy but does not appear to tackle or Water efficiency and moving towards No change. Environment Agency mention water, other than implicitly through the Code for water neutrality is a key part of the Sustainable Homes but we believe that the Code does not Code for Sustainable Homes, and provide a secure means of delivering water efficiency. Its therefore is incorporated in the policy. lack of mention of water resources or the River Basin The supporting text (paragraph 6.5.1) Management Plan in the region is, we advise, an includes explicit reference to omission of a critical sustainability issue that was partly ‘improving water efficiency .’

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 81 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

highlighted in the evidence base. Cambridgeshire We recommend removing water efficiency from your See response above. No change. County Council ENV4 Energy Policy and having this as a standalone Policy Unit; as this is such an important issue for the East of England with low rainfall totals compared to the rest of the Country. Katharine Fletcher, We note and welcome the qualification at the end of the Reference to English Heritage’s Proposed minor English Heritage policy referring to appropriate solutions for historic guidance on this issue would be modification to para buildings and conservation areas. You may wish to refer helpful. 6.5.2 as follows: in paragraph 6.5.2 to English Heritage guidance on this subject, which is available on the Historic Environment While there….The Local Management (HELM) website.1 Council will seek to ensure that efficiency improvements do not compromise the essential qualities of historic buildings and Conservation Areas. English Heritage guidance relating to energy efficiency and historic buildings is available at the following address: http://www.helm.org.u k/guidance-library/

Ian Smith, Smith Gore We object to this policy because all new development The policy only requires Code 4 from No change. (on behalf of Church should comply with the relevant Building Regulations and developments of 5 or more houses. Commissioners) Code Level at the time of their detailed approval. The This is technically achievable and 2016 Zero Carbon target remains a target and it is unsure only involves a minimal cost addition. if new Building Regulation standards are introduced to The Council’s adopted SPD on achieve it. Therefore the draft Policy goes too far in Design also seeks Code 4. aiming for zero carbon now, and should be amended to emphasise compliance with Building Regulations at the relevant time (e.g. detailed approval) and to also highlight the impending raising of Building Regulation standards. This approach has recently been considered by the Local Housing Delivery Group, which concluded: 1. ‘A process is already in place for further significant improvements in energy efficiency using Part L and

1 Energy efficiency and historic buildings guidance series is available at: http://www.helm.org.uk/guidance-library/

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 82 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

within a few years zero carbon will be the mandatory standard 2. Setting higher standards for energy performance beyond Building Regulations is not always cost effective and specifying types or percentages of renewable energy could lead to perverse outcomes. 3. Any higher standards that can be justified and are set by local authorities should be expressed on the common metric, probably CO2 emissions per square metre, and councils should avoid prescribing the means by which this is achieved (for example, a set percentage of energy supplied by renewable. 4. The seven additional energy/ CO2 issues of the Code that go beyond Part L (energy display devices, drying space, energy labelled white goods, external lighting, cycle storage and home office space) are hard to justify as being likely to deliver significant benefits. 5. Overall, the view of the majority of members of the Standards Working Group is that, given the above, it appears unnecessary to set any standards beyond Building Regulations, assuming that the current proposals to achieve zero carbon homes are maintained. Policy ENV 5: Carbon offsetting Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y - [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Peter Harris Disagree N - [No further comments made] - No change. Sean McGrath, Indigo Policy ENV 5 should be deleted as it places an Carbon off-setting, as covered under No change. Planning (on behalf of unnecessary burden on developers. ENV 5, will enable developers to Sainsburys) meet Code Levels 5 and above. The policy is therefore important to the development industry to retain. Ian Smith, Smith Gore We object to this policy. The Plan acknowledges, at See response above. The policy is No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 83 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

(on behalf of Church paragraph 6.5.4 and 6.6.2, that the Government has yet sufficiently flexible to allow for future Commissioners) to publish the Allowable Solutions Framework. On that publication of the Allowable Solutions basis it is premature for a policy to include specific Framework. reference to the national Allowable Solutions Framework as the implications for developers are unknown at this point in time. The policy is not justified nor is it effective at the current time – and should be deleted. Policy ENV 6: Renewable energy development Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y ? [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Endurance Estates Richard Baty, Agree Y ? [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Transition Ely Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Rachel Hanbury, Disagree N Y The overall principle of the policy is supported. The wording of paragraph 6.7.3 is Proposed minor Turley Associates considered to be satisfactory and in modification to Policy The final sentence of paragraph 6.7.3 which requires the line with NPPF. Para 98 refers to the ENV 6, third para: remediation of adverse impacts, is considered to be need for impacts to be (or be made) unsound because it is inconsistent with paragraph 97 of acceptable. The visual and NPPF. Para 97 requires applications for renewable and amenity impacts of low carbon energy development to ensure that 'adverse It is accepted that it may not always proposed structures impacts are addressed satisfactorily'. be possible to remediate impacts – will be assessed on The final sentence of paragraph 6.7.3 should be amended therefore it is proposed to add the their merits, both as follows: 'The Council will expect developments for wording used in the NPPF, e.g. make individually and energy generation to SATISFACTORILY ADDRESS impacts acceptable. cumulatively and potential adverse impacts, INCLUDING in relation to ….' measures to remediate adverse The second to last sentence in the policy requires impacts and make 'measures to remediate adverse impacts' associated with them acceptable will visual and amenity impacts. This is not sound because it be required. is effective. It is not always possible to remediate adverse visual and amenity impacts associated with wind turbine developments which requires the impacts of these developments to be balanced against the wider impacts. The policy should be amended to require remediation of impacts only ‘where possible.’

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 84 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Chris Swain, Disagree - - [No further comments made] Noted. No change. Environment Sian Derbyshire, Disagree - - Reference to heritage assets and their settings should be Agreed that this would be useful. Proposed minor National Trust included in the list of criteria which will be used to assess modification to Policy whether proposals for renewable energy will be ENV 6 (new bullet) supported.  Heritage assets Policy ENV 7: Biodiversity and geology Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Natural England Agree [No further comments] Support noted No change Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Hutchinsons Ben Hooton, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Endurance Esates Peter Harris Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Richard Baty, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Transistion Ely Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Foundation East Mepal Parish Council Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Stuart Cooper Disagree Y [No further comments] Noted. No change National Trust Disagree The content of this policy is supported except the section National Trust to confirm what word TBC that rehearses the circumstances in which development changes they would like to see. which will cause adverse effects on sites of National and International Importance will be considered acceptable. This is out of line with existing Legislation and the wording needs to be reconsidered. Proposals should be considered on a case-by-case basis and adverse impacts on sites of such significance can only be warranted very exceptionally if at all following full consideration of the significance of the asset and the likely effects on it (Appropriate Assessment and EIA).

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 85 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Rachel Hanbury, Disagree N The third bullet point should be amended as follows: “The Agreed that it may be appropriate to Proposed minor Turley Associates benefits of the development will outweigh the detrimental alter the wording to remove reference modification to Policy .impacts that the proposal may have on the designated to ‘need’, to accord with para. 98 and ENV 7, 6th bullet: “area/asset. The wording is not consistent with para 98 of 118 in NPPF. the National Planning Policy Framework which confirms The proposal is of that local planning authorities should not require high strategic applicants for energy development to demonstrate the importance where overall need for renewable energy development. the need for, and The benefits of the development will outweigh the detrimental impacts that the proposal may have on the designated area/asset. Policy ENV 8: Flood risk Sound/ Legally Name / Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID Disagree S L Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Hutchinsons Peter Harris Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Endurance Estates

Mepal Parish Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Council Stuart Cooper Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Phil Rose, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Richard Baty, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Transistion Ely Andrew Newton, Agree The Boards support the policy on flood risk. However, we Could add reference to the Proposed minor modification to Ely Group of would draw your attention to the Tidal River Strategy that Tidal Strategy in the supporting text to Policy ENV 8, Internal Drainage was produced by the Environment Agency in 2009. The supporting text. para. 6.9.2: Boards Strategy indicates that the protection level of the South Level Barrier Bank (SLBB) will drop from 1 in 120 years ‘…..the East Inshore Marine (current) to 1 in 20 years by 2080 – but that this drop could Plan is due to be produced in be reduced to 1 in 50 years if private/public sector funding 2013. Reference should also

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 86 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

contributions are secured. Recently, the EA has stated that be had to the Environment they may not be able to afford to maintain the standards of Agency’s Tidal River Strategy flood defences in other parts of East Cambs. This may (2009) and other similar have a severe knock-on effect to the local economy. strategic documents.’

The Role of IDBs: Internal Drainage Boards provide much essential surface water infrastructure in this area without which development would increase flood risk elsewhere. East Camb District Council must recognise the important roles of IBDs in this area and assist through planning conditions or restrictions on granting of permission until such time as the Boards are satisfied with drainage arrangements and future maintenance and adoption of infrastructure. This may include development contributions to IDBs. Marine Disagree The MMO recommends that reference be made to the Agreed that these references Proposed minor modification to Management Marine Policy Statement within the Local Plan until such could be included. supporting text to Policy ENV 8, Organisation time as the Marine Plans for the East Inshore and East para. 6.9.2: Offshore areas are in place. The MMO also asks for the accompanying text to include a reference to marine ‘…policies across the land/sea licences under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 boundary are integrated, and to and to the need to consider any works carried out under have regard to the Marine licence to be considered against The Marine Works (EIA) Policy Statement and relevant Regulations 2007 (as amended) . The MMO is mentioned licence arrangements. The at para 6.9.2 which could be amplified as follows: "East East Inshore Marine Plan is due Cambridgeshire is within the tidal extremes of the intertidal to be produced in 2013. As part waters and therefore parts are within the East inshore of the district is at or below marine plans remit. As much of the land is at or below sea sea level there is the potential level there is the potential for it to be highly influenced by for it to be highly influenced marine processes especially those relating to coastal by marine processes flooding." especially those relating to coastal flooding. Cambs County A more holistic approach is required and regard paid to Please see ECDC response Proposed changes as set out Council European Directives (Water/Waste Water/Nitrates). to Environment Agency’s below. comments below. The policy should include link with the SFRA and the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy, and include reference to the Countywide Surface Water Management Plan and the Ely Detailed Surface Water Management Plan.

There should be a policy on Surface Water Runoff Control and Design which sets out the need for SuDS and the principles required for developments. We recommend using Ciria guidance and any evidence from your Water

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 87 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Cycle Study (WCS).

We recommend a Water Quality Policy. This must compliment the Water Framework Directive and any work or recommendations from your WCS.

We recommend removing water efficiency from your ENV4 Energy Policy and having this as a stand alone policy unit; as this is such an important issue for the East of England with low rainfall totals compared to the rest of the country.

Foul water supply and disposal is a key area of concerns, so we recommend a policy unit to deal with foul water disposal.

We also suggest that the following are considered closely:

- We recommend that the plan strengthens the links between water and green infrastructure. They are highlighted in the Climate Change and Green Infrastructure section within the Key Issues and Challenges in chapter 2 but we suggest that these need to be emphasised within a policy.

- Carbon implications of pumped drainage or tankering need addressing – encouraging a stronger emphasis on choosing gravity systems wherever possible, and to consider the residual risk of flooding when systems fail.

- We wish to see a policy protecting Flood Risk Management (FRM) assets (and potential future FRM assets in the CFMP) from being lost or prejudiced.

- A definition of safety and a presumption against any development that would rely on emergency services [to be safe] would be helpful. This might help emergency planners with concerns about resources to assess all applications to say one way or the other whether it is safe. If sites are self sufficient in design and egress, that would be satisfactory and less reliant on relevant Risk Management Authorities.

- In combination with the NPPF, there is a much increased burden of evidence falling onto the LPA and its advisers to support any decision – especially refusal. The plan could

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 88 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

do significantly more to shift this burden (or at least the uncertainty of it) to developers and give a stronger push to getting pre-application advice. To tackle this we would like to see: - A clear checklist for FRAs including Surface Water disposal in line with CIRIA 697 and the SAB Handbook when published, foul drainage assessments, pollution management plans and water efficiency. - A validation requirement for the above assessments so that the clock does not start until the reports accompany applications. (This would encourage pre-application discussion, especially if a letter of FRA conformity accompanies a submission).

Chris Swain, ENV8 provides some useful additions to the NPPF, for The need to refer to the risk Proposed minor modification to Environment example in the first four bullet criteria. Need to clarify that of surface water flooding Policy ENV 8 (second para) to Agency these are in addition to the NPPF. and locally available include the following new bullet: evidence including surface Recommend that the policy is amended to refer to: water management plans is The risk of flooding would  The need for applicants to consider non-fluvial flood accepted. cause an unacceptable risk to risks on sites under 1 hectare safety.  Options to reduce flood risk The potential for further work on a developers checklist for Proposed minor modification to  Safety and how this will be managed in the future applicants possibly as part a Policy ENV 8 (third para)  Links to green infrastructure and Water Framework SPD will be explored with Directive partner organisations.  ‘Major and non-minor  Whether pumped drainage could be avoided by using development proposals on gravity systems - and if not, the carbon impacts. sites of 1 or hectare or  The SUDS Management train and its hierarchy greater in Flood Zone 1 in  The flood risk management hierarchy (see PPS25 accordance with the Good Practice guide which is still valid) Environment’s Agency’s Standing Advice on Flood  Reference to important local sources of information Risk such as the o ECDC Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA),  Development proposals o Detailed Water Cycle Strategy (WCS), on sites of 1 hectare or o Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP), more where there is a risk o Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (Cambs of non-fluvial (surface CC) water) flooding’ o Environment Agency maps – hazard maps or Flood Map for Surface water Proposed minor modification to Policy ENV 8 (fifth para):

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 89 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

We recommend that a detailed policy or a SPD picks up the significant gap in setting out the flood risk management ‘The use of Sustainable and SUDS hierarchies (as above), what should be in a Drainage Systems will be FRA, where to find information and advice, and when to required for new developments factor different issues in to the design. A developer in accordance with the checklist for FRAs and related validation requirement would Cambridgeshire SuDs Design be good. and adoption Handbook (or successor document) ENV 8 requires safe access to be achieved. The Local Plan unless….’ should define what East Cambridge consider is „safe‟and what the acceptable standards are. Proposed minor modification to supporting text to Policy ENV 8 (para 6.9.3):

‘Flooding….website). The Environment Agency maps and the SFRA and Surface Water Management Plans where relevant will be used to inform decisions on planning applications

Proposed minor modification to supporting text to Policy ENV 8 (para 6.9.5)::

‘ Developers should contact the Environment Agency at an early stage to obtain further more detailed information relating to potential flood risks including flood risk zones and surface water information for individual sites.’ Policy ENV 9: Pollution Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Hutchinsons Ben Hootton, Agree Y [No further comments ] Support noted No change

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 90 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Endurance Estates Phil Rose, Agree Y [No further comments ] Support noted No change Foundation East Peter Harris Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Mepal Parish Council Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Stuart Cooper Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Richard Baty, Agree Y Ely Bypass Route B is likely to conflict with this policy on The bypass route is listed as the No change Transition Ely grounds of light and noise pollution, and should not be County Council’s preferred included as one of the proposals in the Local Plan. solution. Andrew Newton, Ely Water quality is particularly important to the agricultural Reference to water quality is No change. Group of Drainage sector within the area. Surface water systems in the District included in Policy ENV 9. Other Boards are at capacity and will not be able to cope with any new aspects of water management and surface water run-off. We see this as a key challenge to the flood risk are captured in Policies Council in the future. There should be no new increases in ENV 8 and GROWTH 3. discharge to any treatment works without prior consultation with the Board. Chris Swain, The SPD needs to be updated to take account of revised The need for the existing land Proposed minor Environment Agency Contaminated Land regulations, The Environmental contamination SPD to be updated modifications: Protection Act, PPS23s cancellation; the Flooding and Water to take account of recent Management Act 2010, and the Water Framework Directive. legislative and policy changes is Policy ENV 9, first accepted. para: There is scope for developers to be unclear about what information they should submit at different stages in the Accept it would be useful to ‘….to make a full process, both for application validation and prior to the amend the supporting text to refer assessment of granting of permission. The plan would benefit from a set of to the Water Framework Directive potential hazards and criteria with which developers can check as they select sites, and the Anglian River Basin impacts.’ design development and progress applications efficiently. A Management Plan, and to refer to water management SPD could expand upon such criteria. bodies who will be involved in pre- Policy ENV 9, end of Suggest that the policy should include the following application discussions relating to fifth para: additional criteria: pollution issues. 1. Developers will need to submit a Pollution ‘Development Management Plan including details of risks and Agree it would be useful to refer to proposals where control measures the need for Pollution there is a risk of 2. For all major applications in mains sewer areas, Management Plans within the pollution should confirmation from the Water Cycle Strategy that policy. include a Pollution capacity exists in sewers, and mains waste water Management Plan treatment without negative impacts on the water Reference is made to applicants which includes environment and amenity, and if not available, ensuring that there is sufficient details of the measures to secure suitable infrastructure prior to waste water treatment capacity identified risks and development where this issue has previously the proposed 3. In areas not served by mains drainage, a foul been identified in the District control measures. drainage assessment adhering to the principles of Council’s Water Cycle Strategy in circular 3/99. relevant housing and employment Supporting text to allocation policies, and the Policy ENV 9, para

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 91 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

ENV9 should include a validation requirement for preliminary supporting text includes cross 6.10.5 [new sentence investigations in relevant cases (with a checklists to follow in reference to Policy GROWTH 3. at end] an updated SPD). It is intended to We recommend the following is added to the supporting text update this SPD for ENV9: following adoption “Where pollution issues are likely to arise, intending of the Local Plan. developers should hold pre-application discussions with ECDC, the relevant pollution control authority and Supporting text of stakeholders with a legitimate interest, for example drainage Policy ENV 9 (para and SUDS approving bodies. 6.10.7): A preliminary risk assessment should be undertaken as the first stage in assessing this risk and is a requirement for ‘The Council validating relevant planning applications. All investigations therefore encourages should be carried out in accordance with CLR 11 'Model pre-application Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination' and discussions with the Land Contamination SPD, or as may be updated. applicants involving CLR 11 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land bodies responsible Contamination' is available at the following address: for pollution control http://www.environment- or drainage agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33740.aspx The including SUDs Environment Agency documents Guiding Principles for Land approving bodies Contamination are available at the following address: where pollution is an http://www.environment- issue’ agency.gov.uk/research/planning/121619.aspx” 1. implement the Anglian River Basin Management Plan and Supporting text to underpinning Water Framework Directive. Policy ENV 9 (para. 2. provide the policy hook for the Flood and Water 6.10.3): [new Management SPD in respect of the Water Framework sentence at end] Directive and related guidance on water quality, biodiversity, hydro morphology and sustainable drainage. Regard should also be had to the Water The policy should include reference to the Water Framework Framework Directive and the Anglian River Basin Management Plan – Directive and the and show how it has regard to delivering specific local RBMP objectives of the objectives – such as naturalising river banks in Ely through Anglian River Basin regeneration. Management Plan.

We support the second sentence of ENV9 in spirit; however we advise that „hazards‟are only a small part of pollution impacts. For example, gradual eutrophication of a watercourse and loss of habitat is not a hazard, but can have devastating impacts on wildlife, amenity, water purification costs and economic prospects of affected areas. Suggested

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 92 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Remedy: Add „and impacts‟after hazards,

Unsure that para. 3 of ENV9 adds to ENV9 or the NPPF. For example para 2 of ENV9 already requires „acceptable‟ impacts, whereas the third para talks of exceptions which still needs to meet „acceptable‟standards – which amounts to the same thing. Suggest deleting para. 3 and replace it with a statement that WFD does not permit deterioration of any aspect of a water body, and clarification that nothing in NPPF or the local plan can override that. Policy ENV 10: Green Belt Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Hutchinsons Stuart Cooper Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Endurance Estates Phil Rose, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Foundation East Mepal Parish Council Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Patsy Dell, Disagree A small and easily rectifiable issue concerns the status of The policy highlights the Green Belt No change to Policy Cambridge City the Cambridge Green Belt. Each Local Plan carried over objectives. The City has since ENV 10. Council the old Cambridge specific objectives from the 2003 indicated that they would like to see Structure Plan. Green Belt objectives for Cambridge and the protection of Green Belts Cambridgeshire remain as a positive growth management included in the strategic objectives in tool and should be appropriately reflected in local plans Chapter 2. See ECDC response in joint Green Belt Objectives, and need to positively support that section above. the Cambridge Green Belt purposes. Brian Flynn, Januarys Disagree N ? We object to paragraph 6.11.3 and to the proposed Bottisham is a medium size village No change. (on behalf of Hill Bottisham allocation. We believe that the proposed small with a good range of services, and Residential) release of land from the Green Belt is insufficient to meet two modest releases of land is local housing and affordable needs, and conclude that proposed from the Green Belt (BOT1 additional land on the edge of the village should be and BOT3) to meet local housing and identified or another site which can meet those needs employment needs. These releases should be allocated as an alternative. The proposal also are included in current Core Strategy, does not identify a permanent boundary, or safeguarding so have been supported at land for future development needs, which contrary to Examination. NPPF.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 93 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

As set out in our representations to Policy BOT 1, we consider that there are no significant constraints to residential development at land off High Street in Bottisham.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Peter Harris Disagree N [No further comments] Noted No change Cambridge Past In accordance with our published Policy Comments noted. These comments No change. Present and Future http://cambridgeppf.org/green_belt.shtml on the Green were made directly in response to an Belt we remain opposed to the release of more Green Options Paper produced by Belt to build houses. NPPF makes it very clear that Green Cambridge City and South Cambs, Belt should be released only under exceptional rather than the East Cambs draft circumstances. The proposal to use Green Belt in Local Plan. response to the pressures for more houses does not constitute exceptional circumstances. The NPPF makes no differentiation on the basis of Green Belt quality. The Green Belt is vital for keeping Cambridge an attractive compact city. Our knowledge-based economy is in global competition for qualified staff who will choose to work elsewhere if we do not keep Cambridge attractive. Policy ENV 11: Conservation Areas Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Foundation East Richard Baty, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Transition Ely Peter Harris Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Hutchinsons Katherine Fletcher, Paragraph 126 of the NPPF requires planning authorities Comments noted. Do not consider Proposed minor English Heritage to set out in their local plan ‘a positive strategy for the need to name Conservation Areas in modification to conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, the policy as these may change over para.6.12.2 1st including heritage assets most at risk’. Would be time. However can make reference to sentence to read

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 94 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

appropriate to consider how the evidence base for the the 11 Areas already adopted. ‘.....through the historic environment has informed the plan. There would Reference is already made in production of be benefit from integrating references to the local Appendix 2. With regard to Ely Conservation Area evidence base into the policies. We note, and welcome, Cathedral, its significance is already Appraisals with 11 the references to Conservation Area Appraisals in satisfactorily covered in the Ely Appraisals already paragraph 6.12.2. Policy ENV 11 would be strengthened Conservation Area Appraisal . adopted.’ by a reference to the conservation area appraisals that already exist, and are planned. We would also suggest that consideration is given to a policy relating to the conservation and enhancement of the significance of Ely cathedral, given its outstanding importance. The NPPF recommends that local plan policies address heritage at risk. Policy ENV 12: Listed Buildings Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Foundation East Peter Harris Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change No change Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Hutchinsons

Richard Baty, Agree Y Ely Bypass Route B conflicts with this as it would harm Support noted No change Transition Ely the setting of Ely Cathedral. Katherine Fletcher, See comments on ENV11 above See comments under ENV11 above See comments under English Heritage ENV11 above Policy ENV 13: Locally Listed Buildings Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 95 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Foundation East Peter Harris Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Hutchinsons Policy ENV 14: Sites of archaeological interest Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Foundation East Peter Harris Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Hutchinsons Mepal Parish Council Disagree Y We are concerned that the importance of early settlement Comments noted. Consultation with No change on the lower lands, beneath the accrued peats, should be the County Archaeologist has recognised as well as the settlement on the islands and resulted in minor amendments, see fen edge. There needs to be a robust system of below. ascertaining whether the sites of proposed development are of potential archaeological interest, and we would wish it to be clear that robust advice is available from appropriately knowledgeable and skilled professionals to ensure that proposals are properly evaluated Quinton Carroll, Recommend amending 6.15 and policy ENV 14 slightly to Comments noted. Conservation Minor changes to Cambs County reflect the change in wording in the National Planning Officer considers suggested written explanation Council Policy Framework amendments acceptable and in and bullet points 2 & Recommend the amended wording below: accordance with NPPF. 3 (see bold opposite) 6.15.2 Archaeological remains are finite and non- renewable. As well as having historic value in their own right, they are important for education, leisure and tourism and contribute to the character of the district. The Council will make every effort to safeguard the local archaeological heritage which is vulnerable to the impacts of development. Designated Assets of national

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 96 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

importance are shown on the Proposals Map and listed in Appendix 2. These and other 'undesignated' assets of local, regional and national significance are recorded in the Cambridgeshire Historic Environment Record which is maintained by Cambridgeshire County Council, to which more assets are routinely added. 6.15.3 As most archaeological remains are yet to be discovered it is crucial that sites of potential interest are appropriately assessed. Development that harms the significance any heritage asset of known or identified national importance will be resisted, and the impact of development on all types of remains should be appropriately assessed as part of the application process. 16.15.4 Where permission for development is granted that would harm assets of archaeological interest, a programme of conservation appropriate to their significance should be undertaken. Their in-situ preservation is preferred, but where this is not feasible, provision should be made for a programme of archaeological excavation, recording and public presentation (where appropriate) to take place before development commences...... Policy ENV 14: 2nd and 3rd bullets: * Require the submission of an appropriate archaeological evaluation/assessment of significance by a suitably qualified person. This initial work may be required prior to the submission of a planning application; and * Not be permitted where the proposals would cause substantial harm to new or known nationally important sites, including Scheduled Monuments and their settings’. Policy ENV 15: Historic parks and gardens Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Foundation East Peter Harris Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 97 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Roslyn Deeming, Agree [No further comments] Support noted No change Natural England Sian Derbyshire, Agree [No reasons given] Support noted No change Natural Trust Richard Baty, No view Y [No further comments] Noted No change Transition Ely Policy ENV 16: Enabling development associated with heritage assets Sound/ Agree/ Legally Name / Organisation Disagree/N compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID o View S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change

Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Foundation East Peter Harris Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Hutchinsons Richard Baty, No view Y [No further comments] Noted No change Transition Ely Roslyn Deeming, No view Y Y Welcome the inclusion of the last bullet point in the policy Comments noted No change Natural England wording which will protect sites of biodiversity or geological importance from adverse impact and makes a cross reference to ENV7.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 98 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Chapter 7: Community services and infrastructure

Policy COM 1: Location of retail and town centre uses Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Foundation East Richard Baty, Agree Y The Downham Road Ely Leisure Centre proposal conflicts Support noted. Leisure centre has No change Transition Ely with this policy, as does the suggestion of a cinema on planning permission. It is a clear the same site available site large enough for a cinema. Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Hutchinsons Nick Hardy, GVA (on Disagree N N The supporting text says that edge or out of centre retail Comments noted. The aim is to No change behalf of Lidl UK) development may be appropriate in exceptional support the town centres of Ely, circumstances. This goes beyond what is required by the Soham and Littleport therefore any NPPF which seeks only to ensure that the key tests of development above 280sqm needs to impact and the sequential approach are satisfied. demonstrate it would not have an Similarly the reference to an assessment of "quantitative adverse impact on the nearest town need" being required as a minimum for all retail proposals centre, assessment of quantitative above 280spm should be deleted (7.2.3) as it goes need forms part of that overall impact beyond the requirements of the NPPF (demonstration of assessment. need is not a current policy test). Within the policy itself (the second part relating to development outside centres):- 1. we do not know how the LPA would define "suitable" (2nd bullet) as suitability in terms of the sequential approach is covered in the first bullet. 2. the fifth bullet point sets up a test that is greater than that in the NPPF which requires evidence that no significant adverse impact would rise (the draft Local Plan requires evidence that a proposal would enhance the centre which is a test that arguably could never be met by a proposal outside a centre that is sustainable and acceptable in all other respects

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 99 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Ian Smith, Smiths Disagree N N For proposed local centre facilities in growth areas such Comments noted. Policy already No change Gore, (on behalf of as North Ely, their likely scale would not warrant following allows for exceptions for local centres the Church the sequential approach. That point should be specific in in neighbourhoods outside town commissioners) Policy COM 1. centres.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Richard Seamark, It is considered, and justified by assessment, that there Comments and support noted No change Carter Jonas (on are no other suitable, sequentially preferred sites, behalf of Turnstone available for the provision of a district leisure centre and Estates) cinema than the land at Downham Road. All the other 'site options' previously considered, and consulted on, as reasonable alternatives by ECDC are also 'out of centre'. The scale and type of the development proposed is appropriate for its location in Ely, which is, the largest and best served settlement in the district; the locality that accommodates the highest number of existing residents; and the focus for the majority of new growth up to 2031. The planning application submitted in support of the approved leisure centre satisfactorily demonstrated that the development would be accessible by a choice of sustainable transport means. The provision of a pedestrian and cycle underpass linking the Site to existing development to the south of the A10, including the town centre beyond, is a crucial part of the existing scheme and this will be retained in any future masterplan that seeks to incorporate other appropriate uses at the site. Sean McGrath, Indigo Seeks to set a floorspace threshold of 280m2 net for retail Comments noted No change Planning (for impact assessments to be undertaken for retail Sainsburys) developments outside the town centres of Ely, Soham and Littleport. The policy should state that the amount of work required should be proportionate to the additional amount of floorspace required.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Policy COM 2: Retail uses in town centres Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stuart Cooper Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Phil Rose, Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Foundation East

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 100 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y No further comments Support noted No change Hutchinsons Policy COM 3: Retaining community facilities Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Keith Hutchinson, Agree [No further comments] Support noted No change Hutchinsons National Grid Agree [No further comments] Support noted No change Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Stuart Cooper Agree Y ? [No further comments] Support noted No change Phil Rose, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Foundation East Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Endurance Estates Newmarket Town Agree Y Newmarket Town Council endorses the view that Support noted No change Council there are inadequate public open spaces and community facilities for the residents living in the Newmarket Fringe. We strongly support the view that any existing recreational facilities are maintained and enhanced for sporting and other community activities. Richard Baty, Agree Y Policy Ely 3 is in conflict with this ELY 3 proposes to relocate the Sports No change Transition Ely Hall and pool to provide enhanced facilities. This accords with Policy COM3. Rose Freeman, Disagree N Compliance with NPPF (Core Planning Principles Agree that para.7.4.1 could be Proposed minor Theatres Trust and paras 28 and 156) The definition of amended to include a reference to modification to supporting community facilties should be reviewed to include cultural facilities. Strategic objective 3 text to Policy COM 3, para cultural facilities . The Strategic priorities ,Glossary does include community facilities. 7.4.1: and accompanying text in para 7.4.1 should also “Community facilities acknowledge the importance of culture include local shops, Post Offices, pubs, community meeting places, schools, health care facilities, open spaces, allotments, cultural facilities and

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 101 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

sport and recreational facilities” Philip Raiswell, Sport Disagree Comments regarding compliance with para 73 of The evidence base for playing fields Proposed minor England the NPPF and Sport England’s “A Sporting Future and open space has recently been modification to supporting for the Playing Fields of England in so far as the updated through the production of a text to Policy COM 3, para evidence base dates from 2005 and the policy is Play Facilities and Informal Open 7.4.4: broad in scope covering commercial and non Space Audit (May 2013). The intention commercial/indoor and outdoor facilities. is to prepare a strategy for playing ‘…..Where proposals result fields, open space and sports in the in the loss of open space near future. provision, the relevant community and statutory Policy COM3 as drafted maintains stakeholders (including policy support for the retention for Sport England) will need commercial and non commercial to be consulted.’ facilities. The supporting text at para 7.4.4 could be amended to refer to Sport’s England specifically.

Policy COM 4: New community facilities Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Newmarket Town Agree Y Newmarket Town Council endorses this policy and Support noted. No change. Council wherever possible existing facilities should be enhanced and adapted for alternative community uses. Richard Baty, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Transition Ely Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Stuart Cooper Agree Y ? [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Keith Hutchinson, Agree [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Endurance Estates Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Peter Harris Disagree The proposed allocation of the Crystal structure site, This is a generic policy, and is not No change. BOT3, should be for residential and recreation. site specific. See response under Employment should be kept in the Tunbridge Court site. BOT3. The village desperately needs well developed structures for teenagers. There is a good example of the skateboard park in Reigate Park, Surrey. The BOT 3 site would be

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 102 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

ideal for this. Philip Raiswell, Sport Disagree Sport England reiterates concern regarding the lack the of Comments noted (see COM 3). No change. England an up to date evidence base but pleased to see that the policy is cross-referenced to Policy “Growth 3” requiring community facilities to be provided as part of the general infrastructure requirements in major developments. Policy COM 5: Strategic green infrastructure Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Endurance Estates Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Stuart Cooper Agree Y ? [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Natural England Agree Y Y Natural England strongly supports this policy. We Support noted. No change. particularly welcome the reference to NE's Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards. We also note that the policy states that any new or improved green infrastructure will have no adverse effects upon any designated sites of conservation or biological importance. We will particularly welcome the application of this provision in relation to the proposed extension of the Ely Country Park which may have a possible adverse effect in terms of visitor disturbance on the Ely Pits and Meadows Site of Special Scientific Interest. Richard Baty, Agree Y This policy refers to the key strategic area of the Ely Ouse The draft Plan refers to the County No change. Transition Ely corridor. There is a potential conflict between this policy Council’s preferred solution. A and the proposed Ely Southern Bypass Route B. planning application is due the submitted later this year, Sian Derbyshire, Disagree The Draft District Policies Map ( Proposals Map) shows Agree that the Proposals Map could Proposed minor National Trust Ely Country Park marked with a symbol but none of the be amended to include symbols for modification to the other Strategic Green Infrastructure Sites listed in all key sites, but not room to include Proposals map to paragraph 6.7.2 are similarly marked. This is inconsistent. boundaries of each area. Proposed include symbols for Each of the Strategic Green Infrastructure Sites and areas to include a separate extra map in the each strategic of Strategic Green Infrastructure should be indicated on draft Plan to deal with this. See also infrastructure site – the Policies Map. They should also be listed in Policy ECDC response in the Appendix plus an additional COM5, similar to the approach in Policy GROWTH 3. section. The list of example sites in map showing the para 7.6.2 is considered to be boundaries of the

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 103 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

sufficient. green infrastructure areas. Mepal Parish Council Disagree Y Y Need to include Block Fen/Langwood Farm proposals Agreed. See also the response to Proposed minor among strategic green infrastructure sites, even if the Mepal PCs comments under Chapter amendment to para. CCC 2011 policy fails to include the site 2. 7.6.2 (new bullet):

 Block Fen Nature Reserve Ian Poole, St. The Borough Council does not specifically object to the Agree that paragraph 7.6.1 could be Proposed minor Edmundsbury policy for the provision of Green Infrastructure, but is altered to refer to this. See also modification to Borough Council concerned that any such provision in East response to National Trust under supporting text to Cambridgeshire has regard to opportunities and policies Chapter 1. Policy COM 5, para. in adjoining districts. As such, I would ask that the 7.6.1: supporting paragraphs (7.6.1 - 7.6.3) are amended to seek to realise opportunities for cross-boundary working ‘….and in helping to to realise the delivery of strategic green infrastructure. mitigate the effects of climate change. The cross boundary nature of many of these projects means that the District Council will need to work closely with neighbouring authorities to bring forward these schemes.’ Policy COM 6: Telecommunications Sound/ Agree/ Legally Name / Organisation Disagree/N compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID o View S L Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y - [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Endurance Estates Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Stuart Cooper Agree Y ? [No further comments made] Support noted. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 104 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Maeve Thompson- Agrees that new and existing housing need better Support noted. No change. Starkey broadband connections as current speeds are poor.. A top quality high speed communications network for Ely and surrounding villages is a key priority for any forthcoming developments. Wendy Hague, Disagree - - No clear policy in the plan clarifying how broadband will Policy COM 6 sets out criteria for the No change. Cambridgeshire be delivered. Ducting is referred to in ENV2, but the siting of new telecoms equipment, County Council County Council would like further specific wording in typically from telecom companies. COM6 to strengthen the policy. The supporting text provides a cross reference to Policy ENV2, where it was felt criteria regarding the construction of broadband infrastructure, specifically provision of ducting in new developments, was better placed as it relates to the early design considerations of a development scheme. Jacquelyn Fee, Mono Disagree N Support the inclusion of a telecommunications policy, but The second bullet accords with NPPF No change. Consultants Ltd (on have concerns about the draft wording of Policy COM 6: para 44, which states that LPAs behalf of Mobile should ensure that “they have Operators The second bullet is not necessary and should be evidence to demonstrate that Association) deleted, as operators are legally obliged to operate telecommunications infrastructure will equipment in accordance with conditions of their licence not cause significant and and will not cause significant or irremediable interference irremediable interference with other with other electrical equipment, air traffic services or electrical equipment…” instrumentation operated in the national interest. The sixth bullet accords with NPPF The sixth bullet is unsound and does not accord with para 45, which states applications NPPF para 46 which states that Local Planning should be supported by the Authorities should not, "question the need for necessary evidence to justify the development...." Operators will continue to provide details proposed development, which of consultations with organisations that have an interest in includes outcome of required their developments and include ICNIRP Certificates within consultations, self-certification of all planning applications submitted. meeting ICNIRP guidelines, and evidence applicant has explored use of an existing structure. NPPF para 46 relates to a LPA questioning health safeguards if ICNIRP guidelines have been met. Para 7.7.5 of Policy COM 6 states the LPA will not consider health aspects or related concerns.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 105 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy COM 7: Transport impact Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Endurance Estates Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Stuart Cooper Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Foundation East Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Richard Baty, Agree Y Policy Ely 1 North Ely Urban Extension conflicts Support noted No change Transition Ely with para (f) as the central Ely highway network cannot accommodate the level of car journeys generated by the major housing development proposed. Cambs County Change wording of first para in Policy COM 7 as Agree with the proposed Proposed minor modifications: Council follows: changes. ‘Development should be designed to reduce the Policy COM 7 (first para): need to travel, particularly by car, and should ‘Development should be designed to promote and enhance sustainable forms of reduce the need to travel, particularly transport appropriate to its particular location…’ by car, and should promote and enhance sustainable forms of transport The supporting text to this policy should include appropriate to its particular location…’ reference to bus and rail passengers (at para. 7.8.2). We recommend that the policy itself should Supporting text to Policy COM 7, para. mention the provision of access to the public 7.8.2: transport network and any associated necessary The planning and design process infrastructure should ensure access to a site is safe and convenient, and the needs of all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, bus and rail passengers, people with disabilities and occupants of vehicles…..’

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 106 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy COM 8: Parking provision Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Keith Hutchinson, Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Hutchinsons Stuart Cooper Agree Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Endurance Estates Mepal Parish Council Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Rose Freeman, N Table on page 21 relating to Parking Provision omits Sui generis Parking provision table 7.1 on No change. Theatres Trust buildings page 99 does refer to Sui Generis Uses. Richard Baty, Disagree Y Para 7.9.5 should require provision of charging points rather It is considered unreasonable No change. Transition Ely than “give consideration to” to make this essential rather than desirable. The additional flexibility afforded by the current text may also facilitate the assessment of different options for negotiating viability and deliverability of different schemes . Cambs County Concerned about the parking standards in Table 7.1 being too The parking standards in the Parking standards in Council low, and not varied enough for different areas (e.g. urban and table were checked and table 7.1 - TBC. rural). The table presents the car parking numbers as the verified by the County Council standard to be provided (although some state "up to x spaces" in in November 2012. We have Proposed minor the table) and there is an assumption that the numbers quoted asked for an updated table modification to would be "adequate" to comply with Policy COM 8 whereas in with their new revised supporting text to reality for most applications the car parking spaces quoted will standards to be provided – no Policy COM 8, para. NOT be adequate and will result in on-street parking. response to date. 7.9.1: ‘…..The under- However, the education parking standards are too generous – Agree that the second provision of parking we would need to seek larger schools if these remain. sentence in para. 7.9.1 could on-site in new be reworded. developments may The second sentence of paragraph 7.9.1 should be re-worded to lead to on-street read "the under-provision of parking on-site in new Paragraph 7.9.1 (last parking, creating developments may lead to on-street parking, creating potential sentence) already includes potential problems problems of highway safety and efficiency as well as unsightly reference for the need for of highway problems street environments”. applicants to submit sufficient safety and efficiency

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 107 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

information with their as well as unsightly In addition, developments should provide appropriate evidence proposals. street environments.’ to identify the likely demand and support the level of parking provision to ensure an overspill on to the local highway. The policy already encourages electric vehicle charging – see The policy should encourage the provision of electric vehicle para. 7.9.5. charging and other low emission vehicle infrastructure particularly at employment sites, leisure facilities and car parks. Tool and equipment storage may take place in sheds, Officers request COM 8 be strengthened to read "Where rather than garages. It is garages are proposed, they must be large enough to considered that it would be accommodate tool & equipment storage as well as the allocated difficult to insist on larger number of car and / or cycles spaces." Similarly, it should be garages to accommodate stated that car ports may be preferable to garages as they are these uses. more likely to be used for parking.

Appendices & District Policies Map 3.1.2 A total of 4 people/organisations made comments on the Appendices and District Policies Map.

Appendix 2: Designated wildlife/historical sites Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Sian Derbyshire, - - - Wicken Fen is also a RAMSAR site and Wicken Fen is designated as a Proposed minor modification to Appendix National Trust this should be reflected in Appendix 2. Ramsar site and therefore it 2 to include reference to Wicken Fen as considered appropriate to a RAMSAR site. amend the existing text in Appendix 2 of the Local Plan. Please see table below. Appendix 3: Glossary Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Mr P Rose, ? ? Appendix 3 – Glossary: CLT – A The need to amend the Proposed minor modification to Appendix 2 as Foundation East Community Land Trust is an definition of Community Land follows: independent, non-profit organisation Trusts to refer these established by local people to steward organisations being A community land trust is a nonprofit community assets such as housing, community led and for the community led corporation that develops and

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 108 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

workspaces, green spaces and long term benefit of the stewards affordable housing, community community buildings for the benefit of community is accepted. gardens, civic buildings, commercial spaces and their local community in perpetuity. other community assets on behalf of to meet the needs of a community in perpetuity. Appendix 4: District Proposals Map Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Wendy Hague, - - - It would be helpful to show the extent of The purpose of the District Proposed minor Cambridgeshire designations of national and international Proposals/Policies Map is to highlight the modification to the County Council designations e.g. SSSIs, RAMSAR sites which relevant planning constraints relevant to Proposals Map straddle local authority boundaries. development within East Cambridgeshire Re-label the Ouse District. Washes with its own The multiple designations for the Ouse Washes designation (SPA, should be clearer on the map. It is not considered necessary to show the SSSI and RAMSAR). full extent of nationally and internationally designated sites which are located within East Cambridgeshire District and neighbouring local authorities. Other key infrastructure items should also be shown on the map, e.g. Soham Railway Station. These infrastructure items are shown on the maps within each Vision. Sian Derbyshire, - - - All of the Strategic Green Infrastructure sites listed It is not considered necessary to identify Proposed minor National Trust in paragraph 6.7.2 should be indicated on the the strategic green infrastructure areas and modification to the Policies Map. sites which appear on the District Local Plan. Proposals Map. The boundaries of each Strategic Green Inclusion of Infrastructure area should be shown on the Policies However a separate map/diagram showing map/diagram Map. the extent of green infrastructure areas and showing location of sites could be included in the Local Plan. strategic green infrastructure within the District.

General comments 3.1.3 A total of 2 people/organisations responses made general comments relating to the content of the Local Plan.

Name / Organisation & Summary of response ECDC response Action ID

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 109 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Wendy Hague, We also note the omission of a policy to addresses fire prevention in new development; one means of Captured under BC No change. Cambs County which is to incorporate sprinklers into all new buildings. Evidence shows that the minimal costs of regulations, not appropriate Council actively addressing fire prevention through measures including installing sprinklers into all new houses for Local Plan to cover. far out ways the cost of either retrofitting measures or dealing with the consequences of fire. Chris Swain, The Local Plan can help to ensure that new developments are resilient over their lifetime and help Comments noted. A site No change. Environment improve the sustainability of existing communities. The most effective risk management is avoiding specific FRA has been Agency areas at risk – and we commend ECDC for doing this for residential development through applying the prepared for the proposed sequential test. primary/secondary school at Littleport. We understand that existing communities at risk still need to improve their resilience and as such the proposal at Littleport (Policy LIT 6) has gone a long way to demonstrating how risks are minimised. That said, the exception test will still need to be applied to ensure it would be safe over its lifetime, and has explored all options for reducing risks overall.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 110 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

3.2 Part Two – Town/Village Visions

Aldreth: 3.2.1 A total of 1 person/organisation made comments on the draft Aldreth Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID Disagree S L Mr and Mrs Dale Agree Y Y Question the proposed Development Envelope on the eastern Development envelopes are No change. side along the line of our garage, which cuts through our garden. drawn round the built-up parts of If the purpose of the Development Envelope is to prevent sprawl each settlement, to encompass into the open countryside, there is no way that this will happen if the main areas of built form. In the envelope is extended to our eastern property boundary. The some cases, development eastern side of our property is not open countryside, but the envelopes may cut through Cambridge Outdoor Club, with their car park immediately next to garden land where they cover us. There are also a number of buildings there with a swimming large areas. pool and tennis court.

Ashley 3.2.2 A total of 2 people/organisations made comments on the draft Ashley Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID Disagree S L John Smith Query re process for a review of the policies and E-mail sent in reply re. process No change proposals James Firth, Strutt The Ashley Village Vision as currently proposed Ashley is a small village with limited services. No change & Parker LLP (for is considered to be ineffective. Land to the Consultation with the Parish Council and local Dalham Estate) south of Ashley should be included in the Ashley community in 2011 indicated low levels of support for Village Vision and Policy GROWTH 4 of the additional growth on new allocations on the edge of the Local Plan to meet local housing needs and village. Infill development will continue to come forward enhance and maintain the vitality of the rural within the main part of the village, and on appropriate community rural exception sites.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 111 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Barway

3.2.3 A total of 2 people/organisations made comments on the draft Barway Vision.

Policy BAR 1: Housing allocation, land east of The Barn, Randalls Farm Sound/ Legally Name / Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID Disagree S L Paul Fenn Agree Y Y Barway needs new development and added population to Support noted No change improve viability of proposals and services, especially public transport. The main access into Barway needs improvement. Policy BAR 2: Housing allocation, land east of 5 Barway Road Sound/ Agree/ Legally Name / Disagree/N compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID o View S L Paul Fenn Agree Y Y Barway needs new development and added population to Support noted No change improve viability of proposals and services, especially public transport. Other Comments

Name / Organisation & ID Summary of response ECDC response Action

Paul Fenn The main access into Barway needs improvement CCC Highways Officer has indicated that Proposed minor modification to Policy the only highway improvements required to BAR 1 (new bullet): make the allocations acceptable are a  Make provision for the road across widening of the road across the frontage of the frontage to be widened to 5 each site to 5 metres – and an extension of metres the 30 mph speed limit across the frontage for BAR 2 only. Proposed minor modification to Policy Bar 2 (new bullet):  Make provision for the road across the frontage to be widened to 5 metres, and extend the 30 mph speed limit across the frontage

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 112 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Ely Group of Internal The Board's surface water receiving system has no Comments noted. Policy GROWTH 3 and No change. Drainage Boards residual capacity to accept increased rates of surface ENV 8 capture the importance of surface (Andrew Newton) water run-off in connection with new development water drainage and flood risk, and will proposals. The Board do not object to the apply to all developments. development of the sites as proposed but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to development of this site to protect lands and properties within the District from increased flood risk. A separate consent is required direct from the Board to create any new discharge into or increase the rate of flow in any watercourse or piped system within the District in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning process.

Black Horse Drove 3.2.4 A total of 2 people/organisations made comments on the draft Black Horse Drove Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Richard Brown (on Proposes inclusion of land at Coronation House, Black Horse Drove a The Local Plan does not allocate No change. behalf of Karen brownfield site within the defined area of the village as a housing specific sites within development Purcell) allocation for 16 dwellings. It is considered that this is a suitable site for envelopes. The principle of residential development based upon technical work which they have housing development within undertaken. development envelopes broadly supported under Policy Reference made to the presumption in favour of sustainable GROWTH 2 – with applications development and encouraging the re-use of previously developed land being considered against as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework. policies in the Local Plan. Andrew Newton, Ely No objection to further development at Black Horse Drove but highlight Comments noted. It will be No change. Group of Drainage the lack of capacity to accept further surface water run-off as a result of important for any developer to Boards new development. The Board would require the necessary surface address surface water issues, water accommodation is put in place prior to development taking place. as set out in Policy ENV 8 in This is to be funded by the developer and maintained by a competent Part 1 of the Plan. authority. Consent would be required from the Board for any new discharge into or increased rate of flow in any watercourse of piped system in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning system.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 113 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Bottisham 3.2.5 A total of 102 people/organisations made comments on the draft Bottisham Vision.

Policy BOT 1: Housing allocation, land east of Bell Road Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L James Fitch Agree Y Y Although the area is obviously suitable I am concerned Support and comments noted. The No change at the loss of Green Belt land. Is there any possibility of preparation of a Masterplan for the land 'paying back' by making an area elsewhere around east of Bell Road will provide open space Cambridge GB in comparison. and landscaping to safeguard the green belt setting. However it is not intended to provide replacement Green Belt land. Keith Morrison Agree Y Makes sense to provide needed local housing within Support noted No change the boundary of the village Kevin Macey Agree N N This policy addresses the continuing need for Support noted No change residential housing for Cambridgeshire and sits within the development boundaries, and expands in a reasonable way an existing residential development. It is also on the right side of the village for issues such as access and traffic. Adrian Hames Agree Y Additional housing is justified to support local facilities Support noted. The preparation of a No change and services. Development needs to be sensitive to Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road in local setting and provide open space/children's areas of conjunction with the Parish Council will play. Only concern is whether this level of housing (50 address these matters. The Infrastructure dwellings) can adequately contribute / deliver highway section in the Vision picks up on the need improvements or other local contributions and still be for open space and allotment provision – viable. Therefore ECDC and Parish Council need to however, specific reference could also be consider funding to support local facilities, such as a added to children’s play provision. suitable well located children's play area and more open space as well as allotments. Bottisham does not have any of these and for a village of this size it should have. Christine Hinch Agree N I agree subject to the following important reservations: Support noted. The preparation of a No change Adequate steps to reduce noise from the A14 should be Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road in implemented PRIOR to the commencement of new conjunction with the Parish Council will building in order to improve the amenity of future address these matters. residents. A hard surface footpath to link this development to the High Street MUST be provided to ensure that children and parents can walk to the

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 114 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

primary school more easily and safely and to reduce car use. The new footpath from St Peters Field has one unmade and muddy section which discourages use. Koch Agree Improve access road. Assess impact on in/outbound The Highway Authority has no objections in No change traffic during rush hour at Quy roundabout. principle. Infrastructure requirement recognised as set out in improvement table for Bottisham Mr &Mrs AH Agree Y As it adjoins a recently built estate it seems to be a Support noted No change Shepherd suitable place for it and taking into consideration it's locality it 'looks right'. Also ideally suited for in and out of village transport requirements. A.W. Ellis Disagree 1 The development would be too close to our property Comments noted. The preparation of a No change in Ox Meadow. Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road in 2 It would restrict our views of the open countryside. conjunction with the Parish Council will 3 There are no bus stops at this end of Bell Road and if address these matters. Infrastructure this development goes ahead a bus stop on the old requirement recognised as set out in Newmarket Road would be essential. improvement table for Bottisham. 4 Building more houses would endanger wildlife. 5 The essential amenities would be very over stretched and it appears that no extra facilities are planned for the village. Angela Humphrey Disagree N No land should be released from Cambridge Green Bottisham is a relatively sustainable village No change Belt. There has been considerable growth in the village with a range of services and a sizable some of it good but many of the new houses are still population – and there is a need to provide unoccupied. Green belt land should be preserved. housing for local people. The Green Belt is drawn tightly around the village boundary. The principle of an extension to the village envelope was approved through production of the Core Strategy in 2009, following production of a Green Belt Assessment which indicated that release of land to the south and north of the village would have less impact on the Green Belt. Land east of Bell Road was identified in Core Strategy 2009, and also scored well in the Sustainability Appraisal and Technical Assessment of potential sites as part of Local Plan production. The preparation of a Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road will provide open space and landscaping to safeguard the green belt setting. Neil Waterson Disagree N N Support the allocation. Work on a masterplan for the The policy is worded to provide some No change (Bidwells for David site is currently underway following the recent flexibility on the issue of mix, e.g. it does Wilson Homes ) establishment of the Bottisham Masterplan Working not have to be exactly the same. It also

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 115 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Party. However have reservations in relation to the needs to be read in conjunction with Policy requirement for the types and sizes of dwellings to HOU 1 which states that mix should reflect current evidence of need in Bottisham. Adequate ‘contribute’ to local needs, and refers to and up-to-date evidence of need is not currently viability and deliverability issues being available and it is also important that the final dwelling taken into account. The preparation of a mix also reflects market signals. Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road in We therefore consider that, in order to make the Plan conjunction with the developer and the sound, that the second bullet point should be re-worded Parish Council will provide an opportunity as follows: “provide a mix of housing which takes to explore this issue. account of current evidence of need in Bottisham as far as possible.” The current site boundary may be subject to minor alteration following completion of the current work on the Masterplan. It may It will be important that the final proposals map for be possible to propose changes to the Bottisham reflects the outcome of the work arising from Inspector if the Masterplan is agreed prior the Masterplan process in relation to Land East of Bell to the Examination hearing. Road, Bottisham being prepared in accordance with Policy BOT1. In particular, the final proposals map will need to reflect the determination of a defensible green belt boundary which will be assessed and agreed as part of the Masterplan process. This should be established over the next 4-6 months such that any amendments can be incorporated ahead of the Local Plan Examination.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Bottisham Parish Disagree We opposed this area being developed for all the Comments noted. The site was identified in No change Council reasons we had previously stated during the Core the 2009 Core Strategy as a broad location Strategy discussions. We have been reassured there for housing development. The Parish will be full consultation with Parish Council and others Council is now working in conjunction with at all stages of discussions. the District Council and the developer on the preparation of a Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road, which should address detailed matters. Dr Jenny Brookman Disagree N N The housing plan for Policy BOT1 will create too great a Comments noted. The County Highways No change congested housing development. The access and road Officer has not objected to the principle of to the St Petersfield development is already too narrow development in this location. Detailed and tight. Bell Road needs widening and resurfacing highways and design matters will be and more lighting. Should provide access to the new considered as part of the preparation of a site to the south side of the Hastoe development. Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road in conjunction with the Parish Council. REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Edward Clark Disagree Y Y Further development of this site is only going to Comments noted. The preparation of a No change aggravate traffic in Bell Road and throughout the Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road in

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 116 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

village. Mains services, particularly sewage disposal conjunction with the Parish Council will is at breaking point and has been for years. Schools address these matters. Infrastructure are at capacity. requirements are recognised, as set out in improvement table for Bottisham. English Heritage Disagree N Page 117, while we recognise the provision for a buffer Comments noted. English Heritage has No change between the development and the adjoining scheduled since confirmed that they are happy to be monument, we consider that this is unlikely to be consulted on this matter through the insufficient in the south-east corner of the site. Consider preparation of the Masterplan for the land policy may be unsound when considered against the east of Bell Road. policies in the NPPF. Brian Flynn, Januarys Disagree N N Promote an alternative site for residential development Modest growth is proposed for Bottisham, No change to the (for Hill Residential ) on behalf of Hill Residential Ltd. taking account of the need for local Bottisham Vision. The site is located on the eastern edge of the village, housing, and the constraints imposed by its and immediately adjacent to the development envelope location in the Cambridge Green Belt. boundary. The site is surrounded on three sites by built Work on the SHMA has not been development. The site is within the designated Green completed, and proposed minor changes to Belt but consider that special circumstances exist to the text of Policy GROWTH 1 means that justify a minor review of the Green Belt boundary. the plan accords with NPPF guidance (see These are related to housing and affordable housing section Policy GROWTH 1 above). need in East Cambridgeshire. The proposed housing target in the Local Plan has been set at a level which does not meet objectively assessed housing and affordable housing needs. This approach does not comply with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which seeks to “boost significantly the supply of housing”.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Jennifer Clark Disagree Village infrastructure - especially sewerage system - Comments noted. The preparation of a No change inadequate to cope with further housing development. Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road in conjunction with the Parish Council will address these matters. Infrastructure requirement recognised as set out in improvement table for Bottisham John Overton Disagree N N You do not take into account the existing situation in the Comments noted. The County Highways No change village where the roads are already very busy and Officer has not objected to the principle of parking at the shops is difficult at most times of the day. development in this location. Detailed Parking at the local schools too leads to anti-social highways and design matters will be behaviour and dangerous driving. The only considered as part of the preparation of a development I would find acceptable to meet a genuine Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road in need is the provision of housing for retired folk in a conjunction with the Parish Council. Other complex of flats. local highway network issues are noted in the table in the Infrastructure section in the Bottisham Vision.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 117 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Margaret Coles Disagree The current infrastructure i.e. schools, sewerage, roads, Comments noted. The preparation of a No change cannot currently support more housing on such a large Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road in scale. The A1303 cannot cope with traffic into conjunction with the Parish Council will Cambridge at peak times and this would only make address these matters. Infrastructure matters worse. requirement recognised as set out in improvement table for Bottisham Mr & Mrs Eale Disagree N N 1. Bottisham is already over-developed and the Comments noted. The preparation of a No change infrastructure (e.g. sewerage) is struggling Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road in 2. the proposals would eat into Green Belt. Any further conjunction with the Parish Council will proposals could infringe that further. address these matters. Infrastructure requirement recognised as set out in improvement table for Bottisham.

Bottisham is a relatively sustainable village with a range of services and a sizable population – and there is a need to provide housing for local people. The Green Belt is drawn tightly around the village boundary. The principle of an extension to the village envelope was approved through production of the Core Strategy in 2009, following production of a Green Belt Assessment which indicated that release of land to the south and north of the village would have less impact on the Green Belt. Land east of Bell Road was identified in Core Strategy 2009, and also scored well in the Sustainability Appraisal and Technical Assessment of potential sites as part of Local Plan production. The preparation of a Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road will provide open space and landscaping to safeguard the green belt setting. Trevor Edwards Disagree Believe Bottisham has reached saturation point with Bottisham is a relatively sustainable village No change recent developments with a range of services and a sizable population – and there is a need to provide housing for local people. Infrastructure requirement recognised as set out in improvement table for Bottisham. Vera Kollo Disagree N N Means further growth to the village - the proximity of a Comments noted. The preparation of a No change Scheduled Ancient Monument - danger of losing green Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road in areas, rural outlook, current character - existing conjunction with the Parish Council will infrastructure is not able to cope with this rate of growth address these matters. Infrastructure requirement recognised as set out in

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 118 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

improvement table for Bottisham. John Dearden Disagree Extra stress on infrastructure will make life harder for Comments noted. The preparation of a No change current inhabitants. Congestion on route to Cambridge Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road in via Quy roundabout. Sewage works are working at near conjunction with the Parish Council will capacity. address these matters. Infrastructure requirement recognised as set out in improvement table for Bottisham. Kasia Gdaniec Disagree N N The village does not gain from developing land in the Comments noted. The preparation of a Proposed minor Green Belt. If such development is approved, Bottisham Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road in modification to resident's expectations, as given to ECDC in the village conjunction with the Parish Council will Infrastructure consultation of 2011, should be met. In the 2011 address these matters. The Infrastructure table, fourth row: consultation there was significant support for new play section in the Vision picks up on the need areas (49 people) and new allotments (52 people). A for open space and allotment provision – ‘Development of junior play park is at the primary school (weekend and however, specific reference could also be new public open out of hours use) and a very small new toddler park at added to children’s play provision. space and Bendish Lane. An open field is available at the Village children’s play College, but there are no outdoor recreation facilities for area’ older children anywhere in the village despite major expansion in the last 10 years. Families drive children to facilities in all surrounding neighbouring villages or further afield. This is neither environmentally friendly, does not promote healthy living, nor is reflective of 'sustainable development' principles. No provision is shown in the policy that will meet the needs of families and create further pressures on the community rather than harmonious living.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Kate Vadhia Disagree No objection to more houses in Bottisham, and the site Support for allocation noted. The Proposed minor of BOT 1 seems very reasonable. However, I object to preparation of a Masterplan for the land modification to the lack of specified outdoor recreation space for east of Bell Road in conjunction with the Infrastructure children and young people. Bottisham is very poorly Parish Council will address these matters. table, fourth row: provided for in terms of play equipment. The developers The Infrastructure section in the Vision should provide some outdoor recreation space (with picks up on the need for open space and ‘Development of facilities/equipment) as part of the condition of planning allotment provision – however, specific new public open permission. reference could also be added to children’s space and play provision. children’s play area’ Peter Walker Disagree Original proposed requirement was for 50 new Comments noted. The 107 houses is a No change dwellings. Current builder cannot sell the houses he very broad estimate of sites with planning has and is in financial difficulties. Other available permission and an allowance for small brownfield sites are available and should be used to windfall sites that may come forward in the fulfill requirement of 50 houses. ECDC seem to regard plan period – and is not a ‘target.’ any other sites as opportunity to increase housing

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 119 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

numbers. Plan now has 107 houses and it was confirmed at the public meeting that there are planned numbers on top of that. Any other available numbers should be taken from the total of 50 and that should be the overall limit.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Steve Bennett Disagree Y Y Using too much green belt which will take away the Suitable brownfield sites within the village Proposed minor village feel. Should use brown sites housing and will be utilised – but some Greenfield land modification to develop the high street for employment. will also be required to meet local need for Infrastructure further housing and employment. table, fourth row: Concern about lack of village playground, and capacity of the primary school. The Infrastructure section in the Vision ‘Development of picks up on the need for open space and new public open Two travellers pitches near the scrap metal yard are not allotment provision – however, specific space and wanted and unnecessary. No mention of it in the reference could also be added to children’s children’s play Bottisham Plan. play provision. area’

Reference to travellers pitches is under Policy HOU9 and Map 4.1. Ann Jones No View Agree that more houses should be built but the sewage Comments noted. The preparation of a No change works in Bottisham must be able to cope. Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road in The developers must allow at least 2 parking spaces conjunction with the Parish Council will per property. The SAM buffer zone is very welcome but address these matters. Requirement for if this is used for allotments the trees that form a small upgrade to sewerage treatment works wooded areas on the edge of the SAM must remain. recognised in the Infrastructure section of These are the current sound barrier for OX Meadow the plan. properties from the A14. Anthony Jolly The site should have a five year restrictive covenant Comments noted. It is not proposed to use No change clause placed on all housing designated ‘affordable/first the Plan for the purpose of controlling time buyer’. All properties sold within five years of occupancy. Need to be reasonable and not occupancy must be sold to another first time buyer. unduly restrictive. An element of the This would prevent properties being bought and then housing will be ‘affordable’ and will need to released into the ‘letting’ market by bogus purchasers. meet the terms of Policy HOU 3. PW &WA Bullock Noise from the A 14 & A1303. Tree belts should be Comments noted. The preparation of a No change planted to reduce the noise and the visual impact of the Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road in proposed developments conjunction with the Parish Council will address these matters Ely Group of Internal This site is within the Swaffham Internal Drainage Comments noted. The preparation of a No change Drainage Boards District. The Board's surface water receiving system Masterplan for the land east of Bell Road in (Andrew Newton) has no residual capacity to accept increased rates of conjunction with the Parish Council will surface water run-off in connection with new address these matters. development proposals. The Board do not object to the development of this site as proposed but require that

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 120 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to development of this site to protect lands and properties within the District from increased flood risk. Work must be undertaken at the expense of the developer of the site and maintained in perpetuity by a competent authority. Please note that a consent is required direct from the Board to create any new discharge into or increase the rate of flow in any watercourse or piped system within the District in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning process. Policy BOT 2: Mixed use housing/employment allocation, Crystal Structures Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Edna J. Man Agree Concerned about the type of housing and employment Support and concerns noted. No change buildings planned for the site. It is imperative that our back Environmental health issues will be gardens are made secure from the site. It is hoped that as dealt with at the planning application many viable trees as possible can be kept on the site. Would stage. like conditions attached to future employment lettings, e.g.no continuous noise or smell, with working hours restricted, say from 0900 to17.50 Monday to Friday and no working on bank holidays. No obnoxious smells. James Fitch Agree Y Y Provided there is a fair division between housing and Support and comments noted No change employment i.e. 50:50 or minor variation. On the housing area there should be a proportion of affordable as against high value agreed by the D.C. as a policy some years ago. Keith Morrison Agree Y As long as this is not just a way in to use it for housing. Live Support noted No change work units allow for some further diversity in the population and encourages enterprise. Margaret Coles Agree This would regenerate a dilapidated area and bring Support noted No change employment without a large increase in the population. MR&MrsPJ&JG Agree Y Y From long standing residents we gain the view that the Support noted No change Smith changes proposed would enhance the overall concept. Adrian Hames Agree Y Local employment will assist in providing local jobs and Support noted No change again support sustainable growth of the village Christine Hinch Agree N I agree subject to the following important reservations: Support and reservations noted. The No change 1. Development of the site should not take place until a policy includes a number of criteria satisfactory landscaping scheme has been implemented on relating to the layout, design, height the boundary of the site to safeguard the privacy and security and scale of development, plus the of adjoining properties. need for adequate landscaping and

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 121 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

2. No building on the site should exceed two stories in height screening. Detailed design, layout, in order to preserve the privacy of adjacent properties, and to access and environmental health be in keeping with neighbouring properties. By two stories I issues will be dealt with at the planning mean to exclude extension of floor space in the roof. application stage. 3. The number of properties on the site should not exceed the proposal in this draft plan in order to prevent over development of the site. 4. Employment allowed must be restricted to ensure that noise and other pollutants do not adversely affect neighbouring properties in order to protect the amenity and welfare of nearby residents and users of the adjacent health centre. 5. The footpath from Ancient Meadows to Beechwood Avenue should be improved to ensure easier access for children and parents to the local primary school. A link from the proposed development to this path should also be constructed in order to encourage children to walk safely to school and reduce car use. David Tilley Agree N This land needs to be developed. However, need to provide Support and comments noted. The No change sufficient parking to cope with the traffic flow through the site. capacity of the scheme is a broad Also need to reconsider the number of units proposed, as the estimate, taking account of the site’s site is not large enough for 15 units plus carparking areas. location and characteristics, and is considered to be reasonable. Detailed design, layout and access will be dealt with at the planning application stage. Koch Agree It would be good to have some provision for smaller Support noted. Energy efficiency is No change employment allocation in the village. How energy efficient will covered under Policy ENV 4. these new buildings in BOT 1, and 3 be? Mr &Mrs AH Agree Y Site is suitable for development. Any businesses that may Support noted. The policy includes a No change Shepherd occupy the developed site should be 'clean' and noise free. number of criteria relating to the layout, Any houses built should prove no nuisance to residents of design, height and scale of Mulberry Close and the surrounding area. They should not development, plus the need for overlook or be built too close and certainly not exceed two adequate landscaping and screening. storeys high. Detailed design, layout, access and environmental health issues will be dealt with at the planning application stage. Peter Walker Agree Available brownfield site should be used to fulfill the need for Support and comments noted. No change the 50 new dwellings. Taking away from the need for greenfield encroachment. James Fitch Agree Y The Crystal Structures has been allocated for light industry Support noted. The Highway authority No change development for many years. Using part of the site for has no objection in principle. Detailed housing is feasible. Note traffic in Tunbridge Lane is already design and access issues will be dealt heavy as it is part of a rat run from Swaffham, Burwell and with at the planning application stage.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 122 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

beyond. R Hopwood, Bidwells Disagree The Policy should allow a degree of flexibility to accept D1 Comments noted. An application for a No change use (Dental/health) to enable relocation/new dental surgery dental surgery would be considered on to serve the Bottisham community, which is planned for its merits as part of a mixed use residential expansion. Such a health facility will generate development jobs in a sustainable location on previously developed land within the settlement framework. Allowing this flexibility of use will also assist in helping to deliver the development by means of an early planning application on a small part of the site fronting Tunbridge Lane.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Jennifer Clark Disagree Village infrastructure - especially sewerage system - Comments noted. Infrastructure No change inadequate for coping with further housing development requirement recognised as set out in improvement table for Bottisham. John Overton Disagree It has some merit but the plans should allow for one or more Comments noted. One of the buildings No change of the existing WW2 buildings to be earmarked for use by the has been used for storage of WW2 RAF Bottisham Museum. This could result in some part time artifacts but most of these have been employment and create something of educational interest relocated. The above use was with the owner’s consent but he has now given notice to quit. Darren Cantell Disagree Y Y Agree that Crystal Structures should be developed, but Comments noted. The proposal seeks No change should be purely commercial rather than a mix of housing to retain an element of employment use and employment. It should only be Class B1 employment on the site to meet local employment though - i.e. offices because of the proximity to houses. needs. The policy includes a number of criteria relating to the layout and design, plus the need for adequate landscaping and screening. Relationship of residential and employment can be dealt with at the planning application stage. Katherine & Darren Disagree Y N Agree that the Crystal Structures site should be renovated, See response above. No change Cantell but concerned about the designation for B2 uses, which are not suited to residential areas. BOT2 should only be used for Class B1. It would seem more sensible to make it purely commercial rather than a mixture of residential and commercial. Kevin Macey Disagree N N Clear need for additional residential accommodation in See response above. No change Cambridgeshire and the residential part of BOT 2 addresses this issue. But no clear evidence for the need of further business development within the village, when vacancies at adjoining Tunbridge Lane Business Park. Also concerned about mixing B1, B2 and housing development on such a small site with narrow access. In particular I strongly object

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 123 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

to the B2 development as this seems inappropriate close to housing. A small amount of B1 development, if well justified would be acceptable.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Meike Stockmann Disagree The designation of BOT2 for a mixed Class B1/B2 use is of See response above. No change real concern. Use Class B2 relates to general industrial activities which are not suited to residential areas. Use Class B1 however includes office uses, research and development activities and light industry, which should not generate any noise, air pollution or other damage to the environment and in theory can be accommodated in close proximity to dwellings. Oliver Stockman Disagree See response above. See response above. No change Mr & Mrs Earle Disagree N N We do not oppose the redevelopment of the current site or See response above. No change the development of housing. However, the suggested extreme concentration of jobs (at 64 jobs in 0.2 hectares) is far more than anything else in the Plan (as stated on pages 30/31). We are concerned that the housing developed would not impinge on our own privacy, boundaries or amenity of our own property which borders this site. The proposed permission of B1/B2 on the site is entirely opposed in terms of B2 use which would be wholly unacceptable. We assume that any development would not take place prior to improvement to sewage works. Highway access to the site would also need to be addressed. Trevor Edwards Disagree Believe Bottisham has reached saturation with recent Bottisham is a relatively sustainable No change developments village with a range of services and a sizable population – and there is a need to provide housing and employment for local people. Infrastructure requirement recognised as set out in improvement table for Bottisham. Vera Kollo Disagree N N According to the District Council's Consultation Statement Comments noted. The proposal is for a No change (Appendix 7, Bottisham) the majority of the people did not mixed use development and the site is support further housing growth in the village and only 1.4% within the Development Envelope. preferred it on a large scale (50 or more houses). That means that this policy has not been prepared in accordance with the community's will. Kasia Gdaniec Disagree N N Need provision for children’s play areas (see comments In accordance with Policy GROWTH 3, No change under BOT 1). Although this policy includes the need to open space provision through S.106 "Provide an attractive and useable area of public open agreements will only be sought from space", it is not explicit. The policy needs to indicate that housing schemes of 20 or more suitable facilities for teenagers is required, proportionate to dwellings. However, the Parish Council

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 124 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

the type of development. will receive an element of CIL contributions which will need to be Military structures of WW2 date exist here. While some are spent on local infrastructure. overgrown and quite dilapidated they constitute an important part of the village's historic environment and currently house One of the buildings has been used for a small museum dedicated to the WW2 period. They are of storage of WW2 artifacts but most of considerable educational value and efforts to preserve their these have been relocated. The above significance should be made. Any development of this space use was with the owner’s consent but should be required to retain and improve some of these he has now given notice to quit. structures for the future.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Kate Vadhia Disagree Need to provide additional children’s play area - although In accordance with Policy GROWTH 3, No change there is probably less space at BOT 2 site for an outdoor open space provision through S.106 recreation area. The developers should be required to agreements will only be sought from purchase land elsewhere in the village to provide outdoor housing schemes of 20 or more recreation space for children and young people. dwellings. The Parish Council will receive an element of CIL contributions which will need to be spent on local infrastructure. Angela Humphrey I am undecided on this one as I favour the creation of local Comments noted. The policy requires No change employment. Any housing here should be affordable and for the provision of an element of local people. As I have already commented there are too affordable housing on the site, and many large, overpriced houses unoccupied in the village. includes a criteria relating to appropriate size and mix. The preparation of a Masterplan will provide further detail on these issues. Anthony Jolly The area shown in the plan as BOT2 should be subject to a Comments noted. Any proposed No change detailed contamination investigation. If found suitable for development will need to accord with development consideration also to be given to providing play Policy ENV 9 on pollution, and these areas, green open space and allotments. matters will be dealt with at planning application stage.

In accordance with Policy GROWTH 3, open space provision through S.106 agreements will only be sought from housing schemes of 20 or more dwellings. The Parish Council will receive an element of CIL contributions which will need to be spent on local infrastructure. Bottisham Parish We maintain our wish for this to be an open space for The site is located within the No change Council recreational use. It has already been stated that the capacity development envelope, and has value of the sewage treatment works and the foul sewerage for development. As such it would be

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 125 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

network is up to capacity and we have been requesting that difficult to require its designation as this matter be addressed for several years. open space.

The capacity issues at the sewage treatment works are recognised, as set out in improvement table for Bottisham. Anglian Water BOT 2 lies approximately 300m from the WWTW. The Comments noted. No change. WWTW is well screened and there are no odour complaints recorded. AW has completed an odour assessment for these two sites and the results indicate a low risk of odour impact and we therefore have no concerns with the developments proceeding and no further action in this regard is required. Steve Bennett Using too much green belt which will take away the village Support for re-use of Crystal Structure Proposed minor feel. Should use brown sites housing and develop the high site noted. modification to street for employment. Infrastructure The Infrastructure section in the Vision table, fourth row: Concern about lack of village playground, and capacity of the picks up school capacity issues, and primary school. the need for open space and allotment ‘Development of provision. However, specific reference new public open Two travellers pitches near the scrap metal yard are not could also be added to children’s play space and wanted and unnecessary. No mention of it in the Bottisham provision. children’s play Plan. area’ Reference to travellers pitches is under Policy HOU9 and Map 4.1. Policy BOT 3: Employment allocation, extension to Tunbridge Lane Business Park Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Margaret Coles Agree This would regenerate a dilapidated area and bring Support noted No change employment without a large increase in the population. Mr & Mrs Earle Agree Support the development of more employment in the Support noted No change village and this site probably most suitable. Adrian Hames Agree Y Local employment will assist in ensuring Bottisham grows Support noted No change in a sustainable way Koch Agree Care need to be take with impact on entry/exit to Support noted. The Highway authority has No change Tunbridge Lane at rush hour. Sufficient parking must be no objection in principle. Detailed design provided on site. and access issues will be dealt with at the planning application stage. Mr &Mrs AH Agree Y A business park is welcome as long as the rents and Support noted. The policy includes criteria No change Shepherd taxes payable by business owners are reasonable and relating to layout, design and height, plus encourage firms to move here. All premises should be the need for adequate landscaping and

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 126 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

noise free, 'clean' and only single storey high. It is also screening. Detailed design and access desirable to have the site tastefully developed and issues will be dealt with at the planning surrounded by trees. Bottisham is a village and not an application stage. industrial area. Peter Walker Agree I agree only on the basis that priority is given to Support noted. The Local Plan can only No change employment of Bottisham people and that jobs are provide the opportunity for employment, advertised locally. not who provides it and who they employ. W. Green, Evolution Y Y Broadly agree with the proposed wording of the policy. A Support noted. It is considered a No change Planning few minor changes proposed: masterplan is required at the outset to 1. There should be no requirement for a masterplan on facilitate the development of the site in this small site if the initial planning application covers the phases. The development of the site offers whole site. The policy could state that ‘if the site is the opportunity to enhance the adjoining subject to phased or multiple planning applications a public right of way. masterplan will be required otherwise planning applications should accord with the following criteria: ...... 2. Bullet 4 requires that the right of way along the eastern boundary is ‘retained and enhanced’. Propose the wording is amended to ‘retained and not adversely affected’

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Adam Daw Disagree Following petition signed by 46 people: Comments noted. The site was identified in No change This allocation is outside of the village envelope and an the adopted Core Strategy (2009) as an extension into farm land. This should not be considered area for employment development to where there are suitable areas within the village that provide additional jobs in Bottisham. could and should be developed before this proposal is Extension to Tunbridge Business Park is even considered. sustainable and deliverable. The Highway We consider that proposals for a new scheme will Authority has no objection in principle. The struggle to identify true and viable demand from policy includes criteria relating to the layout commercial occupiers, based on existing long term and design, plus the need for adequate vacancy levels and extended periods of take-up for landscaping and screening. A Masterplan existing occupiers of adjacent office units. will be prepared which will address many of With the new housing constructed and occupied this the issues raised. Also design and access development will block views of open countryside to issues will be dealt with at the planning many existing new homes, be imposing and over application stage. dominant on the local residents views into green belt land.

There is no evidence that the highway access to this area is suitable for this size of development. This site is close to one of the highest traffic density locations in the village over the course of a full working day, i.e. the Doctor and Dentist practices.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 127 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

This area is at the wrong end of the village for normal traffic flow to this area. Traffic would have to travel through the full length of the village to access this area from the main traffic routes. Ann Winkcup Disagree Support petition See comments above. No change Ann Bee Disagree Support petition See comments above. No change B Challis Disagree Support petition See comments above. No change B Parker Disagree Support petition See comments above. No change Debbie Hogden Disagree Support petition See comments above. No change Diane Hegley Disagree Support petition See comments above. No change G Cowell Disagree Support petition See comments above No change G Parker Disagree Support petition See comments above. No change G Wakefield Disagree Support petition See comments above. No change J & R Buzzell Disagree Support petition See comments above. No change Jane Chapman Disagree Support petition See comments above. No change Jane Eayon Disagree Support petition See comments above. No change Kate Brown Disagree Support petition See comments above No change Kenneth Watson Disagree Support petition See comments above No change Katherine Cantell Disagree Support petition See comments above No change Louise Botie Disagree Support petition See comments above. No change Lousie Wakefield Disagree Support petition See comments above No change Lyne Reynolds Disagree Support petition See comments above No change M Templeton Smith Disagree Support petition See comments above No change Marion Watson Disagree Support petition See comments above No change Martin Hegley Disagree N N Support petition See comments above No change D Stow Disagree Support petition See comments above. No change S Adolizzi Disagree Support petition See comments above No change S Smith Disagree Support petition See comments above No change W Clarke Disagree Support petition See comments above No change A Clarke Disagree Support petition See comments above. No change L Stow Disagree Support petition See comments above No change M Smith Disagree Support petition See comments above No change Mrs S Heath Disagree Support petition See comments above No change Nathalie Chaplin Disagree Support petition See comments above No change Neil Robertson Disagree Support petition See comments above No change Neil Winkcup Disagree Support petition See comments above. No change Oliver Stockman Disagree Support petition See comments above No change

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 128 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

R Buzzell Disagree Support petition See comments above No change S Hutchinson Disagree Support petition See comments above No change Saaklah Disagree Support petition See comments above No change Stuart Hopson Disagree Support petition See comments above. No change Susan Frankland Disagree Support petition See comments above No change P Templeton Smith Disagree Support petition. See comments above No change Darren Cantell Disagree N N This is Green Belt land and should not be considered for Comments noted. There is a lack of No change development when there are other more suitable sites capacity within the development envelope within the village envelope. - There is insufficient to meet local housing and employment demand for commercial space. - The local residents needs – therefore additional land is have not had the opportunity to object because the required. The site was identified in the houses next to it were not constructed when the adopted Core Strategy (2009) as an area questionnaire was done. Support petition. for employment development to provide additional jobs in Bottisham. A Masterplan will be prepared which will address many of the issues raised. Edward Clark Disagree This is agricultural land in not appropriate for further Comments noted. The site was identified in No change development. Traffic in Tunbridge Lane is already a the adopted Core Strategy (2009) as an problem with the speed limit widely disregarded. area for employment development to provide additional jobs in Bottisham. The Highway Authority has no objection in principle. A Masterplan will be prepared which will address many of the issues raised. Jennifer Clark Disagree Village infrastructure - especially sewerage system - The Infrastructure section picks up these No change inadequate for coping with further housing development matters. Katherine & Darren Disagree N N We fundamentally disagree with taking land out of the Comments noted. There is a lack of No change Cantell Green Belt for this purpose. There are other sites within capacity within the development envelope the village envelope that would be far more appropriate to meet local housing and employment for employment development. You have not shown the needs – therefore additional land is 'exceptional circumstances' that would be required in required. The site was identified in the order for this to be done. Also, in the past a nearby site adopted Core Strategy (2009) as an area was formally designated for commercial use and the for employment development to provide demand was not found to be great enough, given the low additional jobs in Bottisham – and it scores commercial rents that are achievable in this area, so the best in the Sustainability Appraisal and Site land was eventually used for residential use instead. Assessment work carried out for the Local Where is the evidence of demand for this site and the Plan. The Highways authority has no reassurance that it will not simply be used to provide objection in principle. A Masterplan will be more homes in future? The local roads cannot handle prepared which will address many of the the greater levels of traffic that this would involve. issues raised. Also detailed design and access issues will be dealt with at the planning application stage. Keith Morrison Disagree This is one of the few areas of pasture left on the village See response above. No change

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 129 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

border, and is a greenfield site. It extends the boundary of the village which is not in my view justified. If employment allocation was really needed then why not make BOT 2 solely for that purpose? Kevin Macey Disagree I have several strong objections to the BOT3 See response above. No change development, namely: 1. The development sits outside the development envelope and is greenfield. This is inappropriate when there are other brownfield sites available within the village of equal size with better traffic access. 2. No clear evidence for further business development given that on Tunbrige Lane Business Park itself there have been vacant business units for quite some time. 3. The local circumstances have changed significantly since the original consultation took place in June/July 2011. An adjoining new housing development with over 60 occupiers has since been completed. Their views must now be taken in to account, and therefore the original consultation is no longer relevant. 4. Business development, particularly B2, is not suitable adjacent to residential areas. 5. The location of this site is inappropriate for access. This site is on the wrong side of the village for access to the major roads i.e. A14 and A1303, and traffic in this part of the village is already heavy during normal working hours given the close proximity of the High Street and the doctors surgery.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Maria Sanchez Disagree I strongly disagree with Policy BOT1 because the land See response above. No change has been farmland for centuries; therefore it would be a loss of historical value. Moreover, the area is often used for walking, and this project would alter the landscape and wildlife. No need to build more houses, as a number still remain unsold. Concerned about impact on crime levels and community cohesion. Support petition. Meike Stockmann Disagree Support petition. Concerned about Class B2 uses which See response above. No change are not suited to residential areas. B1 uses could in theory be accommodated in close proximity to dwellings. Mr&MrsPJ&JG Disagree As response above. See response above. No change Smith David Chaplin, Disagree N N My client strongly objects to the proposed employment See response above. No change Pegasus allocation at Bottisham (Reference BOT3) for the following reasons: • Loss of Green Belt; •

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 130 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Non-compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework; • Lack of consultation with local residents; • Impact on residential amenity and village character.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Trevor Edwards Disagree Any increase in traffic to the village is not desirable Comments noted. The site was identified in No change the adopted Core Strategy (2009) as an area for employment development to provide additional jobs in Bottisham. The Highways authority has no objection in principle. Vera Kollo Disagree N N According to the District Council's Consultation Statement Comments noted, but are more appropriate No change (Appendix 7, Bottisham) the majority of the people did not to BOT1. support further housing growth in the village and only 1.4%!!! Preferred it on a large scale (50 or more houses). That means that this policy has not been prepared in accordance with the community's will. David Tilley Disagree N N Your intention to extend the Business Park on to green Comments noted. The site was identified in No change belt land is not backed up with data on need, nor has it the adopted Core Strategy (2009) as an taken account of additional traffic flow in the centre of the area for employment development to village. If you can establish a need for additional provide additional jobs in Bottisham in employment facilities in the Bottisham area consideration accordance with the Council’s Job Growth should be given to land at the side of the Barchester Strategy. The Highways authority has no (Hilton Park) care establishment as this could be objection in principle. Also design and developed with easy access to the A 1303 without access issues will be dealt with at the causing traffic problems within the main area of the planning application stage. village. Would also be capacity for community leisure space on the site. Kasia Gdaniec Disagree N N Does not take into consideration the village views as In accordance with Policy GROWTH 3, No change represented in the 2011 Village Consultation, which open space provision through S.106 expressed the view that new development opportunities agreements will only be sought from should be balanced by providing vital local infrastructure housing schemes of 20 or more dwellings. which should include outdoor recreation spaces for older children.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Anthony Jolly The area shown in the plan as BOT3 for business units See response above. No change should also be considered as providing green open space and/or play area, or allotments, or cemetery space by linking it with the adjacent POS in Ancient Meadows. Anglian Water BOT3 lies approximately 300m from the WWTW. The Comments noted. No change. WWTW is well screened and there are no odour complaints recorded. AW has completed an odour

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 131 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

assessment for these two sites and the results indicate a low risk of odour impact and we therefore have no concerns with the developments proceeding and no further action in this regard is required. Angela Humphrey N N Strongly oppose any more green belt land being lost for Comments noted. There is a lack of No change future generations. Bottisham is full. capacity within the development envelope to meet local housing and employment needs – therefore additional land is required. The site was identified in the adopted Core Strategy (2009) as an area for employment development to provide additional jobs in Bottisham – and it scores best in the Sustainability Appraisal and Site Assessment work carried out for the Local Plan. The Highways authority has no objection in principle. PW&WA Bullock Effective planting of trees are needed to shield the The third bullet in the policy picks up on the No change proposed developments from the Swaffham Bulbeck importance of landscaping and soft Road and Park Estate. planting to minimise visual impact. Other Comments

Name / Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID

Angela Humphrey Please listen to the people who live in our pleasant, friendly village. We value Comments noted No change our quality of life here and want to preserve it for future generations to enjoy. We do not need further development especially not on Green Belt land. Ann Jones The transport links for Bottisham need to be built into this East Cambs plan. Comments noted. Infrastructure requirement No change There is no bus stop at the end of the village where BOT1 is planned. recognised as set out in improvement table for Congestion already on the Quy roundabout with A14, and more properties in Bottisham. Bottisham and Burwell will make this worse. Anthony Jolly All future development in Bottisham should be determined by a case by case The District Council is the Local Planning No change ‘site specific’ plan involving Parish Council and by public consultation.. Authority and is required to determine planning Developers must meet the requirements of these site specific plans or have applications. This involves consultation with their proposals rejected. Parish Councils and local people, and taking account of their views. Need to recognise that Bottisham infrastructure is under considerable strain and that significant improvements must be in place to make any new housing The Vision picks up infrastructure matters in the or light industrial development sustainable. Should restrict all new housing Infrastructure section. development to windfall ‘brown field’ sites within the existing building envelope avoiding Green Belt. Green Field sites, in particular private With regard to housing targets the 107 houses is gardens, should not be considered for development. an estimate of sites with planning permission and an allowance for small windfall sites that

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 132 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

The Core Strategy identifies 50 houses – now this has changed to 107 may come forward in the plan period. A further houses. requirement for 50 dwellings is needed to meet overall requirements for the District and this is Consultation results from the 2011 East Cambs questionnaire indicated lack unchanged from the Core Strategy 2009 of support for releasing Green Belt land for more new housing. Amongst the top five aspirations resulting from the public consultation included; open recreational areas, allotments, safer roads and an improved evening bus service. In addition to these the village urgently needs to find land for a new cemetery. Brian McKay, Proposed that the former A1303 service station site including his client’s Comments noted. Options for employment were No change Beacon Planning property and neighbouring properties be allocated as an employment growth assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal and site for B1 (business) and B2 (general industry) use. The site is Technical Assessment with BOT2 & BOT3 being approximately 0.7 ha on the south side of Newmarket Road (A1303) close to the preferred sites. This site was not included in the junction with Bell Road. The allocation would: those appraisals being separated from the 1.Contribute to meeting the identified need for employment growth in the village on the south side of Newmarket Road district to build a strong and competitive economy; (A1303). The site lies partly in South 2. Be a sustainable location for employment growth; Cambridgeshire District and has been the 3. Not have a harmful impact on the Green Belt or the countryside; subject of a refusal of planning permission for 4. Deliver employment growth within the plan period; and employment purposes. 5. Is supported by local people through the Bottisham Masterplan consultation.

Bottisham Parish We reiterate all our previous responses and our concerns and opposition to Comments noted. BOT1 & BOT3 were allocated No change Council certain proposals. We felt strongly then that the village did not need nor want in the adopted Core Strategy (2009) and are further development. We accept the statement that no further housing proposed to carry forward into the draft Local allocations are proposed outside the development envelope within the Plan. BOT 2 is a ‘windfall’ site within the current lifetime of the new Local Plan to 2031. We need strongly to stress the development envelope. The Parish Council is following: actively involved in the preparation of a  Infrastructure is groaning Masterplan for BOT1. Infrastructure requirement  Green Belt is being eroded and will be detrimental to the village as a recognised as set out in improvement table for whole Bottisham. With regard to Travellers Sites see  Travellers Sites - further additions would encroach on village amenity comments under HOU9. (the walking area and link up with all the neighbouring villages). This site has technically changed to a scrap yard with permission. Do not support any future growth.  Cemetery - we are actively looking for a site as our cemetery is nearly full.  Our village has seen too many changes and too much growth over the last 20 years which has resulted in lack of village cohesion and loss of village identity Cambs County There will be a need for limited expansion of the current primary school to Comments noted. Agree reference should be to Proposed minor Council cater for 1.4FE of children. The combined secondary school numbers across Highways Agency. modification to table the catchment area of Soham and Bottisham Village Colleges confirm the in the Infrastructure need for a limited expansion of one or both of the schools at a future date. section, 7th row:

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 133 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Secondary school pupil forecasts rise to over 18FE and the combined capacity of the two colleges is currently 16FE. A14 – south of the village – Highways The reference in table on p121 should be to "Highways Agency" as a Authority Agency – provider not the highway authority. The A14…..is lobbying the BOT2 and BOT3 fall within the Safeguarding Area for Bottisham Waste Highways Authority Water Treatment Works. Liaised with Anglian Water's Planning Liaison Agency to introduce Manager who has advised me that the Bottisham WWTW is well screened noise reduction and there are no odour complaints recorded. Anglian Water has completed measures….’ an odour assessment for these two sites and the results indicate a low risk of odour impact. There are therefore no further concerns in the context of the WWTW Safeguarding Area and no further action is required. Chris Swain, We advise that the plan may need to be more flexible with respect to The issue relating to capacity at the Waste Proposed minor Environment certainty around waste water treatment works. Confirmation should come Water Treatment Works is picked up in the modification to Agency from Anglian Water as the asset planning process unfolds this year. This Infrastructure Section in the Bottisham Vision. Infrastructure table, would help the plan to stay within environment and Water Framework However, further clarification could be added, first row: Directive limits, whilst guarding against higher emission waste water which makes it clear that if an upgrade is treatment infrastructure required, this may impact on the phasing of ‘…..Consultation with development, rather than prevent development. Anglian Water would Anglian Water has been consulted as part of the be required to ensure production of the Bell Road Masterplan, and a that capacity is significant issue has not been raised to date. available for further development or whether an upgrade is required (with development coming forward once improvements have been implemented). Dr Jenny Brookman 1. The footpath and lighting in Bell Road need widening and improving Comments noted. No change respectively. Constantly muddy and broken up. 2 The triangle of land opposite the shops should be reduced to create more parking spaces - all too narrow roads when buses, trucks, tractors and cars are passing through. 3. A bus stop at the bottom of Bell Road for 10,11,12 routes would be useful, as would a bus route if the road was improved. James Fitch Traffic congestion at the shop triangle is a problem during school term. Comments noted No change Maybe a better access to the parking (private?) behind the shops could be arranged? The Sewage Works probably will be at full capacity before long. It is already smelly when winds come from the east and north. Jennifer Clark Improvement to infrastructure is absolutely essential before any further Comments noted. BOT1 & BOT3 were allocated No change development - housing, schools or employment - takes place. Concerned in the adopted Core Strategy (2009), and it is

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 134 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

that the sewerage system is inadequate, schools and medical facilities proposed to carry these forward. . The Parish working to capacity, and the village lacks essential community facilities for its Council is actively involved in the preparation of size (e.g. no allotments, few facilities for children, need for new cemetery). It a Masterplan for BOT1, which may provide is difficult to see what benefit Section 106 funding has brought to the opportunities for the provision of new community community - apart from some new footpaths. Thoughtful development of facilities. Further opportunities may come Bottisham could enhance the village provided that the needs of the through new Parish Council Community community are considered and catered for. Sympathetic development of the Infrastructure Levy receipts, as well as S.106 Crystal Structures site would be particularly welcome. agreements. Infrastructure requirement recognised as set out in improvement table for Bottisham. John Overton You will not take any notice of the views of local people but I feel better for The traveller sites are included in Policy HOU 9. No change making my views known. You are sneaky in that you do not invite comments Comments were invited on this policy at the on the proposal to increase the area allocated to so-called travellers. same time as the Bottisham policies. Shelly Deegan & Lack of space for young people to play – need space to pursue healthy Comments noted. New residential schemes in No change Mark Fleet activities such as a BMX track or skate board park. the village are likely to provide opportunities to secure open space/facility improvements through via CIL receipts and S.106 agreements. The Parish Council is actively involved in the preparation of a Masterplan for BOT1. Infrastructure requirement recognised as set out in improvement table for Bottisham. Adrian Hames Overall vision is supported, but need greater emphasis on ensuring that See response above. No change suitable and appropriate levels of infrastructure, local facilities and services are delivered as early as possible in the plan period. The policies to protect the existing facilities are supported, however Bottisham needs a well located children's play area facility, suitable land area for allotments and more public open space and more public rights of way with connections into the surrounding countryside. I would be concerned that BOT1 and BOT2 housing numbers are not sufficient to support financial contributions towards new and improved infrastructure set out in the vision. The result being that we get more housing but not properly improved facilities Kate Vadhia An outdoor recreation facility for children and young people is desperately See response above. No change needed in Bottisham especially as the village continues to expand. The current provision is inadequate. Martin Ibbitt 1. Traffic calming measures would be less necessary if a roundabout was Comments noted. Bottisham is a medium size No change built at the cross roads between the A1303 and Heath Road, Swaffham village with a good range of services and Bulbeck. All the traffic which currently comes through Bottisham to avoid the facilities. There is a need for more housing for traffic calming measures in Stow Cum Quy could be diverted to that junction. local people, and to provide local employment 2. Bottisham is, because of it's infrastructure, getting enlarged. Lode and opportunities. Infrastructure requirement Swaffham Bulbeck have limited infrastructure and there are no plans recognised as set out in improvement table for apparently to increase the size of either village. This seems to be a mistake Bottisham. as increasing the population of these two villages would increase the viability of the villages shops and community facilities which are currently failing. With regard to Travellers see comments under 3. There was reference to 2 more caravan sites at Muckdungle Corner. This HOU9.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 135 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

does not appear on the village plan. As you can see from the village plan the schools and sewerage facilities in the village are already under pressure. No more caravans should be allowed. Mr & Mrs Earle Concerns that development of sustainable villages leads to smaller villages Comments noted. Bottisham is a medium size No change losing their existing facilities. Over-development in a concentrated area is not village with a good range of services and appropriate when other villages need development to become more facilities. There is a need for more housing for sustainable. Bottisham is already over-developed and the infrastructure is local people, and to provide local employment struggling. opportunities. Infrastructure requirement recognised as set out in improvement table for Bottisham. G W Ford Not against a controlled increase of population in Bottisham I trust that the Comments noted. The preparation of a No change local infrastructure will be able to cope. Concerned about the ability of the Masterplans for the land east of Bell Road and existing 225mm gravity foul sewer to cope with growth. My property has the extension of Tunbridge Lane Business Park come close to being flooded, and Tunbridge Lane has flooded on a number will address these matters. Infrastructure of occasions. requirement recognised as set out in improvement table for Bottisham. Also see Anglian Water comments above. R C Daniel We do not want a Gypsy site near the village. Perhaps a site in the Fens Comments noted. See comments under HOU9. No change would be better. Rosemary SC Concerned about the proposed allocation of two sites for travellers within Comments noted. See comments under HOU9. No change Venning walking distance of the village. Will increase the children in the primary school, which does not have the resources. I think there should be a fairer distribution of these sites - why are only two parishes having sites and therefore two each? David Tilley Traveller allocation is not highlighted. The site on the A1303 has been See comments under HOU9 where reference to No change developed over the years in a very unsatisfactory way. Travellers provision is made. Christine Hinch The roundabout junction of the A1303 with the A14 at Quy already jams Comments noted. The Highways authority has No change badly at peak times and should be improved for current and future Bottisham no objection in principle with the level of residents who are mostly employed in Cambridge. The bus service is development. Infrastructure requirement inadequate. The number of buses has been halved in recent years and the recognised as set out in improvement table for service is often erratic. This discourages bus use and is incompatible with the Bottisham. Plan's stated intention of promoting more sustainable transport Jean Horton Bottisham Village College sits on land which was given to the college by the Comments noted. These comments will be No change village, and the college was founded on the vision of serving the village 'from passed to the County Council’s Education team. cradle to grave', as village hall and meeting place. The district council should urge the college and its governing body to continue to reflect on its original purpose and support these key values. An area of children's play equipment was removed from the college's playing fields and should be reinstated. John Dearden I agree with the buffer zone around the SAM as any building on green belt Comments noted. No change must not affect this monument. BOT1 will increase the need for access to a convenient bus stop for the A1303 route to Cambridge and Newmarket as this would help ease the pressure on this road. Kasia Gdaniec The Infrastructure and Community Facilities Table shown in Part 2 shows Agree that the table could be amended to refer Proposed minor that the provider for the development of new public open spaces is the Parish to the District Council as well as the Parish modification to table

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 136 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Council. This should be altered to show it as a District Council responsibility, Council. in the Infrastructure as they will be able to use the Local Plan policies (once amended) to ensure section (4th row): the delivery of essential community facilities. This is likely to continue to be the sole means of securing new open space. Development of new public open space – Bottisham Parish Council / ECDC…’ Mr. Koch The draft review does not consider the impact on increased traffic in and out Comments noted. The Highways authority has No change off the village – need to improve traffic congestion. Spaces/playground no objection in principle with the level of provision should be made at these new sites, especially BOT 1. Allotments development. Infrastructure requirement need to serve the entire village. Noise reduction must be addressed. recognised as set out in improvement table for Bottisham. Matt Bigan Broadly in agreement with the expansion of Bottisham as it is a thriving Support noted. No change village with great amenities such as shops, etc, and needs more permanent housing and employment. See comments under HOU9

However, I am opposed to traveller or gypsy sites being allocated in the area. I believe this will have a negative affect on the village – placing demand on schools and impact on community cohesion. MR &Mrs AH We strongly object to the proposed Travellers allocation at Muckdungle Comments noted. With regard to Traveller Sites No change Shepherd Corner. see comment under HOU9. Infrastructure requirement recognised as set out in Bottisham is now over-built and over-populated. Services are stretched i.e. improvement table for Bottisham. the Doctors Surgery and Post Office. Traffic is a problem in Beechwood Avenue due to the school. traffic is too heavy accompanied by indiscriminate parents parking on grass verges all round the primary school. Peter Walker The plan to develop and expand Bottisham is driven by people who live miles Comments noted. The 107 houses is a broad No change away. Most Bottisham residents do not want this expansion. It is of concern estimate of the total number of dwellings that that the figure of 50 houses has increased to 107. Concern about capacity of could come forward in Bottisham over the Plan water and sewage infrastructure, road congestion issues, and the A14 noise period (including allocations, sites with existing problem. planning permission and an allowance for small windfall sites that may come forward). This estimate is not new – it is included in the AMR and published every year. Infrastructure requirement recognised as set out in improvement table for Bottisham.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 137 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Brinkley 3.2.6 A total of 2 people/organisations made comments on the draft Brinkley Vision. .

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Neil Summers Agree Y Y No further comments Support noted No change Brinkley Parish No View No comment: the development envelope changes for Comment noted No change Council Brinkley were already reviewed in November 2012.

Burrough Green

3.2.7 A total of 1 organisation made comments on the draft Burrough Green Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Burrough Green No View - - Burrough Green Parish Council do not have any Support noted. No change. Parish Council comments after reviewing the documents for the draft local plan.

Burwell 3.2.8 A total of 116 people/organisations made comments on the draft Burwell Vision.

Policy BUR 1: Housing allocation, land off Newmarket Road

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L John Smith Agree Y Y The village needs more housing. There is little space Support noted. No change. within the existing boundaries of the village and this land seems ideal. Martin O'Leary Agree Y Y If Burwell has to have this level of housing Support noted. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 138 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

development, then this is probably the most appropriate area to build on, accepting that people living next to the new development are likely to strongly disagree. S M Byrant Agree Y Y Extra housing for younger people needed but must be Development proposals will be expected No change. sympathetically designed, not crammed together like to reflect the rural character of the village, Myrtyle Place. As little tarmac driveways as possible. reflecting its distinctive design, densities and characteristics. Pat Kilbey Agree Y The housing numbers are as agreed by Burwell Support noted. No change. residents. Sports pitches and open space are an important part of the plan. Footpath, cycle and road links are vital. This policy is positive and deliverable. Jim Woolf Agree Y We need more houses in the country. Good place to Support noted. No change. build as it extends already new development. Roger Lapthorn Agree Y Yes. As long as tastefully implemented with lots of Support noted. No change. greens, trees, hedges. Also thought to be given to scale and access. David Faircuff Agree Y Y Provided there is no further encroachment towards Support noted. No change. Exning and development is planned to ensure the houses are not "crammed in". Ensure that Newmarket Rd does not become a "car park". J Briggs Agree Affordable housing is desperately needed in this area. Comments noted. No change. Sue Evans, Parish Agree Of the options, this is the best site. Support noted. No change. Nurse Simon Fenn Agree Burwell is a vibrant and successful community which The District Council requires the No change. needs to continue to grow. Development has been of a preparation of a Masterplan for the site very low architectural standard and doesn't relate well which will be considered at the outline to the local vernacular or environment. Council should planning application stage. develop a housing scheme to sell with the land. Opportunity to implement an innovative, modern The Council supports the objective of scheme to high environmental standards with design raising design standards across the which improves peoples' lives through the creation of district and expects development an inspiring built environment.. proposals to meet the requirements of Policy ENV 2: Design. Anna Sam Agree I agree with more affordable housing. Has a bypass Although a bypass is not identified as a No change. been considered? Volume of traffic is high through required infrastructure improvement for Burwell now so will increase. The impact of numbers Burwell, the County Council have into schools, doctors, dentist? identified a number of other strategic highway infrastructure improvements within the Council’s Infrastructure Investment Strategy.

It is acknowledged in the Infrastructure section that additional housing growth in Burwell will require expansion of the

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 139 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

primary school and a likely expansion of the doctors surgery Patricia Morrison & Agree Y Question over what access roads may need to feed Development proposals will need to No change. Neil Burns onto Newmarket Road, especially nearer the railway demonstrate through a Transport bridge, and particularly concern for any potential large Assessment that they can adequately increase of traffic onto Isaacson Road, which is already address issues of access, highway safety a short cut to the east side of the village. and traffic management. Janey Gostlow Agree Y Y More housing, and in particular affordable housing, is Support noted. No change. necessary. This location is central and convenient. M F Lamb Agree Believe in village growth within existing boundaries. Support noted. No change Gus Jones, Parish Agree Y N The houses would support existing pubs, shops, The District Council will require the No change. Councillor building society etc. Extra jobs would be created if the preparation of a Masterplan for the area industrial units are built. The housing development prior to approval of a scheme. The would be welcomed if the following concerns are met: Masterplan will provide further information on the location of land uses, roads,  Extra traffic - could be mitigated by through road services, open space and landscaping, linking Newmarket Road to Ness Road via the new and look at principles such as access and development. movement, built form and phasing and will  Doctors surgery - extra land has to be made be submitted as part of an outline available for the surgery building to expand and planning application. extra parking spaces.  Disturbance from noise and nuisance created by sports field and play areas - could be mitigated by planting a double or triple row of Leylandii.  Centralised sporting facility - the need is now and not in 20 years time.  Traffic calming - rumble strips at the entrances and replaces the winking limit signs with traffic lights that turn red when speed limit is exceeded. Michael Smith, Parish Agree Y Y Development will need to happen in the future, best to Support noted. No change. Council be planned and controlled. Laura Barrett Agree Y Y Burwell needs extra housing for growth. Consideration Development proposals will need to No change. however needs to be given to the extra traffic that will demonstrate through a Transport be generated along Isaacson Road and Swaffham Assessment that they can adequately Road. The junction at the end of Isaacson Road will address issues of access, highway safety probably need attention in due course (this is already and traffic management (including the quite an issue when coming up Swaffham Road onto cumulative impact of development within Isaacson Road). Pedestrian crossings will also have to and outside of the village) be considered in this region. This issue will be exacerbated by development in Exning. Don Harrison, Parish Agree Y [No further comment provided] Support noted No change. Councillor Nick Acklam Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Noted. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 140 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

C Nickson Agree Largely agree as this appears 'natural extension' of a Comments noted. It is proposed to amend Proposed minor current site of housing. Traffic control still gives cause the wording of Policy BUR 1 to provide modification of for concern. Policy only mentions sports pitches – increased flexibility for the provision of bullet point 4 of misses out tennis and bowls. non-pitch based sports. BUR 1 to read, ‘4 sports pitches outdoor sports provision’. Miss C Lewis Agree Y It's the right area for development but it should be Comments noted. No change. gradual, and include mixed types of housing. Open land, landscaping etc. are important. B Gaywood Disagree N Policy does not reference if land will be available for Provision of land for self build properties is No change. local people wanting to self-build. referenced in bullet point 2 of the Policy.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Oliver Bellvard Disagree N N 350 dwellings seems too many - the schools, surgery There is an identified requirement for No change. and roads out of Burwell will be unable to cope. additional housing in the district to meet local housing needs. Burwell is a relatively sustainable village with a good range of services and facilities.

Additional housing growth will require expansion of the primary school and a likely expansion of the doctors surgery.

A Transport Assessment will be required to demonstrate safe access to the site and identify the necessary highway improvements and traffic management measurements required. Shona Barton-Hare Disagree N N Nobody has thought things through, traffic schooling See comment above. No change. and doctors are all at bursting point already.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Mr A T Thacker Disagree N N A 100 extra houses in Burwell would clog up all facilities See comment above. No change. in the village. The village is not suited to this amount of expansion and this would cause congestion on roads and overcrowding of other services. Nathalie Richards Disagree N There is no provision of secondary or sixth form Demand for secondary school places No change. education for the extra population - current provision is across the Soham and Bottisham full already. Newmarket Road and Isaacson Road is catchment indicates the need for limited dangerous and busy enough as it is - will cause more expansion of one or both of the schools at traffic - need new access routes and to provide more a future date. Expansion of the current amenities - post office, day centre, nursery care, play primary school was favoured over the

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 141 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

areas and allotments. One huge primary school will provision of an additional school in the not cope. consultation process.

Any application to develop the site will be required to submit a Transport Assessment detailing the highway improvements and traffic management measures required for the scheme.

Further housing growth will help support existing shops and services in the village, and will provide additional public space and enhanced outdoor sports facilities. Mr & Mrs Brooke Disagree The local infrastructure is very close to or at capacity. See comment above. No change Few social amenities for the children and teenagers that already live in the village. The poor condition of the roads in the area would become even worse with a projected 50% increase in traffic. The village of Exning is already a bottle neck for traffic using the A14 eastbound. Need to consider the implications of increased traffic. Jo Jones Disagree N Too large for village to support. Has to be considered There is an identified requirement for No change. in conjunction with planning across county boundaries additional housing in the district to meet and other new homes in adjacent villages. Quy junction local housing needs. Burwell is a relatively takes 1 hour to get through. There is no public transport sustainable village with a good range of after 5:30pm - people have to drive to work and none services and facilities. on Sunday. Cambridge. Have to use bus to get to Sixth Form college. There will be at least 1 extra car per Any application to develop the site will be house. This is not addressed. required to submit a Transport Assessment detailing the highway improvements and traffic management measures required for the scheme.

The District Council will work with commercial operators and the County Council (where applicable) to support improvements to public transport. Megan Goodby Disagree N N Burwell cannot cope with more traffic on the Newmarket See comment above. No change. Road. It will make the village a town and devalue properties. Public transport will not be able to cope with the increase. Where will all of the wildlife that live on the land go? Charlie Kirk Disagree N N Lack of infrastructure, lack of need for amount of Additional housing growth in Burwell will No change. houses destruction of countryside, threat to endangered require expansion of the primary school

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 142 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

species, destruction of farm land, volume of traffic, and a likely expansion of the doctors disruption whilst building is happening the ruining of surgery. Burwell's village structure, urbanisation of the countryside, lack of jobs. They aren't any homeless Additional housing in the village will help people. support existing shops and services in the village, and will also provide additional public space and enhanced outdoor sports facilities.

The Plan aims to maximise the effective re-use of brownfield land within settlements. However, the nature of the district means there is a limited supply of brownfield land, and therefore some Greenfield land is required to meet local housing needs. A Spalding Disagree N Y Number being proposed is far too many. If this goes There is an identified requirement for No change. ahead DS Smith site must be light industrial. Reduce additional housing in the district to meet number of houses on Newmarket Road and move the local housing needs. Burwell is a relatively industrial part to Newmarket Road. sustainable village with a good a range of services and facilities.

Policy BUR 3 proposes the use of the former D S Smith Site for B1, B2 and B8 use (which includes light industrial use). Land on Newmarket Road was identified as the most suitable and sustainable location for housing development. Paula Spalding Disagree No Access only from Newmarket Road. Providing good Access for emergency vehicles will be No change. access to shops and services in the core of the village required from Ness Road, but may also be does not mean that the existing infrastructure can cope required depending on the layout of the with increased footfall/traffic. development proposed.

It is proposed to protect and enhance the core of the village through Policy BUR 4. Simon Ogilvie Disagree N The proposed scale of development is in excess of The vision for growth was supported in No change. what the village needs and would drastically change the consultation on the draft Masterplan vision nature of the village. I feel we are being forced by local for the village. and national government to accept much more development than anyone wants. Kathy Ogilvie Disagree Too many houses and occupants for size of village. There is an identified requirement for No change. Burwell is a village not a town. Primary school already additional housing in the district to meet full, so can't support such large increase. Secondary local housing needs. Burwell is a relatively schools in Bottisham and Soham are not empty either. sustainable village with a good range of

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 143 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Traffic - blockages already at Quy etc. Will the better services and facilities. sounding requirements actually be held to? (i.e. social housing, open space, greener building requirements). Additional housing growth will require expansion of the primary school, and limited expansion of Bottisham and/or Soham Village College. Joshua Smith Disagree N I find the commute to Cambridge largely characterised The County Council have identified a No change. by stationary traffic around the Quy round-about. The number of strategic highway infrastructure road infrastructure is not able to cope with the volume improvements which are detailed within of traffic attempting to enter Cambridge. Inevitably this the Council’s Infrastructure Investment development will increase the number of cars using this Strategy. Such Improvements will be section of road which is completely unsuitable already. I delivered through S106 and CIL am unable to see how an increase in the volume of contributions from developers. traffic will aid in this. Mr & Mrs R P Gates Disagree Need to consider provision of outer perimeter road to See comment above. No change. dissipate peak time traffic movements into the general road network. Colin Smith Disagree N N Although this is possibly the best location for such There is an identified requirement for No change. development it is far too many houses when added to additional housing in the district to meet other potential developments. 1. The local local housing needs. Burwell is a relatively infrastructure is not adequate to support anymore sustainable village with a good range of development without having a severe adverse effect on services and facilities. quality of life here. The school does not have the space. The road network cannot cope at peak times and it Additional housing growth will help takes 2 hours to use public transport to get into the support existing shops and services in the centre of Cambridge. 2. As a resident I object to the village, and will also provide additional hike in council tax to pay for all the extra infrastructure public space and enhanced outdoor and even have to pay a toll on the A14. 3. The open sports facilities. spaces cannot cope with all the extra footfall. Funding for infrastructure requirements will be obtained through a combination of S106 and CIL payments by the developer(s). Mark Featherstone Disagree N I cannot see how you will accommodate increased Policies BUR 2 and BUR 3 allocates 5.5 No change. employment opportunities locally within the proposed hectares of land for employment purposes plans. The largest issues - traffic congestion, doctors with the potential to create 630 additional surgery, schools and employment opportunities in jobs within the village. Burwell. The County Council have identified a number of strategic highway infrastructure improvements which are detailed within the Council’s Infrastructure Investment Strategy. Such Improvements will be delivered through S106 and CIL

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 144 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

contributions from developers.

Additional housing growth in Burwell will require expansion of the primary school and a likely expansion of the doctors surgery – as highlighted in the Infrastructure section. Ian Richards Disagree N I do not believe that the local transport infrastructure See comments above. No change. could cope with the additional traffic. There is unlikely to be sufficient business development on the land assigned to employment to mitigate the additional commuters. The open land and sports pitches will be welcome. Peter Barker Disagree Where would the inhabitants: work go to school go to See comment above. No change. a doctor; go to a dentist Nicola Martin Disagree N Burwell is already too big not enough services already The Plan seeks to allocate 5.5 hectares of No change. i.e. doctors, employment We need food! Building land for employment uses, and will require repeatedly on crop fields not a good idea. expansion of the primary school and a likely expansion of the doctors surgery. Whilst it is required to maximise the re- use of brownfield land, the rural nature of the district means that Greenfield land is sometimes required to meet local housing needs. Rosie Seeks Disagree N N This is precious farmland which once lost cannot be The Plan aims to maximise the effective No change. replaced. There are brown field sites which could be re-use of brownfield land within utilised. settlements. However, the nature of the district means there is a limited supply of brownfield land, and therefore some Greenfield land is required to meet local housing needs. M & J Parker Disagree We disagree on building on productive agricultural land. The Plan aims to maximise the effective No change. Burwell is a village, all the residents desire it to remain re-use of brownfield land within so and keep its community spirit. The proposed settlements. However, the nature of the development is totally unacceptable, especially so close district means there is a limited supply of to a residential care home. If this land was in private brownfield land, and therefore some ownership there would be no question of development. Greenfield land is required to meet local It would remain agricultural - providing us all with much housing needs. needed food. Development will be expected to be in keeping with the rural character of the village, reflecting its distinctive design characteristics and rural tradition. Stuart J, Hare Disagree N N The wildlife animals and view. Comments noted. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 145 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Mark Rasdall Disagree N The infrastructure for school and doctor's surgery is not There has been extensive consultation No change. in place and "may" is not good enough when they are with the local community through already up to capacity. I really resent being told that preparation of both the Burwell leaflets are supposed to have been delivered and we Masterplan and the Burwell Vision. only received one. Clearly there is a plan to do this as under the radar as possible. Improvements to infrastructure required as a result of the new development will be funded from Section 106/CIL payments which are obtained on commencement of development. Christopher Clark Disagree Would be detrimental to the Felsham Chase Estate, Additional housing growth in Burwell will No change. and the whole village. It will stretch the infrastructure. require expansion of the primary school Concerned about road and footpath access, particularly and a likely expansion of the doctors through Felsham Chase/new housing, and congestion surgery. A Transport Assessment will be at the junction near the Post Office. School places are required to demonstrate safe access to already a big problem in the village, children should be the site and identify the necessary able to walk school. highway improvements and traffic management measurements required. Additional housing growth in Burwell will require expansion of the primary school – as highlighted in the Infrastructure section. Shona Barton-Hare Disagree Our schools are bursting at the moment as is Doctors. It Additional housing growth in Burwell will No change. would also spoil the wonderful view and drop the value require expansion of the primary school of houses. and a likely expansion of the doctors surgery – as highlighted in the REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Infrastructure section. A Marshall Disagree N N Insufficient notice taken of the original village survey. The Plan proposes the scale of No change. Building at the current 10 year average was thought to development required to meet the local be acceptable but this plan is way in excess. No plans housing needs of the District to 2031 have been made regarding roads. Traffic through the (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance village is excessive at peak times. Access to with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Cambridge (Quy junction) is critical, often 20/30 min waits. Schooling and doctors facilities given scant The County Council have identified a regard! number of strategic highway infrastructure improvements which are detailed within REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION the Council’s Infrastructure Investment Strategy. Such Improvements will be delivered through S106 and CIL contributions from developers.

It is acknowledged that the proposed housing growth in Burwell will require expansion of the primary school and a likely expansion of the doctors surgery –

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 146 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

as highlighted in the Infrastructure section. M Shuter Disagree N Where I live I have views of the former DS Smith site. I Policy BUR 3 requires development No change. watch various wildlife roam free and watch fauna grow. proposals to protect and enhance the I do not want this changed. Burwell doesn't need to get adjoining County Wildlife site. any bigger.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Robert Owens Disagree Use DS Smith Site for housing. Land on Newmarket Road scored well in No change. the sites technical work, Sustainability Appraisal, and through community consultation. It is considered to be the most suitable and sustainable location for housing development. Mr A G Whitaker Disagree N Land off Newmarket Road is the correct site for any Comments noted. The County Council No change. new substantial housing development. However BUR1 have a statutory duty to provide school does not require the necessary infrastructure limits to places for children and have accounted be applied on a compulsory basis before expansion to for the expansion of the school in their 350+ dwellings. It is not obvious that the additional capital improvements programme. Council Tax revenues will be used to benefit Burwell otherwise. Helen Richardson Disagree I am totally against such a large impersonal approach. The plan proposes the scale of No change. Burwell is a loveable sociable village - could become a development required to meet the local faceless town. Not necessary to build to such a scale. housing needs of the District to 2031 Improvements to recreation ground is all that is needed. (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance Housing should be just for village people. with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Burwell is a relatively sustainable village with a good range of services and facilities.

Development proposals will be expected to reflect the rural character of the village, reflecting its distinctive design, densities and characteristics. Stuart Hunter Disagree Burwell is already getting too large, Infrastructure is See comment above. No change. struggling to cope with the number of residents. I think that an extra 350 houses will make Burwell feel like a small town, rather than a village. Geoff Allen Disagree N Insufficient infrastructure generally i.e. roads/traffic The Infrastructure improvements identified No change. sewerage, schools. No PCT to assist in enlarging Dr in Policy BUR 1 and the Vision, including Surgery. Burwell is a village not a town and should expansion of the school and doctors remain so. Difficulty currently found in emerging surgery, will be delivered through S106 from Isaacson Rd to Newmarket Road and Reach and CIL contributions from developers. Road. Development proposals will be expected to reflect the rural character of the village,

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 147 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

reflecting its distinctive design, densities and characteristics.

A Transport Assessment will also be required detailing the highway improvements and traffic management measures required for the scheme. Mr & Mrs S Hall Disagree Cocnerns about capacity of infrastructure. Development See comment above. No change. of this scale will destroy the village community and turn Burwell into a town. Main concerns are services such as schooling, emergency services and road infrastructure/levels of traffic. Emma Paczy Disagree 1. What is the evidence for housing need in Burwell? The plan proposes the scale of No change. Why 350 houses? "likely to continue to grow" is not development required to meet the local evidence. 2. Landscaping as a buffer to existing housing needs of the District to 2031 housing - what sort? a line of trees? - that would not (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance compliment the visual heritage of approach to a fen with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Burwell village. If the houses are to be built - which I strongly is a relatively sustainable village with a disagree with, then the play/football/open spaces good range of services and facilities. should be on Newmarket Rd, with the dense housing towards the centre of the site. 3. 350 new dwellings would have a major impact on traffic at Quy roundabout. The delays are already unacceptable. T Daggant Disagree Can we cope with schools shops for this amount of Additional housing growth will require See PMM in houses. expansion of the primary school, as ‘Other picked up in the Infrastructure section. comments’ Also need to add reference to the section below. requirement for limited expansion of Bottisham and/or Soham Village College [see County Council response on ‘other comments’ section below ] It is proposed to improve retail facilities for the village in conjunction with Policy BUR 4. Senior Disagree The village needs more sports facilities. Four 'sports Policy BUR 1 requires the allocation of 2.5 Proposed minor pitches' would not meet current needs. An additional hectares of land for outdoor sports modification of population from 350 dwellings would mean that more provision which is in excess of the amount bullet point 4 of than the 4 pitches will be needed. There is a need for of land that would ordinarily be required. BUR 1 to read, many football pitches and at least 3 tennis courts. ‘4 sports Cricket is best provided for sport in the village so it is Consultation revealed that the highest pitches debatable whether extra cricket pitch is required. level of need in the village was for football outdoor sports and cricket provision, although space for provision’. other sports could also be accommodated. It is proposed to amend the wording of the policy to provide

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 148 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

increased flexibility for the provision of non-pitch based sports. Alison Smith Disagree N Y The infrastructure should be a prerequisite of the plan Improvements to infrastructure, including No change. not just a consideration. The school is already at expansion of the school and doctors capacity and the strain of extra pupils would be surgery, will be funded from Section detrimental and unworkable. The Doctors surgery is 106/CIL payments which are obtained on busy and again extra clients will be a considerable commencement of development. strain. Mr & Mrs Dennis Disagree N Too large. Comments noted. No change. G K Prout Disagree N N I do not believe that homes should be built on The Plan aims to maximise the effective No change. productive farmland. Houses should be built, as far as re-use of brownfield land within possible, on brown field sites, such as the D. S. Smith settlements. However, the nature of the Site. I also believe that the development is too large. district means there is a limited supply of The projected population figures given in the draft brownfield land, and therefore some Burwell Masterplan do not support the amount of Greenfield land is required to meet local dwellings proposed. I also believe that local residents housing need. concerns about parking and anti social behaviour have The plan proposes the scale of been brushed aside. development required to meet the local housing needs of the District to 2031 (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Burwell is a relatively sustainable village with a good range of services and facilities. Any application to develop the site will be required to submit a Transport Assessment detailing the highway improvements and traffic management measures required for the scheme. Sarah Hill Disagree  Too much housing concentrated in one area – The plan proposes the scale of No change. Burwell large enough. development required to meet the local  Fear that Burwell will quickly become a town (from housing needs of the District to 2031 extra houses and jobs) (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance  Concern that objections have already been raised with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Burwell previously is a relatively sustainable village with a  Concern over housing being in place before a new good range of services and facilities. school can be built – this is the wrong way round,  Question ease of creation of 630 new jobs Improvements to infrastructure, including  Concern over traffic created by 350 new homes expansion of the school, will be funded (likely to create 700 cars) and 630 new jobs from Section 106/CIL payments which are  Question over who is benefiting from the obtained on commencement of 'Masterplan development. Policies BUR 2 and BUR 3 allocate 5.5 hectares of employment land which will

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 149 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

create an additional 630 jobs in the village. Improving the balance of homes and jobs will help reduce out commuting, support existing shops and services, and will provide additional public space and outdoor sports facilities for the community. Russell Waller Disagree  Oppose large scale development because it will put The plan proposes the scale of No change. further strain on what are already inadequate village development required to meet the local resources. housing needs of the District to 2031  infrastructure investment should be in place prior to (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance more housing. with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Burwell  Misguided expansion of an already oversized is a relatively sustainable village with a Cambridgeshire village. good range of services and facilities.  Traffic situation in Burwell is worsening. Problems Any application to develop the site will be accessing the main roads at peak times and with required to submit a Transport congestion at the Quy roundabout Assessment detailing the highway  Other more appropriate employment areas, with improvements and traffic management better transport links into major centres measures required for the scheme.  Question why scheme on Newmarket Road is being pursued when the medium sized scheme received conciliatory approval from the residents, and why the location on Fordham Road was rejected.  Concern over Council’s handling of petition opposing the proposed housing and playing field space in relation to the old people’s home and the existing Felsham Chase estate.  Concern over job growth only being a target for 2031 and that the long term aim for jobs and containment will be forgotten once the development land has been sold and the additional houses are built.  Serious concerns as to the proposed location of a footpath and access to the playing fields being so close to the old people’s home and existing housing. It will also provide a means of escape from the estates which could be utilised by the criminal fraternity.  Fear that lighting of the playing fields would have a negative effect on the rural feel of the properties in the vicinity. Additionally, the position of this proposed pathway does not align with any other routes from the centre of the village  Plan needs to represent the thoughts and feelings

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 150 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

of the majority of locals, some of whom will have spent the majority of their lives in Burwell, with nothing to gain from expansion, but a large amount of quality of life to lose. Toby Underwood & Disagree Not opposed to new houses for a growing population, Land on Newmarket Road scored well in No change. Linda Underwood however object to the location. Should consider the sites technical work, Sustainability development of the eyesore around Reach Road - just Appraisal, and through community because the proposed land is owned by the council consultation. It is considered to be the does not make it a reason to build houses. most suitable and sustainable location for housing development. The through put of traffic on Isaacson Road through to Stow-Cum-Quy is going to grow considerably due to Land at Reach Road is allocated for more work opportunities being available in Cambridge. employment purposes in accordance with The Stow junction is completely inadequate for current the Core Strategy (2009) and Burwell demand and will worsen if more houses are built. Masterplan (2013)

Current facilities in the village will not sustain new homes. oncern that development would lack character and that the estate would be an eyesore in a very open part of the village

Question over who will benefit from the sale of the land owned by Cambridgeshire County Council and what will the money be spent on? Martin Broadhurst Oppose land being released from agricultural use or The rural nature of the district means No change. should be limited to much smaller development (50 there is a limited supply of brownfield houses). Land connects the village to agriculture and land, and Greenfield land is sometimes the countryside. Large development will bring required to meet local housing needs. unmanageable traffic problems, with particular pressure on Isaacson Road. Concern over impact on the Development Proposals within or affecting Conservation Area and impact of development road a Conservation Area are expected to be of pressures. The impact of developments in both Exning particularly high standard and meet the and Burwell should be assessed together. strict requirements of Policy EN 11: Conservation Areas.

Development proposals will need to demonstrate through a Transport Assessment that they can adequately address issues of access, highway safety and traffic management (including the cumulative impact of development within and outside of the village). M & M Mitcham Disagree Object to building 300+ houses in Burwell. The Improvements to infrastructure required No change. infrastructure of the village is not able to cope as it is as a result of the new development will be

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 151 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

now. Concern that improvements to roads and funded from Section 106/CIL payments infrastructure will not take place until the houses are which are obtained on commencement of built and occupied. Additional population will not find development. employment within the area and will create further gridlock on the roads at peak times. Will employment Policies BUR 2 and BUR 3 allocate 5.5 allocation at Reach Road happen? Fear that Burwell hectares of land for employment purposes will become a housing estate for Cambridge and area with the potential to create 630 additional overspill! jobs within the village. This is expected to increase self containment in the village to 51% by 2031. Brian Flynn, Januarys Disagree N N Not consistent with national policy and unclear whether Burwell is a large village with a good No change. the proposed scale of development is sufficient to meet range of services, and the proposed local housing needs or meet a reasonable proportion of development should help to meet local the overall district-wide housing target. housing needs.

Do not object to this particular site being allocated, but Land on Newmarket Road scored well in object to the site being selected in preference to the sites technical work, Sustainability previously developed land at the former DS Smith site. Appraisal, and through community Re-use of previously developed land encouraged in consultation. It is considered to be the paragraph 17 of the NPPF. Former DS Smith site only most suitable and sustainable location for discounted in the Sustainability Appraisal as a housing housing development. The DS Smith site option due to adverse impacts generated from the loss is allocated for employment in the draft of a large employment site. The marketing evidence, Vision. that no potential occupiers have come forward, and that the site has been unoccupied for 16 years, appear With regard to comments regarding DS to have been ignored. Smith site, see Carter Jonas Employment Feasibility Evaluation March 2013 under Question evidence used in the Sustainability Appraisal BUR 3. Overall concludes: and why land off Newmarket Road was not considered ‘We consider that these allocations are for a mixed-use development, comprising housing and appropriate for a prosperous Village such employment. Believe site has better access to the as Burwell and will enable development strategic road network, than the former DS Smith site. when market recovers.’

Not a Legally Compliant Approach The ‘Stage 2: Plan Preparation – formulation phase’ section of the PAS ‘Legal Compliance Toolkit’ document identifies a range of activities that should be undertaken at the draft Local Plan stage to demonstrate that the plan is legally compliant. Activity No.18 asks the question: “Are you setting out clear reasons for any preferences between alternatives?” There is no reason why a greenfield site was selected for residential development ahead of previously developed land.

There is no evidence to justify this preferred approach.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 152 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

The land off Newmarket Road was not considered for a mixed-use development, including employment uses. The Employment Feasibility Study? for the former DS Smith site should determine whether it needs to be retained for employment uses. If there is a need, then the Council should consider whether that need could be met at the Newmarket Road site.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Debra Radley Disagree N [No further comment made] Noted No change. Susan Richards Disagree The housing allocation will diminish the local and Development proposals will be expected No change. supportive community feel. Need to consider impact on to reflect and retain the rural character of See PMM in primary and secondary school provision, local services the village, reflecting its distinctive design, ‘Other and traffic. The commuter route into Burwell is already densities and characteristics. comments’ congested in the mornings making it difficult to get into below. Cambridge through Stow-cum-Quay or on to the A142 The County Council have identified a at Exning in order to join the A14. Object to the location number of strategic highway infrastructure at Newmarket Road, as close to a large number of improvements which are detailed within Burwell residents. This large new development will the Council’s Infrastructure Investment substantially reduce the visual and amenity benefits Strategy. Such infrastructure currently enjoyed by nearby properties and will add to improvements (including the proposed noise pollution. A housing development would be much expansion to the school and doctors better suited to the Reach Road site where the impact surgery) will be delivered through S106 for local residents would be minimal. and CIL contributions from developers. Need to pick up secondary provision in the Infrastructure section – see response to County Council comments in the ‘Other comments’ section below. Lesley Burge Disagree N Concern that growth will change the character and feel There is an identified requirement for No change. of the village. Burwell is already a large village, The additional housing in the district to meet reasons for growth are not justified – will not lose our local housing needs. Burwell is a relatively facilities if we don’t grow. You cannot dictate where sustainable village with a good range of people choose to shop. More houses/more residents services and facilities . do not guarantee the future of local facilities. People like living in a village - If they wanted additional facilities Development proposals for the site will be they would choose to live in a town or city. expected to retain the rural character of the village, reflecting its distinctive design, densities and characteristics. Janet Peacock Disagree N Provision of suggested infrastructure is insufficient to The proposed infrastructure No change. support the amount of housing suggested. improvements have been made in conjunction with the relevant infrastructure providers and are considered appropriate for the level of growth proposed. Hazel Wilson Disagree Development will spoil my view, outlook and peace and Urban design and infrastructure issues will No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 153 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

quiet. Fear village will not be able to cope with the be looked at the planning application increase of people. Need to expand infrastructure and stage improve bus services. Diane Whitehouse Disagree Fear that development will turn village into a small Additional housing growth in Burwell will No change. town. School and doctors surgery at capacity and will require expansion of the primary school need to be addressed to meet demands of new families and a likely expansion of the doctors living on the estates. There are no guarantees for any surgery. Such improvements will be infrastructure provisions. funded through S106 and CIL payments obtained from developers on commencement of development.

Development proposals for the site will be expected to retain the rural character of the village, reflecting its distinctive design, densities and characteristics. Jonathan Smith Disagree N Will create too many houses and cars will, the roads will There is an identified requirement for No change. be busier and there will be less farmland for food to additional housing in the district to meet grow. local housing needs. Although the Plan seeks to maximise the effective re-use of brownfield land, the rural nature of the district means that Greenfield land is sometimes required to meet local housing need. R P Hall Disagree N N Policy risks damaging or destroying a viable rural See comment above. No change. village and creating an unsustainable housing area surrounded by agricultural land. Jonathan Whitehouse Disagree N N  At the Masterplan Issues Stage the proposal of 350 The plan proposes the scale of No change. homes was rejected by the majority of the residents development required to meet the local in the village in favour of a site for 100 homes. The housing needs of the District to 2031 working party continued to press for an increased (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance number despite the feedback. with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Burwell  The figures supporting 350 homes are not sound. is a relatively sustainable village with a Previous development in the village has been good range of services and facilities. based on commercial development and not actual Access, infrastructure and urban design village need. It is wrong to base a villages future issues will be considered both the growth on this. Masterplan and planning application  The village has a ageing population and through stages mortality will inevitably give up their homes. This is not accounted for in the plan.  Brownfield sites remain in Burwell which are adequate for the immediate needs of those requiring affordable homes (50 as detailed by ECDC)  'Affordable housing' is not defined and the local

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 154 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

residents, including myself, cannot assess this 'unknown'  Concern over the loss of farm and ability of village to feed itself.  Concern over road congestion created by the development in light of increased commuting  Concern that the 350 homes proposal has potential to be isolated and not at all integrated.  Concern over investment required to expand primary school  The number of houses and homes needs to be within the pace of need.  Need for credible community engagement; and to address mistrust over the motives of the proposals.  Build rate for 350 homes at Newmarket Road equates to 17.5 homes per annum. However, the ‘Housing Supply Background Paper February 2013, page 26, item 8. indicates that build rates are 40 per annum. This need clarity and adding to the infill which could rise annually to c.50 per annum which far exceeds demand.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Brian Crysell Disagree Proposed site is totally unsuitable and will destroy the Development proposals for the site will be No change. village character of Burwell. Concern over loss of prime expected to retain the rural character of agricultural land. Council has selected this site to line the village, reflecting its distinctive design, their pockets with the cash from the sale. densities and characteristics. Although the Plan seeks to maximise the effective re- use of brownfield land, the rural nature of the district means that Greenfield land is sometimes required to meet local housing need. Janet Parker Disagree Concern over loss of farm land - should be looking at Although the Plan seeks to maximise the No change. brownfield sites like the David Smith one. Concern that effective re-use of brownfield land, the the site will adjoin the Felsham Chase estate which has rural nature of the district means that no green spaces for residents to enjoy. I think that 350 Greenfield land is sometimes required to houses is too many - an estate of about half that size meet local housing need. would be more in keeping with the character of the village. Has it been demonstrated that there is a need There is an identified requirement for for so many houses to be built? Support 40% provision additional housing in the district to meet of affordable housing but not large numbers of local housing needs. Burwell is a relatively expensive housing. Concern that access to the site is sustainable village with a good range of planned to be from Newmarket Road. The junction of services and facilities . Newmarket Road with Ness Road is already an

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 155 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

extremely busy and dangerous junction. The traffic- Development proposals will however be calming measures there are not effective. Concern expected to reflect and retain the rural over ability of primary school and doctors surgery to character of the village, reflecting its cope with increased numbers and who will fund distinctive design, densities and expansion. characteristics.

The County Council have identified a number of strategic highway infrastructure improvements which are detailed within the Council’s Infrastructure Investment Strategy. Such Improvements (including those relating to the planned expansion of the school and doctors surgery) will be delivered through S106 and CIL contributions from developers. Debra Radley Disagree Y Concern over impact of development on adjoining Development proposals will be expected No change. properties. Fear development will create noise and to reflect and retain the rural character of disruption for residents. Request for a detailed plan to the village, reflecting its distinctive design, be provided to the residents clarifying the boundary of densities and characteristics. The policy the development around Kentwell Place. We hope the seeks appropriate landscaping to act as a existing boundaries will remain intact and unspoilt. buffer to existing development. The Concern that the access route for pedestrians and access route to be provided between cyclists does not provide a through road for traffic. Felsham Chase, Newmarket Road and Ness Road will be for cycle/pedestrian use only. Caroline Judd Disagree Y N Preference was shown in the original public There is an identified requirement for No change. consultation for no growth or very limited infill only. We additional housing in the district to meet have been forced to accept a housing development – local housing needs. Burwell is a relatively does not consider access or traffic management. sustainable village with a good range of services and facilities

Development proposals will need to demonstrate through a Transport Assessment that they can adequately address issues of access, highway safety and traffic management. Caroline Smith Disagree N The proposed location is good, allowing for less There is an identified requirement for No change. elongation of the village, but the scale of the additional housing in the district to meet development is excessive. Concern over infrastructure local housing needs. Burwell is a relatively pressures on road and school. Concern that only 40% sustainable village with a good range of of the proposed development will be affordable housing services and facilities for local families, with the remaining 60% likely to attract new families that will exacerbate existing It is acknowledged that further housing problems. growth in Burwell will require expansion of

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 156 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

the primary school and a likely expansion of the doctors surgery. The infrastructure improvements identified are considered appropriate to meet the needs of new housing development regardless of tenure. Neil Larner Disagree Access to the Newmarket Road at the southern end of Development proposals will need to No change the area is essential and will offer an alternative to demonstrate through a Transport negotiating the junction of the Newmarket Road with Assessment that they can adequately the High Street. There is an opportunity to reserve the address issues of access, highway safety area adjacent to the cemetery for it to be extended in and traffic management. the future. There is also an opportunity to create a green burial ground as part of such an extension. If the Demand for burial land – to be explored BUR1 area stopped at the cemetery, the reduction in with Parish Council. area could be accommodated at the southern end, by aligning its south-eastern boundary with the existing building line to the south of Newmarket Road, making a more definitive 'village entrance' on the approach from Exning. Jill Coleman Disagree N Concerned about the volume of traffic which will use The County Council have identified a No change. Newmarket Road. Isaacson Road will become the main number of strategic highway infrastructure route through to Swaffham Road and towards improvements which are detailed within Cambridge. The commute to Cambridge is already the Council’s Infrastructure Investment problematic during rush hour and will only get worse. I Strategy. believe that there should be several ways in and out of the development, and that public transport links should The District Council will work with be greatly improved. commercial operators and the County Council (where applicable) to support improvements to public transport. Kevin Coleman Disagree N N Proposal did not receive any favourable support. The The plan proposes the scale of No change infrastructure improvements are not shown or development required to meet the local guaranteed. Isaacson road will become a major route housing needs of the District to 2031 from traffic and this will impact on access onto Isaacson (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance Road and the feeder roads to the estates. Concern over with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Burwell increase of traffic, congestion and safety of school is a relatively sustainable village with a children crossing roads. Concern over loss of farm and good range of services and facilities. greater pollution for the residents bordering Isaacson Development proposals will need to Rd and Newmarket Road 7. It can already take 45 demonstrate through a Transport minutes to travel from Quy to Newmarket Road at rush Assessment that they can adequately hour because of the volume of traffic and traffic calming address issues of access, highway safety methods. Delays will only increase here. and traffic management. In addition, the County Council have identified a number of strategic highway infrastructure improvements which are detailed within

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 157 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

the Council’s Infrastructure Investment Strategy. Helen Brown Disagree Concern over provision of infrastructure prior to the Improvements to infrastructure, including No change. building of new houses. Concern over capacity of expansion of the school, will be funded school and doctors surgery and lack of bus service. from Section 106/CIL payments which are Feel that although we have had an opportunity to obtained on commencement of discuss these plans and be part of them (I attended one development. of the working groups in 2011) that none of our concerns and suggestions were acted upon. The District Council is committed to improving public transport links and will Concern over potential loss of village feel created by work with commercial operators and the the new development and impact of Exning's potential County Council (where applicable) to expansion. Has this traffic been accounted for? support improvements to public transport.

The Plan proposes the scale of development required to meet the local housing needs of the District to 2031 (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Burwell is a relatively sustainable village with a good range of services and facilities.

Proposals to develop the site will need to demonstrate through a Transport Assessment that they can adequately address issues of access, highway safety and traffic management (including the cumulative impact of development within and outside of the village) Graham Gordon Disagree N No-one has been able to adequately explain why these The Plan proposes the scale of No change. houses are needed or why Burwell should be forced to development required to meet the local become a large town. The whole process is over housing needs of the District to 2031 complex (draft plans and draft consultancy etc.). (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Burwell is a relatively sustainable village with a good range of services and facilities. Jean Whitaker Disagree N N The growth in housing is excessive compared with See comment above. No change. previous years and against the wishes of the majority of the community (63%) expressed in previous consultations. The housing growth needed by Burwell should be in two categories of expressed need, i.e., more affordable homes for younger people, including single occupancy and more smaller homes for older people including more sheltered accommodation.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 158 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Andrew Walsh Disagree N Significant development on a greenfield site. Further The Plan proposes a scale of No change. substantial growth will harm the village’s character and development required to meet the local place excessive demand on resources. Feedback from housing needs of the District to 2031 the Burwell Masterplan Options consultation showed (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance little support for a development of this size. If with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Burwell development goes ahead, there are insufficient is a relatively sustainable village with a guarantees that it will protect residents adjoining the good range of services and facilities. site, and in particular the impact of a pedestrian/cycle access down Felsham Chase. The development Development proposals will be expected provides a significant threat to the quality of life for to reflect and retain the rural character of Burwell residents. the village, reflecting its distinctive design, densities and characteristics. Appropriate landscaping will be used to provide a buffer to existing developments. Alan Kirk Disagree The land and the view across open countryside will be Comments noted. Any potential risk to No change. totally obliterated. The area will be lost to the wildlife resident wildlife would be addressed at seen there, which includes: Marsh Harriers, Hen planning application stage. Harriers, Buzzards, Hobby falcon, Sparrow Hawk, Kestrel , Hares, Roe Deer, Foxes and Badgers. Recent housing developments and utilising empty properties could meet housing needs without requiring development in Newmarket Road .

There are better ways ahead for Burwell than the outlined “Vision” for Burwell . Support development of the old D.S.Smith site at Reach Road. Object to the destruction of Melton Farm. Melton Farm, and all its land, should be retained. A farm shop outlet there could benefit everyone in the village and provide a viable future for the farm. It could also provide improved access to Burwell Museum to improve its usage.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Paul Sutton, Cheffins Disagree N N The policy has not been properly justified as the most The Plan proposes the scale of No change appropriate housing strategy for Burwell when development required to meet the local considered against the reasonable alternatives. housing needs of the District to 2031 (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance The strategy of locating the housing and open space with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Burwell allocation on one site has not adequately considered is a relatively sustainable village with a the available potential growth options on green-field good range of services and facilities. sites in the most sustainable locations around the eastern edge of the village.

Seek a more rational distribution of housing site allocations, based on the availability and deliverability

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 159 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

of sustainable site locations on the east side of the village. This strategy could deliver more ‘planning gains’ for the local community, as well as mitigate the overall impact of new development on the character and setting of the existing village.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Paul Hasleham Disagree Concern that the current road infrastructure will not Development proposals will need to No change. accommodate the increase in traffic. I don't feel that the demonstrate through a Transport village needs another sports facility – why not improve Assessment that they can adequately the one we have already? Why do we need a marina - address issues of access, highway safety the pleasure of walking along the load is that it's wild and traffic management. and overgrown It is proposed to consolidate outdoor sports provision onto a single site in order to meet current and future need in the village. Policy BUR 5 seeks to improve and enhance public access to the Weirs and Riverside, which is currently spoilt by litter and dumping. John Rollin Disagree N Y I feel there needs to be a more concrete (legally The identified infrastructure improvements No change. binding) link between the expansion and an increase in will be funded by S106/CIL payments the capacity of both the school and Doctors surgery. which will be obtained from developers on Worst case scenario is the new properties are built and commencement of development. there is no money available to increase size of both of these facilities, this would be harmful to existing residents, not beneficial. Paul Palmer Disagree Will cause excessive traffic and drainage problems. The Highway Authority has no objections No change. Surrounding houses will have to put up with building in principle. Access and movement will be work heavy goods lorries and dust. Will damage house considered at the planning application prices. stage Alan Kirk Disagree N N Melton Farm is a valued local amenity. It is an open The Plan proposes the scale of No change rural area with open landscape views. Apart from the development required to meet the local agricultural and horticultural use of this land it is part of housing needs of the District to 2031 the wildlife habitat of the area. Several species of (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance wildlife using this area are protected by law, for with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Burwell example Hobby nesting near Felsham Chase) Recent is a relatively sustainable village with a development of rear gardens for housing along good range of services and facilities. Newmarket Road has caused social problems. Burwell doesn't need to expand to survive. There is a difference between economic growth and housing expansion. Burwell will become an urban area. There is a finite amount of land which cannot sustain continued housing

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 160 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

expansion in an already over populated country.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION I A ORR Disagree N N 1. The development fails to support the primary The Plan proposes the scale of No change principle of community. 2. The construction of this site development required to meet the local is directly beside a number of old and vulnerable housing needs of the District to 2031 people. This is an insensitive approach to those who (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance should be cared for at their time in life. 3. Building on with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Burwell agricultural land should not be first course of action is a relatively sustainable village with a under any circumstances. 4.The development will good range of services and facilities. impact on the quality of life of the people of Burwell for a number of years. Although the Masterplan indicated a growth of 17 houses a year I note that the actually plan is to build 40 houses each year. 5. I have not seen a response from the Joint Strategy Planning Unit and I would expect to see a detailed report from all partnerships to demonstrate that the Duty to Cooperate has been conducted under the Localism Act 2011. Joan Lonsdale Disagree Y Y I am concerned that the number of proposed houses The Plan proposes the scale of No change will be too large and that it will be too easy to lose the development required to meet the local green space between Burwell & Exning. Need more housing needs of the District to 2031 recreational space and proper sports facilities as the (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance current allocation is insufficient. with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Burwell is a relatively sustainable village with a good range of services and facilities.

It is proposed to provide 2.5 hectares of public space and 2.5 hectares of land for outdoor sports provision in order to meet current and future need. Alan How No view I agree as long as roads are adequate, schooling is Support noted. No change. expanded, doctors surgery grows and aesthetics are in keeping. Dr Natalie Gates The vernacular style and character of the village should Development proposals for the site will be No change. be maintained to prevent Burwell being swamped by expected to have regard to the rural the generic housing seen on other housing estates in nature of the village and meet the Burwell over the past twenty years. requirements of Policy ENV 2: Design. Oliver Taylor, Object to the scale of the allocation at land off The plan proposes the scale of No change. Framptons Town Newmarket Road for residential development (350 development required to meet the local Planning (on behalf of dwellings). It is acknowledged in order to meet the housing needs of the District to 2031 Investin Plc.) assessed housing need that some Greenfield land will (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance be required, however, paragraph 110 of the Framework with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. advises that ‘plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value’. In such With regard to comments regarding DS

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 161 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

circumstances, the Former DS Smith Site should be Smith site, see Carter Jonas Employment redeveloped for housing prior to the release of Feasibility Evaluation March 2013 under Greenfield sites. BUR 3. Overall concludes: ‘We consider that these allocations are The Former DS Smith Site is capable of delivering up to appropriate for a prosperous Village such circa. 70 dwellings. Accordingly, the scale of residential as Burwell and will enable development development set out at Policy BUR1 should be revised when market recovers.’ downwards to reflect the capacity of the Former DS Smith Site contributing to housing delivery and to minimise the amount of Greenfield land take. The allocation of the Former DS Smith Site for residential development would be consistent with national planning policy.

Policy BUR 2: Employment allocation, land at Reach Road

Sound/ Name / Organisation Agree/ Legally Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree compliant S L John Smith Agree Y Y The area is already used for employment and this policy Support noted. No change. would increase available land and enhance a clearly run- down site. Martin O'Leary Agree Should be some provision for increased Support noted. No change. industrial/commercial development. So OK. Alison Davis Agree Y Y To go along with provisionally expanding the village, we Support noted. No change. need more employment which would attract local people. It needs to create more of a balance. Mark Featherstone Agree Y [No further comment provided] Support noted. No change. Nicola Martin Agree Y All employment in village is good although I would prefer Although large scale employment will No change. more in centre of village. be directed to allocated employment sites, small schemes within the centre of the village may be supported. Rosie Seeks Agree N N I agree with using this land but it could also be housing. Comments noted. No change. James Perry Agree Y Y There needs to be more employment in Burwell. Support noted. No change. Mr A T Thacker Agree Y Y Further employment is very suitable for the area, and would Support noted. No change. ideal for local youth etc. A J Lewis Agree Y We need more employment in the village. Support noted. No change. Miss C Lewis Agree Y Burwell needs more opportunities for business premises. Support noted. No change.. Jo Jones Agree Need local employment. Support noted. No change. A Spalding Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Noted. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 162 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Paula Spalding Agree Y [No further comment provided] Noted. No change. Mark Rasdall Agree N I agree in principle but there is no guarantee businesses Comments noted. No change. would be able to afford to allocate there so it is essentially a red herring. S M Byrant Agree Y Y Business opportunities needed. Use of cars to commute Support noted. No change. Peter Barker Agree Manufacturing should be encouraged nationally. Support noted. No change. Anna Sam Agree But would prefer to see availability for housing to be Comments noted. The site was No change. increased rather than business. identified as a potential employment site in the adopted Core Strategy (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013). Alan Kirk Agree [No further comment provided] Noted No change. John Rollin Agree Y Y The estimates of possible future employment seem to be Comments noted. The site was No change. inflated to push the plan through, 293 additional jobs of the identified as a potential employment former DS Smith site are currently 'pie in the sky', if the site in the adopted Core Strategy current stalemate on the proposed use for this land (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan continues there will be no jobs there for decades to come. (2013) to meet employment needs to Add to this the current economic situation I feel the number 2031. of additional jobs figure should be severely reduced to a more reasonable figure, say 1/3 of the current prediction. I A ORR Agree Y N I have no real objection BUR2 being allocated for Support noted. No change. employment. However there seems to be a lack of vision as regards the detailed development of this site. Joan Lonsdale Agree Y Y I feel that it is important to attract and retain as much Support noted. No change. employment in the Village as possible. Nick Acklam Agree N N It is right to increase local employment provision for the Comments noted. The site was No change. inhabitants of Burwell and Reach. But this land should only identified as a potential employment be developed once the DS Smith brownfield land has been site in the adopted Core Strategy redeveloped. (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013). Both sites are required to meet employment needs to 2031 Jim Woolf Agree Y Y [No further comments] Noted. No change. Ian Richards Agree Y [No further comments] Noted. No change. Alison Smith Agree [No further comments] Noted. No change. Roger Lapthorn Agree Y Please ensure visual screening on side towards village. Also Urban design will be looked at the No change. essential that noise and light pollution from these units is planning application stage avoided in village direction. G K Prout Agree Y If there is a need for employment development this is Comments noted. The site was No change. probably the most suitable site. However, has land at the identified as a potential employment north end of North Street/Broads Road been fully site in the adopted Core Strategy considered? (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013). The latter considered alternative options.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 163 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Debra Radley Agree Y [No further comment required] Noted. No change. Janet Peacock Agree Y We need more local employment for the existing population See comment above. No change. of Burwell and due to the lack of regular public transport for younger people so they do not have to be able to drive into Cambridge, Newmarket or Ely. If new homes are built then there will not be sufficient jobs for existing population. Hazel Wilson Agree Y Y Providing employment in this area (especially for teenagers) Support noted. No change. would take the strain of trying to get into Cambridge. Beacon Planning Ltd Agree Y Y Strongly support allocation for B1 (business) and B2 (general Comments noted. No change. (on behalf of Mr P industry). Allocation has strong local support and is Cornes and co- sustainable and deliverable. Demand for high quality office owners) B1 office use exceeds supply, whilst supply of B2 space has declined in recent years. A mix of B1/B2 uses would contribute to satisfying demand for these uses within the district

Policy BUR 2 should be worded more positively, such as ‘Planning permission will be granted for employment development (B1/B2) which:’.

The bullet points should only include requirements that are specific to this particular site. The last bullet point stating ‘comply with other policies of the Local Plan’ is superfluous as any proposal within the district would be assessed against the development plan in its entirety. REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION M F Lamb Agree [No further comment provided] Noted. No change. C Nickson Agree [No further comment provided] Noted. No change. Emma Paczy Agree I agree we need to ensure adequate employment Support noted. No change. opportunities in the village. Jill Coleman Agree Y Creating jobs within the village is a positive step, and the Comments noted. Development No change. area at Reach Road is currently an eyesore. I am concerned proposals for the site will need to about the increase in traffic that this will probably entail ensure there is sufficient capacity at however. The road will need to be upgraded, and there could the Reach Road/B1102 junction be problems at the junction of Reach Road and Swaffham Road. Patricia Morrison & Agree Y Existing industrial use would encourage and enable Support noted. No change. Neil Burns expansion of further small units, and give a village workforce easy access from home. Janey Gostlow Agree Y Y There is already employment allocation in this area and Support noted. No change. more seems sensible. Kevin Coleman Agree I agree that we need more employment in Burwell. However, Policy BUR 2 allocates the site for No change. this should be high growth, high impact employment. Burwell B1/B2 use which includes offices, is already a feeder village to the high tech/bio tech business research and development and light

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 164 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

in Cambridge and start-up units and a business incubator and general industry. The site is not would be of value to many looking to start their own allocated for storage and distribution businesses. My worry is that this area is used for low-value purposes (B8). businesses in the transportation or delivery areas and if this is the case I do not agree. Helen Brown Agree I have reservations about the provision of jobs for local Development of land at Reach Road No change. people part. If the housing expansion on Newmarket Road is could create an additional 337 jobs in to cover this, how can it be guaranteed that people moving the village. Although jobs will not be into the village will work locally? It cannot be guaranteed that restricted to local people alone it is locals will be employed in the village by the expansion at estimated that the level of self reach road. This will create a lot of traffic for the village. It containment in Burwell could would be interesting to see just what kind of employment is increase to 51% by 2031 likely to be offered here Alan Kirk Agree I agree with the development for Reach Road industrial area Support noted. No change. including the old D.S.Smith site . Gus Jones Agree Y N The present industrial sites in Burwell are fully occupied. Comments noted. No change. There is a need for extra capacity now. The roads for the extra industrial sites should be made ready as soon as possible and the site made ready for sale or for building as need arises. Michael Smith Agree Y Y Would be essential to have more employment as the village Support noted. No change. grows. Laura Barrett Agree Y Y Employment allocation needed and site appropriate. Agree Comments noted. Development No change. that site is in a bad state of repair and this should be dealt proposals for the site will need to with in anticipation of interest in the site. Traffic at junction ensure there is sufficient capacity at with B1102 will need serious consideration as this road is the Reach Road/B1102 junction very busy and currently at capacity. There is a pedestrian crossing already at this site Don Harrison Agree Y Y Reach Road needs improvement for traffic junction with See comment above. No change. Swaffham Road. Paul Sutton, Cheffins Agree Y Y This site makes a sensible location for employment Support noted. No change. development Pat Kilbey Agree Y Employment allocation is appropriate here and vehicular Support noted. No change. access and its impact on the village is essential. This policy is deliverable and forward thinking. R P Hall Agree Y Y More employment opportunities need to be created. That Support noted. No change. said, the policy lacks specificity. Mr & Mrs R P Gates Agree The area in general is already used for that purpose. Support noted. No change. Brian Crysell Agree [No further comment provided] Noted. No change. David Faircuff Agree Y Y A badly needed employment and income opportunity for Support noted. No change. Burwell. Provided it does not encroach any further out of Burwell. Sue Evans, Parish Agree This land is suitable for future development as a business Support noted. No change. Nurse park.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 165 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Simon Ogilvie Agree Y Scale of development is much more realistic than BUR 1. Support noted. No change. Joshua Smith Agree Y Y Anything that acts to decrease the numbers of commuters Support noted. No change. into Cambridge will positively impact the area. B Gaywood Disagree N N There is no requirement that the land will be developed for It is expected that the site will be No change. employment in any particular timescale. delivered within the Plan period, although no specific phasing is identified. Oliver Bellvard Disagree N N Flood plain needs quite substantial thought. Comments noted. Applicant will need No change. to demonstrate that flood risk on the site can be adequately mitigated at the planning application stage – as picked up in the policy. Nathalie Richards Disagree Green areas are disappearing and are precious to wildlife Comments noted. The site was No change. and for the mental wellbeing of people in the village. identified as a potential employment site in the adopted Core Strategy (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013) Megan Goodby Disagree N N [No further comment provided] Noted. No change. Charlie Kirk Disagree N N Farm land should be retained. The Plan seeks to maximise the No change. effective re-use of brownfield land however Greenfield land is sometimes required to meet local housing and employment need. Colin Smith Disagree N N I object to the development because it is outside the Comments noted. The site was No change. envelope on prime agricultural land. All traffic accessing this identified as a potential employment will need to turn off a busy section of road in the village. It site in the adopted Core Strategy will also impact on the views from Devils Dyke and the (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan footpath from the village in that direction. (2013). Access and urban design will be looked at the planning application stage M & J Parker Disagree Y Y 1. This land has laid waste for a very long time. Although it is Comments noted. The site was No change. an eyesore site, it does have a major problem - this needs identified as a potential employment looking into. In particular 'Wilbraham Water', together with site in the adopted Core Strategy natural springs - BUR 3 also. 2. Light industrial will mean (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan more lorries, vans etc. - adding to even more chaos. 3. (2013). Access, flood risk and urban There are vast number of vacant industrial properties on the design will be looked at the planning market what need is known for industrial buildings on this application stage site? Stuart J Disagree N N Should be confirmed. Comments noted. No change A Marshall Disagree Sufficient commercial buildings are empty and available in Policies BUR 2 and BUR 3 seek to No change. the surrounding area. Better to use "brownfield" sites for increase self containment within the housing to save agricultural land. You cannot "force" village through the creation of 630 commercial development. new jobs. Although the plan seeks to maximise the re-use of brownfield

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 166 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION land (BUR 3), the nature of the district means that greenfield sites are sometimes required to meet local growth needs. M Shuter Disagree N Employment means more traffic and the risk of accidents to Comments noted. The site was No change. our children and OAPs. identified as a potential employment site in the adopted Core Strategy REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013). Access and movement will be looked at the planning application stage Robert Owens Disagree This site is not acceptable for major industry. Poor access Comments noted. The site was No change. etc., that is why DS Smith move use this site for new home. identified as a potential employment Not a greenfield site. site in the adopted Core Strategy (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013). Mr A G Whitaker Disagree N Uses greenfield site before the existing brownfield land at DS Comments noted. The site was No change. Smith site and rear of Reach Road existing industrial estate identified as a potential employment has been fully used. Policy BUR 3 should be enforced first, site in the adopted Core Strategy not separately, and then only the BUR2 considered. (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013). Both sites are required to meet employment needs. Alan How Disagree This is land only. Do not believe it will create jobs. Comments noted No change. Geoff Allen Disagree N Commercial Reach Road. Same reasons as given in box Comments noted. No change. 4. Senior Disagree Further details of type of employment, industry etc. needs to Comments noted. No change. be available before one can comment. Mr & Mrs S Hall Disagree Brownfield sites should be developed before considering Comments noted. The site was No change. greenfield sites. identified as a potential employment site in the adopted Core Strategy (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013). Mr & Mrs Dennis Disagree N [No further comments] Noted. No change. Susan Richards Disagree This land would be better suited to housing where the new Land off Newmarket Road sored well No change. houses would have minimal impact on existing residents. in the sites technical work, The traffic implications would also be lesser (although still Sustainability Appraisal and through substantial), situated as it is at the far end of the village. Its community consultation as a location location would also reduce the overall density of housing in for housing development. It is the centre of Burwell in comparison to that suggested in BUR identified as the most suitable and 1. sustainable site for housing development. Lesley Burge Disagree N Y There is no commitment from employers at this stage – The development of land at Reach No change. suspect proposal is being used to persuade people into Road could create an additional 337 agreeing with the housing plan. Why would Burwell be an jobs in the village. The District

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 167 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

attractive proposition? Should improve the bus service Council is keen to increase the level to/from places where employment opportunities already exist of self containment in Burwell and - Ely, Cambridge etc. A good bus service would be needed reduce out commuting. to allow them the flexibility to do so. Diane Whitehouse Disagree N Is there any interest from any company large or small that Comments noted. The site was No change. would like to base themselves here? Why spend money identified as a potential employment developing something that may sit empty? It seems that this site in the adopted Core Strategy is going ahead in the hope new employers will move to the (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan village and create lots of jobs. How many jobs will go to the (2013) to meet employment needs to people of Burwell? Have ECDC carried out surveys at peak 2031. times to see how the village and the routes to Ely and Cambridge are already congested massively at peak times? Site would be better for smaller units - more suitable for size and infrastructure of village. Jonathan Smith Disagree N This should be kept as a field. It can be used to grow food Comments noted. The site was No change. again. This field is outside of the main development identified as a potential employment envelope. The BUR 3 area is much better for employment, site in the adopted Core Strategy because that's what it's been used for before. The BUR 2 (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan area should not be used, at least until the BUR 3 area is in (2013) to meet employment needs to full use for jobs. It's between the Burwell castle and Devil's 2031. Ditch, on the Earthworks Way, and should be kept as an area that looks nice. Jonathan Whithouse Disagree N 1.The allocation of the employment site at Reach Road, Comments noted. The site was No change. based on the DS Smith vacant plot is stagnant. The land is identified as a potential employment within private owners whom have not sold since vacating site in the adopted Core Strategy some 20+ years ago. It is unrealistic that employment will be (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan generated in this location and a compromise should be (2013) to meet employment needs to sought with the owners. 2. Further ECDC investment in the 2031. location is required. 3. Burwell is not designed to cater for heavy manufacturing and opportunities are being missed by the Working Party with regard to support realistic, local and fledgling business. Small starter units are absent yet many people work from home. 4. This area plus the marina could both be developed for high skilled (Low commute) business. 5. Allocating land does not generate Employment as depicted in the plan. I believe this to be very very misleading to a layman. 6. Housing is usually based on demand. However, building housing to generate long term employment is flawed and will, without any doubt, increase unemployment density in the village.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Mr & Mrs Brooke Disagree Our concerns relate to housing infrastructure & roads. Access and movement will be looked No change. at the planning application stage

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 168 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Janet Parker Disagree Although I agree that more employment opportunities should Comments noted. No change. be provided, I feel that the BUR2 location will add to the elongation of the village. Debra Radley Disagree Y The only problem I foresee with this project is again traffic Comments noted. The site was No change. congestion, especially from the hours between 8.00 to identified as a potential employment 9.00am, and again from 16.00 to 18.00. Again a more site in the adopted Core Strategy detailed plan should be sent to local residents, explaining (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan what the Councils proposals are to expand the roadways to (2013) accommodate the huge influx of traffic. I also feel the Access and movement will be looked Council are building on the wrong side of Cambridge. They at the planning application stage should place more emphasis in the South side of Cambridge if they want access to local bus and train services, shops and banks etc. Burwell is a Village NOT a Town. Caroline Judd Disagree Y N The existing land earmarked for employment is still lying Comments noted. The site was No change. unused so what makes anyone think that even more land will identified as a potential employment be utilised. site in the adopted Core Strategy (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013). Both sites are required to meet employment needs to 2031 Caroline Smith Disagree N This is currently a greenfield site, with the potential to be Comments noted. The site was No change. brought back into agricultural production. It is also partway identified as a potential employment between the historic sites of the Devil's Dyke and the Burwell site in the adopted Core Strategy castle site in Spring Close, and therefore should be kept to (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan uses which are visually unobtrusive, as part of the (2013) Earthworks Way. Even more importantly, the Bur 3 site has The County Council raised no lain dormant for a number of years now - there is absolutely objection in relation to the site NO reason to even consider looking at the BUR 2 site until regarding its archaeological impact. the BUR 3 site has been FULLY utilised. Also, the presumption is that any jobs created are likely to be filled by Burwell people, but this just doesn't happen all that often these days - increasing employment provision here may just lead to extra inward commuting, to go along with the out- commuting. Graham Gordon Disagree N N [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Jean Whitaker Disagree N N No additional greenfield land should be allocated while Policy BUR 3 seeks the allocation of No change. nearby brownfield sites remain unused (and have been so brownfield land at the former D S for many years), because the greenfield sites will be cheaper Smith site for employment purposes. to develop. Instead, the policy should seek to deal with the existing site. Paul Palmer Disagree [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Paul Palmer Disagree Houses will cause excessive traffic problems and spoil a Comments noted. The site was No change. piece of land which could be used as park land. The identified as a potential employment development will cause less drainage so more flooding will site in the adopted Core Strategy happen, and the surrounding houses will have to put up with (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 169 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

ten years of building work, heavy goods lorries, and dust. (2013) Will damage value of house. Access, flood risk and urban design will be looked at the planning application stage Stuart Hunter No view Whilst I feel that Burwell has already outgrown its Comments noted. No change. infrastructure, additional employment opportunities are always welcome J Briggs Reach Road is quite busy with lorries etc. already and Access and movement will be looked No change. includes a bend which probably needs a 'no parking' stretch at the planning application stage if more traffic is likely. Andrew Newton, Ely This site is within the Swaffham Internal Drainage District but Comments noted. It will be important No change. Group of Internal in an area that drains into the Board's surface water for any developer to address surface Drainage Boards receiving system. The Board's surface water receiving water issues, as set out in Policy system has no residual capacity to accept increased rates of ENV 8 in Part 1 of the Plan. surface water run-off in connection with new development proposals. The Board do not support or object to the proposal but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to development of this site to protect lands and properties within the District from increased flood risk. Work must be undertaken at the expense of the developer of the site and maintained in perpetuity by a competent authority. Please not that a consent is required direct from the Board to create any new discharge into or increase the rate of flow in any watercourse or piped system within the District in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning process. Helen Richardson This hopefully won't affect village life too much and as there Comments noted. The site was No change. is already units there seems sensible to extend that way. But identified as a potential employment nothing huge and silly. But is it really needed !!! Burwell is site in the adopted Core Strategy a village! (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013).

Policy BUR 3: Employment allocation, former DS Smith site, Reach Road

Sound/ Summary of response ECDC response Action Name / Organisation Agree/ Legally & ID Disagree compliant S L John Smith Agree Y Y The village has to provide employment for residents to try to Support noted No change. cut down the amount of out-commuting and to give our children a chance to find work without having to face the costs involved in running their own car or having to rely on the existing diabolical public transport service.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 170 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Miss C Lewis Agree Y We need more opportunities for employment within the Support noted No change. village. Alison Davis Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Mr A T Thacker Agree Y Y Employment is the major cause in the village, and would Support noted No change. ease local fears, for the future. A J Lewis Agree We need more employment within the village. Support noted No change. Jo Jones Agree Y Y Already brownfield site. Well located for Support noted No change. employment/business. Megan Goodby Agree [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Charlie Kirk Agree This area should be turned into a useful space, as it's Comments noted. The site was No change. currently brownfield site. identified as a potential employment site in the adopted Core Strategy (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013). The site is required to meet employment needs to 2031 A Spalding Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Paula Spalding Agree Y [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Simon Ogilvie Agree Y This area is overdue being developed! Why consider BUR 1 Comments noted. The site was No change. when the area of BUR 3 has been left derelict and a mess identified as a potential employment for years. No joined-up thinking! site in the adopted Core Strategy (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013). The site is required to meet employment needs to 2031 Joshua Smith Agree Y Y I have been asking why nothing has been done with this land Support noted. No change. since I was a small child it is about time somebody does this. Colin Smith Agree Y Y I agree fully with this. This is a site that has been industrial Support noted. No change. for a long time and is appropriate to continue to use it for employment. Although it would be good if it employed a lot of people and not just a warehouse that covered the site but only employed a few people. Peter Barker Agree Build a factory and encourage somebody to manufacture Support noted. No change. something in this country. M F Lamb Agree [No further comment provided] Noted No change. C Nickson Agree [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Mr A G Whitaker Agree N Local employment opportunities are a must to balance Support noted No change. housing development and ensure substantial growth for supporting the infrastructure investment. S M Byrant Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Sue Evans, Parish Agree This land has been vacant for years and is an eyesore. It Support noted No change. Nurse should be developed as a business park and will then provide employment opportunities. Pat Kilbey Agree Y This is appropriate and for the as indicated in Burwell Support noted No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 171 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Masterplan. The policy is justified, positive and deliverable. Jean Whitaker Agree Y Y Support noted No change. Alan Kirk Agree I agree with the development for Reach Road industrial area Support noted No change. including the old D.S.Smith site . Gus Jones Agree Y The factory should have been totally demolished when Support and comment noted No change. planning permission for the development at Reach Road was given. If the present owner of the derelict portion does not wish to develop this site for industrial use compulsory purchase should be considered by giving the current price for brownfield sites minus the cost of demolishing the derelict buildings. Michael Smith Agree Y Y Ideal site Support noted. No change. Laura Barrett Agree Y Y Employment allocation needed and site appropriate. Support noted. No change. Don Harrison Agree Y DS Smith land for business use is good. Support noted. No change. Paul Sutton, Cheffins Agree Y Y This site has a history of employment use and is well located Support noted. No change. to the existing village. It makes sound planning sense to continue the employment allocation. Alan Kirk Agree The Council figure of 2000 jobs being created at this site Support and comments noted No change. seems wildly optimistic , However it is a disgrace that this industrial area has been left to fester for so long. More local jobs would be welcome . Nick Acklam Agree Y Y Local jobs are needed and this site is currently unproductive. Support and comments noted No change. Joan Lonsdale Agree Y Y It has always been the Village's wish that this site was Support and comments noted No change. developed for business use and that it should provide space for start-up businesses and some 'live/work' units. Mark Featherstone Agree [No further comment provided] Noted No change. David Faircuff Agree It was a former industrial area. Traffic control could easily be Support noted No change. absorbed by the current road system. It would allow a welcome injection off employment to the village. Emma Paczy Agree I agree we need to ensure adequate employment Support noted. No change. opportunities in the village. T Daggant Agree Y Y More people more jobs. Support noted No change. Mr & Mrs S Hall Agree This site has been derelict for many years and consequently Comments noted. No change. is unsightly and dangerous. Previous employment on the site lends itself to redevelopment. Debra Radley Agree N [No further comments] Noted No change. Janet Peacock Agree Y We need provision of employment for the existing population Support noted. No change. of Burwell and also to prevent the need to drive or use public transport to work in Cambridge, Newmarket and Ely. Jonathan Smith Agree Y Y This was used for employment before, and should be used Comments noted. No change. for this again. It should NOT be used for houses. There are probably dangerous chemicals there, which would be

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 172 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

dangerous for children. R P Hall Agree Y Y Again, the needs and opportunities speak for themselves. Support and comments noted No change. However, by this stage of a planning process, more substantive proposals should have been put forward. Janet Parker Agree I think that this is a good location for providing further Support noted No change. employment opportunities. Patricia Morrison & Agree Y In view of the rapid expansion of the science and technology Support and comments noted No change. Neil Burns industry in Cambridge, surely the DH Smith site must have enormous potential as a business park? I don't think that the village centre has much potential for developing more parking. I would like to have more information on where you consider this might be. Caroline Smith Agree Y Y If the owners are reluctant to act to sell this land for Support and comments noted No change. employment as designated then it should be compulsory purchased and made available. This is land used for employment in the past, and there is absolutely no reason for it not to continue thus. Currently it is lying derelict, and the owners seem to be hoping that the Council will 'blink first' and change the usage to housing, but this should not be allowed to happen. Jill Coleman Agree Y Creating jobs within the village is a positive step,, however I Support noted. The Highway No change. am concerned about the increase in traffic that this will Authority have no objection in probably entail principle. Access other infrastructure requirements will be looked at the planning application stage Janey Gostlow Agree Y Y This area is former employment allocation land. Support noted No change. Kevin Coleman Agree I agree that we need more employment in Burwell. However, Support and comments noted. Policy No change. this should be high growth, high impact employment. Burwell BUR 3 allocates the site for B1/B2 is already a feeder village to the high tech/bio tech business use which includes offices, research in Cambridge and start-up units and a business incubator and development and light and would be of value to many looking to start their own general industry and for storage and businesses. My worry is that this area is used for low-value distribution purposes (B8). businesses in the transportation or delivery areas and if this is the case I do not agree. Helen Brown Agree I have reservations about the provision of jobs for local Development of land at Reach Road No change. people part. If the housing expansion on Newmarket Road is could create an additional 293 jobs in to cover this, how can it be guaranteed that people moving the village. Although jobs will not be into the village will work locally? It cannot be guaranteed that restricted to local people alone it is locals will be employed in the village by the expansion at estimated that the level of self reach road. This will create a lot of traffic for the village. It containment in Burwell could would be interesting to see just what kind of employment is increase to 51% by 2031 likely to be offered here Mr & Mrs R P Gates Agree The area in general is already used for that purpose Support noted. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 173 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Brian Crysell Agree [No further comments provided] Noted No change. Jim Woolf Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Ian Richards Agree Y Yes including the provision of the protection of the County Support noted No change. Wildlife Site. Roger Lapthorn Agree Y Needs to be low intensity "clean" businesses like electronics, Support and comments noted No change. bio industries and not noisy! Screen with trees from housing. Nicola Martin Agree Y All employment in village is good although I would prefer Although large scale employment will No change. more in centre of village. be directed to allocated employment sites, small schemes within the centre of the village may be supported. Rosie Seeks Agree [No further comment provided] Noted No change. James Perry Agree Y Y This was agreed to be commercial right at the start years Support noted No change. ago and must be pushed through even with compulsory purchasing powers. Nathalie Richards Disagree [No further comment provided] Noted No change. B Gaywood Disagree When will the land be developed Eaxct date is not known, but required No change. to meet employment needs up to 2031 Martin O'Leary Disagree Y Y I do not think there is sufficient demand for employment on Comments noted. The site was No change. this site. Developers appear to be holding out for land to be identified as a potential employment rezoned for residential development. The land is a brownfield site in the adopted Core Strategy site which could be used for housing. (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013). The site is required to meet employment needs to 2031 M & J Parker Disagree Y Y Although it has laid waste for a very long time and is an Access, movement and flood risk No change. eyesore, the area around it has become a pleasant will be looked at the planning residential part of the village. It has a major water problem - application stage see BUR2. The through traffic on Swaffham Road will make it very difficult for lorries, vans and cars from this site to join the mainstream in particular towards Cambridge. A roundabout at the junction would not be an asset - traffic lights would be worse and cause major holdups on the High Street and Isaacson Road. Stuart J Disagree N N [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Shona Barton-Hare Disagree N N No reason for employment down there. Far too many houses Comments noted. The site was No change. down there already! identified as a potential employment site in the adopted Core Strategy REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013). The site is required to meet employment needs to 2031 A Marshall Disagree As it's not needed, put the houses here! See ECDC response above. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 174 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION M Shuter Disagree N Burwell is a village, not a place for factories that why I live See ECDC response above No change. here. REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Robert Owens Disagree This site should be used for housing. See ECDC response above No change. Anna Sam Disagree Extend housing as stated. See ECDC response above. No change. Helen Richardson Disagree If more housing is needed wouldn't it make more sense to See ECDC response above. No change. build more houses here with a small play area within it. No need for lots of house - Burwell is a village! Alan How Disagree This land has been vacant and unused for so long I do not Comments noted. The site is No change. believe this plan will change that. required to meet employment needs to 2031 Geoff Allen Disagree N Inadequate road structure. Existing traffic very heavy and The Highway Authority have no No change. causes congestion at junctions at Newmarket Road/High objection in principle. Access and Street/Newmarket Road/Isaacson Rd & Isaacson Rd & movement will be looked at the Reach Road. planning application stage Alison Smith Disagree I am not convinced that Reach Road can cope with the The Highway Authority have no No change. increased traffic caused by having industrial development objection in principle. Access and sited here. movement will be looked at the planning application stage G K Prout Disagree N N This brown field site should be used for housing. Whilst Comments noted. The site was No change. employment development is very laudable I think the take up identified as a potential employment will be poor. Although employment may be provided for site in the adopted Core Strategy people within the village, I suspect that some employees, (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan such as those with specialist skills, will have to come from (2013). The site is required to meet elsewhere. Also goods and materials will have to be employment needs to 2031 delivered to and from the site quite frankly the infrastructure The Highway Authority have no does not exist. There are no A roads into Burwell, there is no objection in principle. Access and rail link and the bus service is little better than Wells Fargo. movement will be looked at the planning application stage Brian Flynn, Januarys Disagree N N Not effective, not justified and not consistent with national Comments noted. The site was No change. (on behalf of DS policy or with paragraphs 17 and 22 of the National Planning identified as a potential employment Smith) Policy Framework (NPPF). site in the adopted Core Strategy (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan Consider that the most appropriate reuse for the site is (2013). The site is required to meet residential, unless there is evidence that small business units employment needs to 2031. could be delivered as part of residential-led mixed use See above conclusions from Carter scheme. Jonas Employment Feasibility No prospect that the site will be used for employment Evaluation March 2013 purposes. The site has been actively marketed for 21 months but has not resulted in any interest from potential occupiers due to the characteristics of the site and the availability of other more suitable sites. The marketing has been comprehensive, and has included additional actions by

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 175 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

the Council.

There is no evidence to justify the site assessment in the Draft Final Sustainability Appraisal. The marketing evidence, the fact that no potential occupiers have come forward, and that the site has been unoccupied for 16 years, has been ignored. The review process to determine whether the site should be retained for employment uses is not credible or robust. The loss of an employment site which is currently vacant, and for which there is no demand, would have no impact on the ‘Economic Activity’ sustainability objective.

The retrospective evidence gathered through the Employment Feasibility Study should confirm whether the site needs to be retained for employment uses.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Susan Richards Disagree This land would be better suited to housing where the new Land off Newmarket Road was No change. houses would have minimal impact on existing residents. identified as the most suitable and The traffic implications would also be lesser (although still sustainable site for housing substantial), situated as it is at the far end of the village. Its development. location would also reduce the overall density of housing in the centre of Burwell in comparison to that suggested in BUR 1. Lesley Burge Disagree N Y This remains vacant for a reason. It is not required. Just Comments noted. The site was No change. because space is made available and usable, doesn't mean identified as a potential employment companies will locate here site in the adopted Core Strategy (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013). The site is required to meet employment needs to 2031 Diane Whitehouse Disagree N Is there any business interested in the site? See above conclusions from Carter No change. Jonas Employment Feasibility Evaluation March 2013 Jonathan Whithouse Disagree N The allocation of the site at Reach Road, based on the DS Comments noted. The site was No change. Smith vacant plot is stagnant. The land is within private identified as a potential employment owners whom have not sold since vacating some 20+ years site in the adopted Core Strategy ago. It is unrealistic that employment will be generated in this (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan location and a compromise should be sought with the (2013). The site is required to meet owners. Further ECDC investment in the location is required. employment needs to 2031 Burwell is not designed to cater for heavy manufacturing and opportunities are being missed by the Working Party with regard to support realistic, local and fledgling business. Small starter units are absent yet many people work from home.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 176 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Shona Disagree N N We don’t need factories or anything like that there. Comments noted. The site was No change. Barton-Hare REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION identified as a potential employment site in the adopted Core Strategy (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013). The site is required to meet employment needs to 2031 Mr & Mrs Brooke Disagree Again, in our view the infrastructure will be unable to cope The Highway Authority have no No change. objection in principle. Access other infrastructure requirements will be looked at the planning application stage Debra Radley Disagree Y Concern over traffic congestion at peak times. A more The Highway Authority have no No change. detailed plan should be sent to local residents, explaining objection in principle. Access and what the Councils proposals are to expand the roadways to movement will be looked at the accommodate the huge influx of traffic. I also feel the planning application stage Council are building on the wrong side of Cambridge. They The site was identified as a potential should place more emphasis in the South side of Cambridge employment site in the adopted Core if they want access to local bus and train services, shops Strategy (2009) and the Burwell and banks etc. Burwell is a Village NOT a Town. Masterplan (2013). The site is required to meet employment needs to 2031 Caroline Judd Disagree Y N The existing land earmarked for employment is still lying The site was identified as a potential No change. unused employment site in the adopted Core Strategy (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan (2013). The site is required to meet employment needs to 2031 Graham Gordon Disagree N N [No further comments] Noted No change. John Rollin Disagree Y Y The estimates of possible future employment seem to be The site was identified as a potential No change. inflated to push the plan through, 293 additional jobs of the employment site in the adopted Core former DS Smith site are currently 'pie in the sky', if the Strategy (2009) and the Burwell current stalemate on the proposed use for this land Masterplan (2013). The site is continues there will be no jobs there for decades to come. required to meet employment needs Add to this the current economic situation I feel the number to 2031 of additional jobs figure should be severely reduced to a more reasonable figure, say 1/3 of the current prediction. Paul Palmer Disagree Will cause excessive traffic and drainage problems. The Highway Authority have no No change. Surrounding houses will have to put up with building work objection in principle. Access other heavy goods lorries and dust. Will damage house prices. infrastructure requirements will be looked at the planning application stage I A ORR Disagree N N I disagree with the proposal to develop this into an The site was identified as a potential No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 177 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

employment site. This is a brown field site that should be employment site in the adopted Core reserved for housing. It is less intrusive that BUR1 and Strategy (2009) and the Burwell though would not be able to meet perhaps the load in the Masterplan (2013). The site is long term it would take the initial pressure of the plans for required to meet employment needs expansion. to 2031 Ann South No view As BUR 2. Noted No change. Senior Further details of type of employment, industry etc. needs to Comments noted No change. be available before one can comment. Andrew Newton, The This site is within the Swaffham Internal Drainage District but Comments noted. It will be important No change. Ely Group of Internal in an area that drains into the Board's surface water for any developer to address surface Drainage Boards receiving system. The Board's surface water receiving water issues, as set out in Policy system has no residual capacity to accept increased rates of ENV 8 in Part 1 of the Plan. surface water run-off in connection with new development proposals. The Board do not support or object to the proposal but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to development of this site to protect lands and properties within the District from increased flood risk. Work must be undertaken at the expense of the developer of the site and maintained in perpetuity by a competent authority. Please not that a consent is required direct from the Board to create any new discharge into or increase the rate of flow in any watercourse or piped system within the District in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning process. Oliver Taylor, The Plan is not sound, in particular Policy BUR3 has not Comments noted. The site was No change. Framptons Town been positively prepared, is not justified or effective, and the identified as a potential employment Planning (on behalf of policy is not consistent with paragraphs 17 and 22 of the site in the adopted Core Strategy Investin Plc) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). (2009) and the Burwell Masterplan Representation seeks allocation of the Former DS Smith Site (2013). The site is required to meet for residential development. employment needs to 2031. Carter Jonas Employment Feasibility Site has been vacant since 1997 and has been marketed Evaluation March 2013 concludes since June 2010. Correspondence from Januarys Consultant that Surveyors to Framptons suggests that “whilst there may be development is likely once the an appetite from the local authority to retain the site in market improves or there is an employment use, the market sentiment shows that there is identifiable requirement from a no demand for this and that an alternative use for the site business in the Village looking to should be sought” In such circumstances national planning expand, and that the allocation will policy advocates consideration ‘for alternative uses of land enable development in the village and buildings’ and that these considerations ‘should be when the market recovers. treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses’.

The evidence base underpinning the adopted Core Strategy

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 178 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

and the emerging Draft Local Plan reinforces the findings from Januarys’ marketing exercise. The site is unattractive for economic development and has very little or no prospect of being redeveloped for employment use. The District Council has recently commissioned Carter Jonas to carry out a feasibility study regarding the viability of the site for employment use –concludes there is no market demand for the site to be retained for employment use and that the site should be considered for alternative use.

The Draft Local Plan fails the tests of soundness and there is no objectively assessed demand to retain the Former DS Smith Site for employment development. It is submitted that the Policy BUR3 should be abandoned and the site re- allocated for residential development.

Policy BUR 4: Burwell Village Centre

Sound/ Agree/ Name / Organisation Legally Disagree/No Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID compliant View S L John Smith Agree Y Y The village needs facilities at a minimum of the current level Support and comments noted. See No change. and preferably with a greater choice. Residents have to have Infrastructure and community shops and other facilties within the village to discourage facilities table travelling outside. Martin O'Leary Agree Y Y This is OK. Support noted No change. Miss C Lewis Agree Y We need more shops, more parking. Support and comments noted. See No change. Infrastructure and community facilities table Mr A T Thacker Agree Y Y The village would benefit from added facilities which would Support and comments noted. See No change. be suitable for the present population of the village. Infrastructure and community facilities table A J Lewis Agree Y The existing retail and community facilities should be Support and comments noted. See No change. maintained, and as far as possible, extended by attracting Infrastructure and community new businesses. facilities table Nathalie Richards Agree Agree (with parts) Pedestrian and cycle route Support and comments noted. See No change. enhancements are essential. Any marina development would Infrastructure and community disturb the precious habitat from the Lode and surrounding facilities table. Natural England reedbeds - many rare species are known to be there - would be consulted on any Marina bittens, hen harriers and warbler etc. development. Jo Jones Agree Y Y Will need more pedestrian crossings to get across roads - Support and comments noted. See No change. even without any additional housing. Infrastructure and community

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 179 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

facilities table A Spalding Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Paula Spalding Agree Y [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Simon Ogilvie Agree Y Very modest proposals - maybe too modest?! Support and comments noted No change. Joshua Smith Agree Y Y All of the suggestions have been desperately needed for a Support noted No change. while. Colin Smith Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Mark Featherstone Agree [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Rosie Seeks Agree [No further comment provided] Noted No change. James Perry Agree Y Y For all the reasons in Policy BUR4. Support noted. No change. M & J Parker Agree Y Y The village has lost the following retail shops over the last 30 Support and comments noted. See No change. years: electrical, diy shop, grocery shops, butchers, dress Infrastructure and community shop, shoe shop, florist, restaurants, pubs and a hotel. The facilities table greatest loss to the village was Burwell District buses and the railway, together with 2 very good schools - and a resident police officer. A Marshall Agree ? ? The area is constrained by space, you can't do much. Support and comments noted No change. S M Byrant Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Sue Evans, Parish Agree [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Nurse Robert Owens Agree [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Mr A G Whitaker Agree Y Well thought out as far as it can be for detail. Support noted No change. C Nickson Agree Important to retain existing retail units especially those Support and comments noted No change. accessed by ageing population. Improved footpaths would also help them. Helen Richardson Agree Please don't spoil our village. You've already spoilt it enough Support and comments noted No change. thinking it’s a town. I know this is a 'village mentality' but isn't that the point. Burwell is a village Alan How Agree All good. Support and comments noted No change. David Faircuff Agree The present facilities are struggling to cope. It would be Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. useful to home all sports catered for in a couple of sites and community facilities table rather than spread out. Sport should be encouraged. Alison Smith Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Support noted No change. Jim Woolf Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Support noted No change. Ian Richards Agree Y Centre of village should remain vibrant especially if parking Support and comments noted No change. on the road by the Co-op can be solved. Roger Lapthorn Agree Y [No further comment provided] Support noted No change. Susan Richards Agree I agree that the village centre needs to be maintained for Support and comments noted. No change retail in order for the village to continue to thrive. Planning permission should be granted for any additional retail units e.g. a cafe.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 180 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Jonathan Smith Agree Y Y It's good that shops, pubs, etc should stay as shops, pubs Support and comments noted. No change and businesses, not changed to houses. Eg the Crown pub should stay as a pub or be used for shops or offices, not housing. Safer cycling and walking in the village would be good. Jonathan Whitehouse Agree Y [No further comment provided] Support noted. No change Brian Crysell Agree [No further comment provided] Support noted. No change Mr & Mrs Brooke Agree [No further comment provided] Support noted. No change Janet Parker Agree I agree with this policy. We should try and retain the very Support and comments noted. No change few retail premises as far as possible so that residents do not have to travel to Newmarket and Cambridge to do all their shopping. We should be encouraging new retail businesses to open in the village centre but not charity shops. Caroline Judd Agree Y N [No further comment provided] Support noted. No change Patricia Morrison & Agree Y Your second point is worthy but where would those Support and comments noted. No change Neil Burns additional uses be sited? We are not sure what other kinds of retail outlets are needed in Burwell? The development of a Weirs village trail is a good idea and would enable walkers to link up with the walking and cycling paths recently laid. Improved signage and landscaping would improve usage. We think the idea of a small marina on the Weirs is a good one, as boating facilities in the surrounding area are always well taken up, and it would bring more trade into the village. Caroline Smith Agree Y Y All good common sense proposals, to maintain and enhance Support and comments noted. No change existing services, and improve things for pedestrians and cyclists, which is good for their health and the environment alike. Jill Coleman Agree Y [No further comment provided] Support noted. No change Helen Brown Agree Y Y Agree although there are no suggestions for improving. With Support and comments noted. See No change. expansion we will need a few more shops and a bigger post Infrastructure and community office etc. would like more information about suggestions for facilities table. improvement, not just the need to retain certain aspects, although it is reassuring that the council have taken this into consideration. Pat Kilbey Agree Y This is what is needed in the village centre. Support noted. No change. Jean Whitaker Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Support noted. No change. Andrew Walsh Agree [No further comment provided] Support noted. No change. Gus Jones Agree Y N Retaining all premises that are or have been used as retail is Support and comments noted. See No change. good; as it is unlikely to make any other buildings useable for Infrastructure and community more retail. Enhanced cycle routes are unlikely due to the facilities table. narrow width of the roads.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 181 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Michael Smith Agree Y Y Centre needs to be retained, as it caters for all. Support and comments noted No change. Laura Barrett Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Support noted No change. Don Harrison Agree Y Parking is important. Support noted No change. John Rollin Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Support noted No change. Nick Acklam Agree Y Y Viable retailing important to the health of the village. More Support and comments noted. See No change. paths and cycle tracks healthier, safer, greener. Infrastructure and community facilities table I A ORR Agree Y N These are good measures that I fully support. Support noted No change. Joan Lonsdale Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Support noted No change. Hazel wilson Agree Y Y enhancing what we have is good. Support noted. No change G K Prout Agree Y Y There needs to be sufficient retail, community and parking Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. facilities within Burwell to support the village. If the village is and community facilities table to grow it will be it will be important to maintain and enhance these facilities. T Daggant Agree Y Y More companies and jobs need more houses. Support and comments noted No change. Kevin Coleman Disagree I think that Burwell doesn't have the vibrant centre you Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change describe. There are few shops of quality. There is little off and community facilities table. street parking. Other shops are spread throughout the village. Parking needs to be addressed particularly if BUR 1, and need to modify the junction at the Newmarket Road/High Street intersection. Paul Palmer Disagree The village is big enough. People in Burwell do not want any Comments noted No change. of these developments. Megan Goodby Disagree Burwell has enough facilities already for a village. We are not Comments noted No change. a town. Stuart J Disagree N N [No further comment provided] Noted No change. M Shuter Disagree N [No further comment provided] Noted No change. REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Shona Barton-Hare Disagree N N Shouldn’t even be considered. Noted No change. REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION B Gaywood Disagree N N There needs to be a link road around the village, from The Highway Authority have no No change. Newmarket Road to Ness Road before this size of objection in principle to development development can go ahead. at BUR 1, and do not require a link road to be provided – although other REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION improvements are needed. Peter Barker Disagree We have more than enough cycle routes and pedestrian Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. routes - reinstate a usable bus service instead. Increase bus and community facilities table service to/from Cambridge. Redevelop existing retail units that have been turned into housing - more shops and more retained income for the local community. 'Self containment'. Geoff Allen Disagree N Inadequate road structure. Access issues will be considered at No change. planning application stage, and will

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 182 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

need to accord with Policy COM 7. Senior Disagree Traffic flow around the Co-op, the Fox is woeful at present - See ECDC response above. additional 350 dwellings will make this much worse - Action needed. Emma Paczy Disagree It’s not really a policy! Keep what we've already got, here Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. here! Encourage more retail? Not a bad idea in itself but and community facilities table there are no details, so cannot really comment. Mr & Mrs S Hall Disagree Existing village businesses should be protected. Further Comments noted. No supermarket No change. development of the village centre should not be open to proposals included. large stores such as big supermarket chains etc. as this will cause Burwell to lose its identity and become the same as any other village/town centre. Mr & Mrs Dennis Disagree N [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Debra Radley Disagree N [No further comment provided] Noted No change. Stuart Hunter Disagree There's nothing wrong with the village centre as it is Noted. No change Lesley Burge Disagree N Y [No further comment provided] Noted. No change Shona Barton-Hare Disagree N N Same as before ruined countryside. Comments noted. No change. REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Debra Radley Disagree Y [No further comment provided] Noted. No change Janet Peacock Disagree N ? There are other needs that should be addressed before Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change providing cycle routes and more car parking. We have a and community facilities table. growing elderly population and young people who do not have adequate public transport for accessing other villages etc for shopping and employment. Funds should be allocated to these areas first. Diane Whitehouse No view N There really isn't much going to change here. New Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change pedestrian and cycle routes, where? Cycle parking - where? and community facilities table. Is this an attempt by the council to encourage people to cycle and therefore cut down the traffic? I don't think this will make any difference to the people who do or don't cycle already anyway. This policy seems to be a nothingness only as a way of distracting people from the fact that this village is about to grow way beyond its current limitations. Nicola Martin No view Concerns regarding increased traffic caused by Weirside The Highway Authority have no No change. marina. Cycle routes and ex-serviceman car park - good objection in principle. Access other idea. infrastructure requirements will be looked at the Masterpan and planning application stages M F Lamb Only comment regarding centre is the busy road through The Highway Authority have no No change. village causing hold ups due to large vehicles and North objection in principle. Access other Street and Causeway due to poor and inconsiderate parking. infrastructure requirements will be All areas in village are accidents waiting to happen. looked at the Masterpan and planning application stages

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 183 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy BUR 5: The Weirs/Riverside

Sound/ Agree/ Name / Organisation Legally Disagree/No Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID compliant View S L John Smith Agree Y Y I support this policy but have reservations about the scale of Support and comments noted No change any river or recreation facilities that may be devalued because of potential problems with traffic. Miss C Lewis Agree Y Road access for users of marina must be considered - not Support and comments noted. A No change via North Street/The Causeway. Transport Assessment will be required to demonstrate that additional traffic generated can be accommodated. Mr A T Thacker Agree Y Y This also would benefit the present population of the village. Support and comments noted No change A J Lewis Agree Y Development of the Weirs area may increase employment Support and comments noted No change opportunities, and perhaps even tourism. Jo Jones Agree [No further comment provided] Support noted No change Megan Goodby Agree [No further comment provided] Support noted No change A Spalding Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Support noted No change Paula Spalding Agree Y [No further comment provided] Support noted No change Simon Ogilvie Agree Y [No further comment provided] Support noted No change Joshua Smith Agree Y Y More public footpaths are required as the existing ones are Support and comments noted. See No change based to the point of becoming extremely muddy. Infrastructure and community facilities table Colin Smith Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Support noted No change Mark Featherstone Agree Y [No further comment provided] Support noted No change Rosie Seeks Agree Y Y Excellent. Support noted. No change. James Perry Agree Y Y Burwell needs this enhancement we need to do something Support and comments noted. No change having lost all the "Hythes" to development of houses. M & J Parker Agree Y Y This is a pleasant area and the road links Burwell with Reach Support and comments noted. See No change - while it has to remain a through road it will quickly become Infrastructure and community spoilt by lots of 'visitors' - wildlife will be disturbed. It will facilities table become dangerous for walkers and cyclists - perhaps the old Recreational Ground could become a car park ensuring that people walk. Its tranquillity once lost will never be regained. S M Byrant Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Support noted No change Sue Evans, Parish Agree This is an area of the village that could be developed. At Support and comments noted. No change Nurse present part of it are an eyesore. Robert Owens Agree [No further comment provided] Support noted No change

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 184 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Ann South Agree It would be nice attraction to the village. Support noted No change Anna Sam Agree [No further comment provided] Support noted No change C Nickson Agree Agree that this is a key open space and its appearance could Support and comments noted. A No change be enhanced. I would not however be in agreement of any Transport Assessment will be development which would involve a bridge over the river at required to demonstrate that the bottom of Hatley Drive due to (a) appearance (b) additional traffic generated can be increased car/foot traffic (c) increased noise levels in what is accommodated. See Infrastructure currently deemed a quiet area. and community facilities table Senior Agree About time too. Support noted No change Mr & Mrs S Hall Agree Agree that more can be made of the Weir for local Support and comments noted. No change recreation/wildlife etc, however the development must be Consultation will be undertaken with small, in keeping with the existing environment and Natural England and the conservation of wildlife the priority. Environment Agency Alison Smith Agree Y Yes [No further comment provided] Support noted No change Jim Woolf Agree Y Yes [No further comment provided] Support noted No change Ian Richards Agree [No further comment provided] Support noted No change Roger Lapthorn Agree Y Good idea. Support noted. No change. Alan How Agree Fantastic! But strongly believe this will never happen. Support noted No change David Faircuff Agree The Lode is an "untapped" opportunity, that would allow Support and comments noted. No change employment and income generation to the village. Provided it is managed correctly and the environment is safeguarded. Debra Radley Agree Y [No further comment provided] Support noted No change Susan Richards Agree I agree, so long as the current wilderness character of the Comments noted. No change. area is carefully maintained. Diane Whitehouse Agree Y This appears to be a really good thing for the village and will Support and comments noted No change hopefully create more real jobs for people in the village. Although I dare say the new houses being built will be funding this therefore if we don't all agree to those then we won't get this! Jonathan Smith Agree Y Y I like the idea of a village trail and safer cycling. It's good Support and comments noted. No change. that any development should be for the benefit of us in the village, and small-scale in keeping with the area. R P Hall Agree Y Y The potential appeal and benefits of this area need to be Support and comments noted. No change. realised. Mr & Mrs R P Gates Agree The Weirs Riverside has always been a place where local Support and comments noted. No change. people have enjoyed the outdoors in all its forms and this can only be good for the residents. The proposed Marina is good for youth employment and activities if it can be done with minimal impact to the scene which has been largely unchanged during our lifetime. Caroline Judd Agree Y N [No further comment provided] Support noted. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 185 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Patricia Morrison & Agree Y [No further comment provided] Support noted. No change Neil Burns Caroline Smith Agree Y Y This area should be maintained and enhanced for the Support noted. No change. enjoyment of locals. Jill Coleman Agree Y I agree that much more could be made of this area of the Support noted. No change. village. Janey Gostlow Agree Y Y An improvement to the riverside would be a good thing. Support and comments noted. No change. Kevin Coleman Agree [No further comment provided] Support noted. No change. Helen Brown Agree Y Y Aree as it could be greatly improved and become a real Support noted. No change. asset to the village and bring tourists during the summer if we could improve the cycle routes to the village via the lode. Pat Kilbey Agree Y This is the positive way forward for the Weirs/Riverside Support noted. No change Jean Whitaker Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Support noted. No change. Andrew Walsh Agree [No further comment provided] Support noted. No change. Gus Jones Agree Y From the bottom of Hythe Lane to First Drove is the Weirs Support and comments noted. A No change right of way. To allow all year round use for pedestrians 1 Transport Assessment will be meter width of the path must be hardened. The CIL portion required to demonstrate that given to the Parish Council should be retained to pay for this additional traffic generated can be ensuring that the population is encouraged to take health accommodated. See Infrastructure walks and enjoy the countryside. and community facilities table.

If the marina is built there should be no limit set on the number of boats as only pedestrian traffic will be generated. The tourists would generate extra income to the business people of Burwell. The opening to the Marina would be across a public right of way. The developer of the Marina would have to construct a foot bridge to allow both boats and pedestrians to pass. Instead of linking the public right of way across the Marina entrance the bridge could be built across Burwell Lode.

A new right of way along the far side of the marina should be created to allow walkers access from Dyson Drove to Burwell Lode. Jonathan Whithouse Agree Y [No further comment provided] Support noted No change. Brian Crysell Agree [No further comment provided] Support noted No change. Janet Parker Agree I agree with this policy but with reservations. I am not sure Support and comments noted. A No change whether a small marina development would attract many Transport Assessment will be tourists. I like the idea of having a village trail and better required to demonstrate that bicycle access links. However, any development would additional traffic generated can be need to be on a very small scale and in character with the accommodated. See Infrastructure area. As I live in North St, not very far from the Anchor,I am and community facilities table. concerned about the impact this might have on traffic in this

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 186 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

road and also what parking arrangements will be provided as there are a lot of parked cars on the street near our house. Michael Smith Agree Yes Yes Have to keep open spaces, and improved where possible. Support and comments noted. No change. Laura Barrett Agree Yes Yes Parking and access will be critical to success of any Support and comments noted. No change. development. Don Harrison Agree Y [No further comment provided] Support noted. No change. Paul Sutton, Cheffins Agree Y Y Site performs well as a key area of public open space for the Support noted. No change. people for Burwell. John Rollin Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Support noted. No change. I A ORR Agree Y N These is also a good measure and could be developed Support noted. No change. further with general agreement. It has considerable potential and would be within the principles of village development. Joan Lonsdale Agree Y Y [No further comment provided] Support noted No change. Nick Acklam Agree Y Y There is a massive environmental, conservation and Support noted. No change economic benefit to be had by sensitive redevelopment of the area. I am staggered that it hasn't happened earlier. Boating potential - especially for canoes, paddleboards and punts - is really exciting and ties Burwell back to its roots. Mr A G Whitaker Agree Y Sensitive to local needs. Support noted No change Christopher Clark Agree Could give Burwell an added interest and highlight our Support and comments noted. No change walkways a watersides. Stuart J Disagree N N [No further comment provided] Comments noted No change Shona Barton-Hare Disagree N N Ruining yet more beautiful surroundings! This was consulted on as part of the No change Burwell Masterplan 2013 B Gaywood Disagree N N This has not been consulted on, it is the whimsical notion of This was consulted on as part of the No change Council living in fairyland. Burwell Masterplan 2013 Nathalie Richards Disagree New trails etc. would turn this area into a Nature Reserve Comments noted. A Transport No change where people would disturb (maybe not knowingly) - the Assessment will be required to thing that makes the area special and important. Cycle demonstrate that additional traffic bridge on Exning Road needs to be accompanied by a cycle generated can be accommodated. path/route along the whole road - it is not safe to cycle on at See Infrastructure and community the minute. As said before just extending the current primary facilities table school will not accommodate many children who for various reasons need to be at a smaller school. The access to outdoor and indoor sports facilities is essential at reasonable costs so as not to discriminate. Medical facilities need expanding. Emma Paczy Disagree The narrow lanes approaching that area are not conducive to See ECDC response above. No change it being developed. It will end up like a bottle neck. A queue of traffic trying to get in to be a beauty spot, and no way to turn around or for people to be able to drive out. Martin O'Leary Disagree Y Y Actually quite like the Weir and Burwell Lode as they are. Comments noted. No change Can see the point for some improvement but I think it is low

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 187 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

priority for public money. Charlie Kirk Disagree N N [No further comment provided] Comments noted No change A Marshall Disagree It’s a natural area, leave it alone! This was consulted on as part of the No change Burwell Masterplan 2013 Peter Barker Disagree What is the point? Forget the repetition of extraneous cycle This was consulted on as part of the No change routes. Or Build a proper cycle canal and get it working to Burwell Masterplan 2013 reduce transportation traffic on the road. M Shuter Disagree N [No further comment provided] Noted No change Geoff Allen Disagree N Reasons as before. Noted No change G K Prout Disagree I am not convinced about the development of a small marina. Comments noted. A Transport No change Any marina would have to be in the area at the rear of the Assessment will be required to Anchor pub. Beyond this point the Lode is too narrow and demonstrate that additional traffic shallow. If located in this area the only access is from North generated can be accommodated. Street and Anchor Lane. North Street at this point is quite See Infrastructure and community narrow and Anchor Lane is a single track road. I cannot see facilities table. Consultation with these roads being able to accommodate extra traffic. Also CFPAS will be undertaken the fishing rights on the Lode are held by Cambridge Fish Preservation and Angling Society (CFPAS). On such a narrow waterway fishing and boating do not mix well and more consideration needs to be given to angling, which is recognised as the biggest participant sport in the County. In the summer the Lode is too weedy for power boats as the weed clogs propellers and cooling in-takes. Stuart Hunter Disagree It's fine as it is. Comments noted No change Shona Barton-Hare Disagree N N As again ruining countryside. Comments noted. No change Janet Peacock Disagree N There is no provision for the cleaning, widening and Comments noted. A Transport No change maintenance of the Weirs shown. Also for car parking and Assessment will be required to access. This will need to be addressed first to encourage demonstrate that additional traffic more use of the Lode. generated can be accommodated. See Infrastructure and community facilities table. Debra Radley Disagree Y [No further comment provided] Noted No change Paul Palmer Disagree The village is big enough now. People in Burwell do not want Comments noted No change these developments. T Daggant Y Y Not sure on this one. Noted No change Helen Richardson In principle! Small development! in the past there was very Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change simple fishing happens anyway and the fishermen are and community facilities table. happy. Don't spoil our village !! Although if the worry is about rubbish, how about you employ someone to look after it once a week or twice depending on need! As I'm sure this would suffice! Chris Swain, Need to add a river naturalisation criteria to Policy BUR 5 to Accepted that this change could be Proposed minor Environment Agency ensure that the plan does not result in deterioration of the useful. modification to

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 188 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Burwell Lode‟s ecological status, or preclude its Policy BUR 5 enhancement to „good ecological potential‟under the Water as follows (new Framework Directive by strengthening or prolonging the bullet): lifetime of artificial structures and barriers to migrating fish. The plan should be flexible around the restoration of the river ‘Demonstrate to acknowledge that removal of weirs and artificial features is that the likely to be an inevitable feature of naturalising the river. This development in turn normally reduces the incidence of litter and poor is consistent water quality. with the objectives of the Anglian River Basin Management Plan

Other Comments

Name / Page / Policy Organisation & Summary of response ECDC response Action ID Strategic Oliver Taylor, Object to the second Strategic Objective (SO). It does not promote Comments noted. Land off No change. Objectives Framptons Town sustainable development, it requires the release of Greenfield land Newmarket Road was identified as an (p.130) Planning on for up to 350 dwellings and conflicts with core land-use planning area of search for housing behalf of Investin principle ‘encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has development in the Adopted Core Plc been previously developed’ and paragraph 110 of the National Strategy (2009) and the Burwell Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”). The SO should be Masterplan (2013). amended to encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed. The site is considered the most suitable and sustainable location for new housing development, given the rural nature of the district, and the level of housing need. Infra. John Smith I feel mention must be made of the lack of public transport in a village Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. which is by all accounts the "4th largest settlement" in East Cambs. It and community facilities table. is all very well encouraging growth in employment within the village but new employers are far less likely be attracted here if improvements to the public transport service are not made. Infra. Sian Derbyshire, Many of the infrastructure priorities reflect the importance of the Not possible to include many of these Proposed minor National Trust Wicken Fen Vision. Where possible these elements should be projects on a map as the exact modification to identified on a relevant Policy Map/Proposals Map and the Local locations have yet to be determined. Infrastructure and Planning Authority should set out their strategy to demonstrate how The National Trust has since community facilities these measures will be implemented. The support of these local confirmed that they would like an table (p. 137) communities for the Wicken Vision would also lend support for its additional infrastructure project allocation on the Proposals Map. including in the Infrastructure table, To include additional

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 189 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

referring to the Burwell Brigde project row in table to read: which has planning permission, but is yet to be realised. Burwell Lode Bridge - Harrisons Drove - The National Trust/Cambs County Council - Provision of a dual purpose bridge for cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians over Burwell Lode. Infra. Nathalie Cycle and bus provision is in no way sufficient . Need to increase The District Council is committed to No change. Richards frequency of buses and improve route to reduce journey times. improving public transport links and will work with commercial operators and the County Council (where applicable) to support improvements to public transport. Infra. Jo Jones Need to expand pedestrian/cycle path to Exning. Road is very Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change dangerous for cycles and walkers - try it! Poor bus service, need a and community facilities table. The car to work – without a car unable to work shifts or on a Sunday District Council will work with working e.g. nurses. Will lose community feel if village gets any commercial operators and the County bigger. Council (where applicable) to support improvements to public transport. Infra. Peter Barker Please stop wasting all of our money on cycle routes that are not Comments noted. No change. used and traffic calming measures. Combustion engine should be celebrated not dammed. Spend it on encouraging local businesses and manufacturing. We need manufacturing not another 'Lode Way' cycle path in the middle of nowhere. Infra. S M Byrant I know it would be expensive to remove the Exning Road bridge but it Comments noted. No change. seems short-sighted not to do so as it will need maintenance over the years. Cost of buying services and cost of footpath will be considerable but a long-term view should be taken. Infra. Ann South As previous - concern re. volume of traffic and 'speeding' through Comments noted. No change. village, limited parking. The unsightly state of the Causeway by residents parking on grass verges - most properties have rear parking! Infra. Alan How I do not have enough evidence that this has been thought through in Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. terms of school, doctors, ROADs etc. CONGESTION: Stow Cum and community facilities table. Quy junction ?!? Route through Exning (they want to develop there too) Fordham bypass roundabout etc, etc Infra. T Daggant Have few facilities in village to cope. See comment above. No change. Infra. Senior The key to this being successful is to provide more that inadequate See comment above. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 190 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

facilities. Twenty years ago 2 schools were closed; VC extended, but was not large enough, on opening for additional pupils. There is inadequate public transport - no buses on a Sunday. No buses from Cambridge after 18.30! Road are inadequate. Is Burwell a village or a town? At the moment it is getting to be the size of a town but still with the facilities of a village. Infra. Mr & Mrs S Hall More definitive answers and concrete plans to be considered and See comment above. No change. communicated to the village concerning development of the infrastructure of the village (schools, surgery etc.). At present all of these services are being 'considered'. I would expect complete answers before a final decision is made. Infra. Mr & Mrs Dennis Schools not adequate. Health centre not adequate. Have seen all See comment above. No change. this 25 years ago - promises of more school places, more health - didn't happen. We are a village - low in crime - good relations with other residents. Traffic too much if goes ahead. Even our own child had to go out of village to school and we have lived here for over 40 years. Infra. James Cutting, The reference to safe and sustainable links to Newmarket is Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. Suffolk County welcomed, given the importance of limiting, as far as possible, and community facilities table. Council vehicular traffic heading into the town. Key to this is a proposal for a pedestrian and cycle link around Exning Bridge on Newmarket Road. This document does not make clear how this improvement would be funded. Whilst the county council supports the principle, it does not have any funding earmarked for this purpose and has not been approached by Cambridgeshire County Council to seek support for funding its delivery. Dependent on the outcomes of any transport assessment carried out on development in Burwell, it may be appropriate for this development to fund transport measures within Newmarket, and for this fact to be referenced as a potential requirement within the Burwell document. Infra. David Faircuff Will the present shopping be able to cope? What is to prevent Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. further housing being allocated to village over the top of the already and community facilities table. In planned! addition, Policy BUR 4 seeks enhancement and expansion of retail and commercial uses in the centre of the village. Infra. Rhys and Jayne Concern over infrastructure. BVC already has over 400 pupils – The plan proposes the scale of No change. Weaver further housing will require an additional school. The number of development required to meet the houses proposed for additional development seems to have more local housing needs of the District to than doubled in the last 2 years. A development of this scale off 2031 (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in Newmarket road will cause problems for people living on or near accordance with the Burwell Newmarket Road in terms of the increased traffic & dirt from a large Masterplan 2013. development. Problems with congestion at the junction of B1102 and B1103and the A14 at Quy. Very careful consideration of any The County Council have identified a

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 191 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

development is needed to ensure the Village does not become too number of strategic highway urban in its feel. Public transport to the village is poor and needs to infrastructure improvements which be considered as part of the plan. The Village Vision is inadequate in are detailed within the Council’s its position on facilities and traffic infrastructure. Infrastructure Investment Strategy. Such Improvements will be delivered through S106 and CIL contributions from developers. Infra. Martin Should route traffic away from conservation areas and out towards Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. Broadhurst OBE the Fordham bypass. Developments should be focussed to the and community facilities table. extreme north of the village along Ness Road. The best alternative would be to allow development along Heath Road and create an access to the A14 (somewhere close to the service stations) . Infra. Darren Roberts Bloomsfield and Iaasaction Road are used as a cut through early Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. morning and late at night. Also getting out to the main drag from and community facilities table. Newmarket Road is extremely difficult at rush hour and attracts speeding. The school is already over capacity - how is this going to be addressed? Zebra crossings - again not enough in the right places especially if traffic is going to increase so significantly. 4 - Other facilities - whilst Burwell has a number of good facilities many such as the doctors surgery are already strained. Infra. Jill Coleman Public transport is poor. As a car owner, I do not consider using Comments noted. The District Council No change. public transport because it is so infrequent and inconvenient. If bus is committed to improving public services were better and more people used them, and if there were a transport links and will work with rail link, then we would feel less concerned about the traffic problems commercial operators and the County which more housing in the village will bring. Council (where applicable) to support improvements to public transport. Infra. Janey Gostlow I recognise it will be necessary to extend the school but like its See ECDC response above. No change. present location in the centre of the village with other important facilities such as the library, sports area and print centre. I like the idea of maintaining the different shopping areas in Burwell rather than having one shopping part. The village has some good community buildings but will need more sports facilities. The village does need to grow but maintain its village and rural status. Concerns about lack of public transport and traffic increases.There might also need to be bigger health facilities. Infra. Jean Whitaker Support proposed improvements for sustainable transport modes Support and comments noted. No change. such as cycling and walking. It should be a regional priority to re- route National Cycle Network 51 between Burwell and Exning because the current route is too indirect and therefore increases the distance in such a way as to make local cycling less viable for many potential users. I regard the route around the disused bridge on the B1103 as essential to increase the safety of cyclists. A further priority should be provision of a minimum 2m wide path alongside the B1103, in collaboration with Suffolk CC. There will be a higher level

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 192 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

of traffic on the B1103 if A14 access is directed away from Quy, to relieve peak congestion there, to Exning, in accordance with the stated policy in the Plan. This will increase the need for segregated cycle provision. Infra. Debra Radley I work in Cambridge. Traffic builds up on A1303 towards Quy. I sit in Comments noted. The County No change. traffic for over an hour for a normal 20 minute journey! 50% traffic Council have identified a number of increase since the Fordham bypass was opened. Also cycle routes strategic highway infrastructure are poor from Angelsey Abby onto Quy - more cycle routed should be improvements which are detailed places/built, this will eleviate the traffic problems/congestion. Would within the Council’s Infrastructure like for the council to provide meeting dates so the Burwell Villages Investment Strategy. can view their opinions! More consideration needs to be placed on the residents! I feel the elder generation is being pushed out for the The Burwell Vision is a result of younger generation to move in. Such a shame to ruin such a lovely extensive community consultation in village. preparation of the Burwell Masterplan. Infra. Susan Richards I disagree with the proposed expansion of the Village College. It is Comments noted. No change. already substantially larger than most primary schools in Cambridgeshire. A bigger school is likely to lose some of the caring ethos which is its hallmark and which is regularly praised by Ofsted. This would be to the detriment of the provision of a nurturing environment for the children. Expansion would also inevitably lead to a loss of playing field area. Infra. Patricia Morrison Overall it is a good vision but we are concerned about increases to Support noted. No change. & Neil Burns road traffic particularly on Isaacson Road. Infra. Chris Swain, Need to seek advice from Anglian Water re waste water treatment The most recent advice from Anglian No change. Environment works, and asset planning. This would help the plan to stay within Water suggests that WWTW capacity Agency environment and Water Framework Directive limits, whilst guarding at Burwell is not longer a constraint to against higher emission waste water treatment infrastructure further development.

Infra. Wendy Hague, The forecast pupil numbers support the view contained in the Burwell Primary school expansion already Proposed minor Cambs County Vision that there is a need to provide additional primary school places picked up in the Infrastructure section modification to Council up to 3FE. We acknowledge the views expressed during of the Vision. Need to add reference Burwell Infrastructure consultation on the village vision in which there was strong support to secondary school provision. section table (new for expanding the existing school rather than providing a second row): primary school. Limited expansion The combined secondary school numbers across the catchment area of either or both of Soham and Bottisham Village Colleges confirm the need for a Soham and limited expansion of one or both of the schools at a future date. Bottisham Village Secondary school pupil forecasts rise to over 18FE and the Colleges – combined capacity of the two colleges is currently 16FE. Soham/Bottisham – Cambs County Council – Limited expansion required. To be included in

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 193 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

future County Council capital programme. Infra. Debra Radley Concerned about capacity of doctors and densist. Manchets Garage Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. is becoming a danger/hazard with cars queuing on the road to gain and community facilities table. access into the garage. Limited Bus service. Traffic has increased by 50% peak hours. We seriously need a slip road that comes off the A14 into Swaffhan Prior/Burwell. Would like the Council to propose a cycle route from Anelsey Abbey onto the Quy. Infra. Janet Peacock The development of Newmarket Road housing and subsequent other Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. areas will only work if adequate infrastructure is shown to be put in and community facilities table. place or provision allocated not just as suggestions of what might be needed. The existing services are already stretched. Infra./gen. Jonathan Infrastructure has not been investigated in detail, or at least made Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. Whitehouse apparent. Recreational facilities / space are currently below the and community facilities table. required standard. Commuting not being dealt with and the assumption that existing network, alongside developments in Exning Burwell is a large village with a good and Soham do not appear to have been taken in to account. range of services, and therefore a Additional infrastructure costs and investment are disproportional to relatively sustainable place for some the housing number being proposed i.e. it is uneconomical. growth.

Future Housing provision and calculations, don’t seem to be based on Burwell Housing need. The motive for this level of housing is to raise funding from 106 / CIL monies for infrastructure. Will increase commuters which will place additional strain on facilities.

Burwell needs acceptable development that is embraced. The credibility of the Vision process has wained by comment perceived as being ignored. Community engagement was very relaxed but perhaps a Village Referendum was required.

If the housing number is reduced could the farm area being be improved and made in to a teaching farm with farmshops and fresh produce? The Marina could be developed as a similar venture with starter/specialist work units overlooking the marina. High quality attracting high end rents. Commercially it is very attractive and reduces commuting.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Infra. I A ORR More consultation is required to reach a satisfactory plan. The Comments noted. Proposals for No change. infrastructure of Burwell must meet the demands of any development will be expected to development. Building should be dedicated by a specific building reflect the rural nature of the village policy that is agreed by the people of Burwell. Where possible all and meet the requirements of Policy development should reflect the traditions of Burwell building style ENV 2: Design. In addition, they will

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 194 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Traffic volume patterns must be analyzed holistically so that their need to demonstrate through a impact can be moderated and their effects reduced. The volume of Transport Assessment that they can social housing must be dedicated by the demand from within Burwell adequately address issues of access, and design support best practice. Consideration should be given for a highway safety and traffic Burwell Housing Association. There must be complete clarity of the management (including the decision making process. I currently do not have confidence that this cumulative impact of development is happening. I am concerned that this plan is pushed through at within and outside of the village). speed. The Burwell Vision is a result of extensive community consultation that has taken place over the last two years in conjunction with the Burwell Masterplan. Infra. Caroline Smith Burwell is a village, albeit a large one. It does not have the Comments noted. The Plan proposes No change. infrastructure to support further large-scale development, on top of the scale of development required to that of the last 20 years. There are smaller, villages whose facilities meet the local housing needs of the are under threat/forced to close. It seems crazy that all the District to 2031 (Policy GROWTH 4) development has been foisted on the larger settlements of the and is in accordance with the Burwell district, whilst other, smaller settlements appear to be failing to thrive. Masterplan 2013. Surely a more even distribution across the district, would be more beneficial? Even the creation of a brand new settlement with planned See Infrastructure and community infrastructure commensurate to its size may be preferable. The wider facilities table. infrastructure problems need to be addressed before the greater Cambridge area grinds to a halt. The re-engineering of certain junctions, whilst vital, will not solve this, and the creation of an A14 toll road would just penalise locals. Gen. B Gaywood Burwell needs sustainable growth from small build projects including Comments noted. No change. self build houses. It needs small business units and shops/offices. It needs more leisure space and it needs a link road round the village before major development can proceed sensibly.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Gen. Martin O'Leary The plan is OK if it will prevent any other large-scale or medium-scale Support noted. No change. development in or around the village other than possible housing on DS Smith site and the Newmarket Rd/Ness Road housing allocation. Gen. Miss C Lewis Burwell needs more housing but development should be gradual and Comments noted. No change. mixed types of houses. It should be mainly in the Newmarket Road/Ness Road area (BUR 1). Future development should not increase the volume of the traffic through the centre of the village. Something should also be done to stop vehicles speeding along main roads into Burwell. Gen. Mr A T Thacker Burwell is the right size in population, at the present time, and the Comments noted. See Infrastructure facilities are correct to suit. Any more growth of housing would create and community facilities table. many problems for all services.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 195 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Gen. A J Lewis The plan must retain the village character. Individual developments Support and comments noted. No change. within the designated area will help this, and also help local construction businesses. A through road will develop the route network within the village, reducing the linear nature. Gen. Charlie Kirk I am appalled at the greed of ECDC. These houses only serve as a Comments noted. No change. revenue stream (Council Tax) for the Council. I have also been informed that the ECDC receive £4000 per house. Gen A Spalding Yes it needs to expand but not at this level. Do not let this go ahead Comments noted. Policy BUR 3 No change. unless DS Smith Site is used for commercial activities. seeks allocation of the former D.S. Smith site for employment uses. Gen Simon Ogilvie If BUR 2 to BUR 5 are dependent on approval of BUR 1 then I don't Although the combination of policies No change. agree with them. BUR 1 is way over the top, and not worth ruining BUR 1-3 seek to readdress the the village in order to attract the investment for the other proposals. balance of jobs and homes within the village, the employment allocations are not reliant on the delivery of BUR 1. Gen Kathy Ogilvie The first exhibition in Burwell about the Vision was advertised via e- Comments noted. No change. mail with less than 24 hourss notice given. I did not see any posters etc. in village. Is this allowable? This exhibition (23.3.13) is only for 4 hours - is this long enough to allow proper thought, discussion and comment by villagers? We made comments on the Masterplan, which were not taken into account. Please note that Burwell is a village with good community feel, and I do not want this to change. Gen. Colin Smith All new houses built particularly on greenfield sites should be carbon Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. neutral to justify calling development sustainable. If not it is just plain and community facilities table. old development. Any development in Burwell must be seen in context of development elsewhere in the area as they will impact on the area infrastructure particularly transport. Cambridge needs a southern relief road from the airport to Addenbrooke's. The A14 needs a major upgrade to motorway. As it is not just a local road but a vital link between the ports and the industrial heartland of the midlands. Gen. Mark Thank you providing me with notification of this exhibition. However Comments noted. No change. Featherstone to date I have only received a single A5 flyer to inform me of this exhibition and event. I heard at the exhibition that only 7% response rate to proposed homes increased 7% - 93% no response. Why 93% not involved. Communication is a big issue. Gen. Nicola Martin 1. Concerns regarding flood risk - Baker Drive flooded last year. 400 Comments noted. Applicant will need No change extra houses behind it are a concern (fire brigade called to pump it to demonstrate that risks to wildlife out). 2. What happens to wildlife that lives on NKT field i.e. deer, fox, and flooding can be adequately bats, hares? 3. Will we have enough food if we keep building on mitigated at the planning application farm land. 4. How long is it reasonable too sit and wait to get out of stage. your drive in the morning? Gen. Rosie Seeks [No further comment provided] Noted. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 196 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Gen. M & J Parker 1. Burwell is big enough. 2. We are strongly opposed to building on The Plan proposes the scale of No change. good agricultural land which provides us with much needed food. 3. development required to meet the Too much agricultural land is going to be lost throughout local housing needs of the District to Cambridgeshire. 4. Planners have to look at what we are going to 2031 (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in lose rather than what they can gain at what cost - I don't mean accordance with the Burwell financial! Masterplan 2013. Whilst the Council encourages the effective re-use of brownfield land, the nature of the district means there is a limited supply, and Greenfield land is sometimes required to meet local housing needs. Gen. Mark Rasdall It changed after consultation with villagers and when then imposed The Plan proposes the scale of No change. on villagers at a very late stage - hoping villagers would not realise development required to meet the participate or object. local housing needs of the District to 2031 (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Gen. Shona Barton- Disgusting lovely open land ruined yet again. Comments noted. No change. Hare REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Gen. A Marshall It is too much without further road and schooling facilities. Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. and community facilities table. REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Gen. M Shuter At the moment I can look out of my windows and see wildlife and Comments noted. No change, fauna. If houses and factories are built I will not be able to see what I have been looking at for years. Instead I will be looking at houses or factories.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Gen. Sue Evans, Most of these development can take place without an increase in the Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. Parish Nurse infrastructure of the village. Presumably the services needed have and community facilities table. been estimated and discussions are ongoing re. fuel, schooling, medical services, water, provision for the elderly? Gen. Robert Owens All in all Burwell is the main a residential village with small industry. Support and comments noted. No change. Housing is main priority we can dream of a major employer coming but this is a pipe dream. The DS Smith Site, an eyesore should be developed for housing. Gen. Mr A G Whitaker Just allocating land for housing is inadequate without specific and Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. enforceable requirements on infrastructure - which is a planning and community facilities table. requirement. There is no strong commitment to influence external factors such as A14 Newmarket/Fordham Ely junction improvement, or the replacement of traffic restriction in Quy by a sensible enforced 30 mph limit. The vision needs re-drafting to recognise the points

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 197 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

and to include stages which must be met to balance development and infrastructure. Otherwise it is not obvious why Burwell is part of East Cambs. Gen. M F Lamb 1. When considering shopping amenities do not place premises on Policy BUR 4 seeks enhancement No change. edge of fen i.e. Reach Road area it needs to be central area i.e. and expansion of retail and Burwell area as existing shops are in a serious accident area. 2. commercial uses in the centre of the Removal of old rail bridge Exning Road. village. Gen. C Nickson Like any other proposal it will not be until the more detailed Comments noted. No change. information becomes available that one can determine many pros/cons within the terminology necessitated by a proposal. Gen. Helen I think the Burwell is fine as it is. Please don't spoil our village Comments noted. No change. Richardson anymore. I am strongly against BUR 1. Gen. Alison Smith I first saw the proposals at Burwell at large. I was unaware at today's Comments noted. No change. event. More publicity is needed. Gen. Jim Woolf A good well-considered expansion of the village. Support noted. No change. Gen. Geoff Allen Burwell is a village with a village community and should remain so. Comments noted. No change. Burwell is not right location for major/large housing developments. Gen. Roger Lapthorn Would prefer Burwell not overdeveloped. Provision for youths/young Comments noted. No change people needed by supported by youth club facilities. Gen. G K Prout At the Burwell Masterplan meeting we were told that this was our (the There has been extensive No change. villagers) plan. It was for us to say what we wanted and not for local consultation with the local community or central government to impose the plan on us. This appears not to through preparation of both the be the case. Local residents concerns, particularly over parking, Burwell Masterplan and the Burwell traffic and the potential for anti social behaviour are being Vision. disregarded. It feels as if we are being railroaded into this plan. I accept the need to have planned and controlled development, but this is not the way forward. The development is too large and in the wrong area. Gen. Stephanie Concern over traffic, and traffic noise. Parking is not adequately Comment noted. Proposals to No change. Gilchrist provided for. The plan could incorporate a partial by-pass and take develop the site will need to non-local traffic off at Fordham Road and around the village, back demonstrate through a Transport down Isaacson Road and on to Cambridge. Have the individual Assessment that they can adequately village plans for East Cambs been evaluated on their cumulative address issues of access, highway impact onto the traffic to and from Cambridge, but I doubt if the new safety and traffic management proposed development at Exning has been taken into consideration? (including the cumulative impact of The High Street is a conservation area that is being blighted by traffic development within and outside of the pollution/noise. It is getting harder to sell these properties as the village). upkeep is prohibitive - fighting vibration and constant dirt from the heavy vehicles using this route. If you want to keep a pretty village please do something to support it. Gen. Stuart Hunter I don't see that Burwell needs to expand. It's a great place to live as it Support noted. No change. is. Gen. Lesley Burge When the plan was first introduced there was no option for NO The plan proposes the scale of No change. GROWTH. We had to select one of the least offensive options. This development required to meet the

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 198 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

meant that residents' views were skewed. local housing needs of the District to 2031 (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in accordance with the Burwell Masterplan 2013. Gen. Diane How many people actually need housing in Burwell? 40% of 350 is The plan proposes the scale of No change. Whitehouse 140 is this not far more than the village needs? Will attract people development required to meet the from other areas where there is a housing shortage. Area will be a local housing needs of the District to suburb to Newmarket and Cambridge. It seems you are going to go 2031 (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in ahead and build these houses regardless. It's supposed to be a 20 accordance with the Burwell year plan but I lay money on the fact that these will be built within 5-7 Masterplan 2013. years at the most and we will be here again when you decide to build on more of our precious countryside. Gen. Jonathan Smith I cannot drive. We need a more reliable and regular bus service, Comments noted. The District Council No change. especially if the village is to grow. The park and ride is good, but only is committed to improving public for people who can drive there. It would be good to have a bus from transport links and will work with Burwell to the P&R site – may reduce traffic at Quy. I find the roads commercial operators and the County hard to cross - more houses will make this worse. Some new Council (where applicable) to support houses that young people can afford would be good, but this number improvements to public transport. is too many for a village. Some smaller villages have dying pubs and shops and need extra houses. It would be better to spread out the new housing more fairly through East Cambs. Gen. R P Hall The Vision lacks clarity of definition, particularly in connection with Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. residential development. Given that the quality of life of the future and community facilities table. community in large part depends on the quality of the planning which takes place now, much more detailed work needs to be done in order to avoid the potentially negative impacts of inadequately controlled property speculation. Clear commitments need to be made as to how, and in what proportion, financial gains by local government and commercial interests would be passed on to the village through reductions in Council Tax or otherwise and how, and in what quantity, compensation would be paid for the adverse effects of long term and large scale building work. Gen. Brian Crysell Hopefully East Cambs will listen to the residents of Burwell, We all The plan proposes the scale of No change. agree that a certain amount of new housing is necessary but not to development required to meet the the detriment and eventual destruction of the village atmosphere. At local housing needs of the District to the meetings that I have attended, representatives of the council 2031 (Policy GROWTH 4) and is in have always given the distinct impression that they know what the accordance with the Burwell village, not the village residents, want. They have manipulated the Masterplan 2013. figures to show that what they are proposing is also the view of the majority of the village which is totally untrue. Gen. Shona Barton- Absolutely disgusted about this as we weren’t told until last week Comments noted. No change. Hare everyone I spoke too hadn’t received any papers about the plan especially those people who it will affect the most on the Newmarket road.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 199 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Gen. Caroline Judd This has not been a proper consultation. As far as any preference There has been extensive No change. has been shown it has been ignored. I would also question why, consultation with the local community although public consultation of this ran between 11th February and through preparation of both the 25th March 2013, the emails telling us about it were only sent on the Burwell Masterplan and the Burwell 15 March and the only chance to complete a written questionnaire Vision. was at an exhibition on 23 March right at the end of the consultation period. I saw no other information around the village. To be described as 'public consultation' should it not have been advertised more widely and earlier? Gen. Neil Larner Only confusion as to the relationship with the Burwell Masterplan, The Burwell Masterplan was carried No change. which preceded this Vision and with seemingly greater detail. out as consultation exercise to inform the Burwell Vision. Gen. Kevin Coleman I wondered why I bothered attending consultation meetings. The Comments noted. There has been No change. discussions I have had do not appear to have been reflected in the extensive consultation with the local proposals and I can only think there is a 'money' element at work community through preparation of the here. The development of 350 house will have a major impact on the Burwell Masterplan and Burwell character of the village. What happened to the plans to enhance Vision. the sports facilities and add new activities for young people? Gen. Gus Jones Burwell Master Plan / Vision does not comply with the Localism Act Comments noted. The District Council No change. unless the following are made mandatory during the detailed will require the preparation of a planning stage and they are as follows:- 1. The site owner conceded Masterplan for the area prior to a minimum of 4.7 hectares for sports field and play area on the approval of a scheme. The Newmarket site development. 2. There should be a direct linkage Masterplan will provide further road between Newmarket Road and Ness Road via the new information on the location of land development. If an extra road length is required for which the uses, roads, services, open space developer is not responsible. Revenue for this portion should be and landscaping, and look at made available from 85% CIL that is collected by higher Council principles such as access and levels (as used for the Ely by-pass) 3. Land owned by higher council movement, built form and phasing levels not allowed to be sold for housing 4. Present and will be submitted as part of an retail/commercial/industrial sites not allowed to be sold for housing 5. outline planning application. Parish Council to retain CIL from development to harden public footpath from Hythe Lane to 1st Drove 6. Marina to be allowed to develop as per BUR 5 of this entry.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Gen. Michael Smith Need to ensure Parish Council are involved in what is The Parish Council have been No change. needed/required by village. Surprises are how many people are not actively involved in preparation of the aware of what is happening, or have heard whispers. Essential Burwell Masterplan and Burwell everyone is made aware of the implications of Vision/Masterplan. Vision. Gen. Laura Barrett The Vision now seems more in line with the Burwell Masterplan Comments noted. No change. which is appropriate. Provision of school facilities should be a priority for the Council especially when planning applications are

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 200 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

made for the Newmarket Road site. Gen. Paul Sutton, The minutes of the Burwell Masterplan Working Party meetings and Comments noted. Land off No change. Cheffins public consultation responses show that the majority of the public Newmarket Road was identified as an discussion and debate on the content of the Masterplan focused on area of search for housing the amount of new housing to be provided (with low, medium or high development in the Adopted Core growth options), rather than where the new housing might be Strategy (2009) and the Burwell provided. In fact the only Burwell Masterplan Working Party meeting Masterplan (2013). The site scored that discussed individual potential sites (which were eventually well in the sites technical work and included in the ‘options consultation’ on the Masterplan), reached no the Sustainability Appraisal, and overall conclusions on the most sustainable sites because the through community consultation. It is amount of new housing to be provided had not been agreed. considered the most suitable and Although several different potential sites were presented in the sustainable location for new housing ‘options consultation’ version of the Masterplan (including two options development. that included the land west of Ness Road), no detailed assessment has been undertaken of the relative merits of each site and the advantages (in terms of planning gains) that each might bring to the village. In addition, no detailed assessment has been undertaken of the potential advantages that might be gained from selecting a combination of the most sustainable sites. Indeed, the Council’s evidence base shows that the only assessments that have been undertaken on the potential site allocations for Burwell are contained in the draft Final Sustainability Appraisal (February 2013) and the Site Assessment Results (February 2013).

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Gen. Alan Kirk There is no economic reason for this development, there are not Policies BUR 1- 3 seek to readdress No change. enough jobs to provide employment for influx of more population into the jobs/homes balance in Burwell the area. A never ending expansion of population is unsustainable. and increase the level of self containment within the village. Gen. Joan Lonsdale The existing residents deserve to benefit from these proposals and Comments noted. See Infrastructure No change. therefore the Vision should concentrate on the provision of and community facilities table. infrastructure/sports & leisure facilities/jobs etc before building more houses. Gen. Nick Acklam It is right to stop Burwell becoming ever more linear and to give it a Support noted. No change. more obvious heart Dev. env Dr Natalie Gates I object to the alteration of the development envelope in respect of Comments noted. The Development No change. the land behind my house at 131B North Street, Burwell. I believe has been reviewed in conjunction with that the change renders the draft local plan unsound as it is neither Parish/Town Councils to address justified, nor effective nor consistent with national planning policy. minor anomalies across the District.

The reduction of the development envelope will result in the implemented planning permissions for my parents’ replacement home and my late uncle’s retirement home being severed in two. It is not justified based on our extant planning permissions, and the

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 201 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

evidence we have provided for a slight increase in the boundary. It undermines the presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 15). Additionally, it does not provide a clear indication of how a decision maker should react to a future planning application relating to future changes (paragraph 154 NPPF). It also is not effective as it does not take account of long-term requirements or promote development and flexible use of land already identified for such a purpose (paragraph 157 NPPF). Finally, it is not consistent with the NPPF as the proposal does not meet with a number of paragraphs including the core principles of the NPPF including paragraphs 17, 56, 58 and 187.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Dev. Env. Mr & Mrs R P Suggest that the proposed further reduction of the development Comments noted. The Development No change. Gates envelope behind 131/131b North Street, Burwell, which appears to has been reviewed in conjunction with section through our in progress Demolition and rebuild of our new Parish/Town Councils to address home is contrary to the sites current and previous history - which we anomalies across the District. have documented in full at earlier stages of the consultation process. We requested an easement of the line to achieve better quality housing in accordance with paragraph 58 of the NPPF. We believe not easing the line, let alone reducing it further, shows this draft policy is unsound. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land).” As can be seen from the 1926 and 1972 OS maps the west side of North Street has a long history of various buildings to this depth or greater from the road

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 202 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Chettisham 3.2.9 A total of 1 organisation made comments on the draft Chettisham Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L The Ely Group of This area is outside the Littleport and Downham Internal Comments noted. No change. Internal Drainage Drainage District but in an area that drains into the Boards Board's surface water receiving system. Lack of capacity (CHT/1/1) within Board’s surface water receiving system to accept additional surface water from development. Developer will need to provide sufficient surface water accommodation prior to the development of this site to protect land and properties from increased flood risk. This work will need to be undertaken at the expense of the developer and maintained by a competent authority.

Cheveley 3.2.10 A total of 15 people/organisations made comments on the draft Cheveley Vision.

Policy CHV 1: Housing allocation, land rear of Star and Garter Lane Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L David Godfrey, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted No change. Andrew Fleet (on behalf of Hyperion Homes)

D Button Agree - Y [No further comments made] Support noted No change.

Paul Sutton, Cheffins Agree Y Y This site is located close to the village centre and makes Support noted. No change. (on behalf of land a logical, modest extension to the existing houses off Star owners of allocations) and Garter Lane and would not adversely affect views of the surrounding countryside. Vehicular access is readily available. The site is deliverable and the owners of the land (who we represent) are keen to bring this site

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 203 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

forward for housing.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Mr C D Emmerson Agree Y Y Two dwellings should not adversely impact the road traffic Support noted. No change. / safety at the exit point from Star and Garter Lane. James Hadlow Agree Y ? Small development and will not be visible from the High Support noted. Design, layout and No change. Street. The conservation zone and location of windows landscaping details will be assessed should be considered, and landscaping should be a as part of a planning application. condition to “soften” the building, especially on the southerly boundary Julie Cecil Disagree - - Disagrees with allocation due to crowded High Street. Comments noted. Small-scale No change. Suggests building on the ‘Home Office Bungalows’ site to housing development outside the allow more road space around the school area as this development envelope was area can be dangerous. supported by residents and subsequently agreed with the Parish Council. The Home Office Bungalows are within the development envelope and can come forward as infill. Design, layout and safe access details will be assessed as part of a planning application. C T Preston Disagree N ? There are other more suitable sites such as the Home See above response. No change. Office Bungalows. These plots are vacant and have better access and would be less disruptive to residents. The site would be highly disruptive to the residents of the lane and the lane would not to be sufficient to take the extra traffic. I would request that this policy be reviewed and the proposal to develop this plot be terminated. Mrs Penelope Disagree N N Concerned about: Design, layout and safe access No change. McCalmont  Disruption to existing residents, and Lane unsuitable details will be assessed as part of a for extra traffic planning application.  Impact on local character Small-scale housing development  Encroachment on valuable prime stud land. outside the development envelope  Land at present, outside village envelope and should was supported by residents and remain so subsequently agreed with the Parish  More suitable areas available in Cheveley. Council. Suitable sites within the  Two luxury dwellings is not addressing need. development envelope can come forward as infill. Peter McCalmont Disagree N N Road is private and in a conservation area. Concern See above response. No change. about additional traffic and nearby school. Outside the village envelope, unlike other much more suitable sites. Jayne Johnston - ? - More than two houses to be built. Would be a better and Comments noted. The site area and No change. safer location for affordable housing as close to school access would only be appropriate for and recreation ground. a maximum of 2 dwellings.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 204 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy CHV 2: Housing allocation, land between 199-209 High Street Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L David Godfrey, Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Andrew Fleet (on behalf of Hyperion Homes) D Button Agree - Y  Part of this land should be included but lower The number of dwellings has been No change. numbers to provide a more sympathetic and less calculated using a density that is urban style, and reduce impact on High Street seen as appropriate to the character  The sightlines are suspect and land is not in the of the locality. Access, layout and control of the applicant design details will be determined through the planning application process where they will be assessed for safety, effectiveness and good design. Paul Sutton, Cheffins Agree Y Y The site is well-located within the village, close to local Comments noted. Proposed minor (on behalf of land amenities and has High Street frontage, without modification to the owners of allocations) detrimental visual impact on surrounding countryside. It is Plan, supporting text not, as stated in the draft Local Plan, 'open farmland' - it is to Policy CHV 2: a grassed paddock that has been used intermittently for The site is located off grazing horses. A detailed layout design has been the High Street, prepared for 15 houses (9 market and 6 affordable) with a opposite the junction satisfactory new access road from the High Street. with Spurling Close Existing mature trees along the frontage of the site can and is currently open also be retained. farmland a grassed paddock. REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Mr C D Emmerson Agree N Y  Cheveley has a high proportion of dwellings (960) Comments noted. Access, layout and No change. compared to the population (1070) which indicates to design details will be determined me a low occupation level or that many of the through the planning application dwellings are unoccupied at times. process where they will be assessed  Some affordable housing is desirable and additional for safety, effectiveness and good housing will help provide more business for the design. shop/post office which is a valuable resource in the village.  However concern about additional traffic levels in the High Street and speeding. Should include specific proposals on traffic calming / highway improvements. James Hadlow Disagree N ?  The site is greenfield land and is not sustainable  Small-scale housing No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 205 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

 Will spoils views, damage nearby ancient trees and is development outside the close to conservation zone so the character of the development envelope was village will be lost. supported by residents and  It will increase traffic on a busy High Street and the subsequently agreed with the access will be dangerous. Parish Council. The Home Office  Question about need as some new builds remain Bungalows are within the unsold and many empty houses in village. development envelope and can  Concerned a separate community will be formed come forward as infill. which does not integrate properly into a village  Access, layout and design setting. Affordable homes are only affordable for the details will be determined first people who buy them. through the planning application  The "Estimated new dwellings 2012-31 = 73" for process where they will be Cheveley is unacceptable. The village cannot sustain assessed for safety, this growth. This should be removed and replaced effectiveness and good design. with 20 houses as agreed in the consultation. Trees and traffic will also be  Home office bungalow site should be the first site of assessed. choice for such development as within development  The figure of 73 is an estimate envelope and brownfield land. The proposed 18 which includes outstanding houses should be allocated here with a condition that commitments, the Home Office development should be staggered over the 20 year bungalow site, and a windfall period. estimate. Jayne Johnston Disagree ? -  Concern about the safety of the access and parked Access, layout and design details will No change. cars be determined through the planning  Concern about low water pressure. application process where they will  The site near to the Cobham antenna would be ideal. be assessed for safety, effectiveness An entrance would be safer and a play area could be and good design. The Home Office built on site, and the children could catch the school Bungalows site is within the bus. development envelope so can be developed subject to planning permission. Mrs Penelope Disagree N N Not convinced that there is a need for more housing in Comment noted. No change. McCalmont Cheveley, but if there is need, other more suitable sites have been identified. Consultations have not been comprehensive enough. Peter McCalmont Disagree ? ? Already discussed at length. Comment noted. No change.

Other Comments

Name / Organisation & Summary of response ECDC response Action ID Gen. Cheveley Cheveley Parish Council approve the local draft plan.However The Council Support noted. ECDC can confirm the No change. Parish Council request that all the land in the area of the derelict bungalows locally known as Home Office Bungalow and

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 206 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Home office Farm bungalows and either side of the access road (unadopted) immediate environs, including 1 Oak including the derelict field area adjacent to 1 Oak Lane is incorporated into the Lane are within the development development envelope. envelope. Gen. Paul Sutton, The two housing sites that have been chosen are entirely logical, deliverable and Support noted. No change. Cheffins (on would help to meet a significant element of the housing need for the village. The behalf of land level of growth would be very modest, in-keeping with the scale and nature of the owners of village. allocations) REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Gen. Suffolk County Given the relatively small scale of development proposed, the county council has Support noted. No change. Council no comment to make on the Cheveley Vision at this time.

Gen. Anthony Given Cheveley has had more housing development than other areas south of the ECDC has worked closely with village No change. District. I therefore feel other adjacent areas should be designated for further residents and Parish Councils to housing. identify where housing development is supported. Cheveley is one of few villages in the south of the district that support growth. Gen. James Hadlow Brownfield sites should be first preference. Lack of understanding from villagers ECDC has worked closely with village No change. that growth would be additional to infill/windfall estimates and concern an overall residents and Parish Councils to figure of 73 new dwellings is too high. Derelict home office bungalows will identify where housing development inevitably be built on, this will take the total number of houses built in the village to is supported outside the development way above 20 over the next 20 years. envelope. Gen. Mrs Penelope Low response to the initial consultations. Whilst it is difficult to access an overall The consultation was part of wider No change. McCalmont and fully comprehensive opinion of the residents it is irresponsible to take the collaboration with Parish Councils and limited number of responses and convert that into a percentage representation. technical assessment/advice which all helped prepare the Vision. Although initial consultation received a low response, the second consultation received 100 responses. Infra. Jayne Surely to build the 20 houses at once would be better than slow growth, otherwise Infill development is likely to come No change. Johnston we will be living in a building site for the next twenty years. I also noticed it is not forward over the 20 year period. just twenty houses but 73 by 2031. Concern about school places, play area School places are monitored by provision for the school and the safety of the people living in Cheveley as the Cambridgeshire County Council. The entrance is already dangerous and congested. design and layout of the entrance to the allocation will be determined through a planning application and will be assessed for safety, effectiveness and good design. Infra. Cambs County There is more limited expansion of primary school provision required in Cheveley. Comment noted. No change. Council New David Godfrey, We have a site that could address the shortfall of approximately 45-50 dwellings The site east of High Street/south of No change. site Andrew Fleet allowing for windfall infill sites. We own land to the rear of 15 - 35 High Street, Ashley Road was considered as one (on behalf of totalling approximately 1.1 HA in area, currently rented as a small paddock. of the options as part of the site

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 207 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Hyperion Access to the site would be provided via the demolition of nos. 25 - 27 High Street. appraisal, sustainability appraisal and Homes) Development likely to be small starter homes to help enable young local residents consultation process. The site scored to remain in open market dwellings within the village. This site would be made less well in technical terms than the available to within a maximum time frame of six months to accord with the existing proposed allocations (related to visual short term tenancy present in place. impact). The site was the least favoured by the local community (with 25.3% support), in the community questionnaire on development options. New Nigel Propose to include 2 Oak Lane, Cheveley - Everitt & Gough Builders Yard site The site south of Home Office No change. site McCurdy, N- within revised development envelope. Site extends from Home Office bungalows Bungalows was considered as one of Mac site and 1 Oak Lane which are within development envelope. 2 Oak Lane lies the options as part of the site Consulting Ltd immediately to the south and can therefore similarly be argued to be a broadly appraisal and sustainability appraisal sustainable location that could be suitable for development. The Site Assessment process. The site scored less well in Results technical background paper (February 2013) does not identify any technical terms than the proposed fundamental constraints in relation to the site. Whilst noting the site as ‘distant’ allocations, related to distance from from some village facilities, the assessment incorrectly suggests the site as distant services and further elongation of the from the shop, a key facility, which is actually less than a half mile away. The site village. is also easily accessible to the bus service to Newmarket. In terms of sustainability considerations, the Home Office Bungalows site and Site 9 is not overall materially different to the identified allocation CHV2.

Existing commercial use is unlikely to continue so will become available. Commercial use is not appropriate for the area due to proximity to existing dwelling north of site. Residential would be more appropriate and provide a more visually enhanced village edge. A future change in commercial occupier may result in amenity issues with existing dwelling and potential increase in traffic. If site was not developed for housing, the commercial buildings will become vacant and an unattractive entrance to the village.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 208 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Chippenham 3.2.11 A total of 1 person/organisation made comments on the draft Chippenham Vision.

Sound/ Name / Organisation Agree/ Legally Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree compliant S L Ray Houghton, Disagree ? Y We disagree with the new dwellings estimate for 2012-2031 as Chippenham is a small village with a No change. Bidwells there is a disproportionate difference compared to rate of growth limited range of facilities. The village is from 2011-2012 (10 dwellings).The trajectory should take a more likely to continue to grow slowly, with pragmatic approach by assuming that a larger amount of new infill development coming forward development would come forward in the village over the within the village. However, new remainder of the plan period. Chippenham is well located in allocations are not proposed, and were relation to the strategic road network and new development not supported by the local community would assist in the viability of existing services and facilities. and the Parish Council as part of the Comprehensive development could help fund improvements to consultation process. infrastructure and facilities.

The Plan should identify our client’s site for a new specialist The Local Plan does not specifically residential care facility, in accordance with emerging Policy allocate sites for care accommodation. HOU6. The site is suitable and there is an acknowledged need Proposals are assessed on a case by for this type of accommodation. Development would bring new case basis against criteria in Policy jobs and create a more balanced community. HOU 6.

Coveney 3.2.12 A total of 1 organisation made comments on the draft Coveney Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Ely Group of Internal This site is within the Littleport and Downham Internal Drainage Comments noted. No change. Drainage Boards District. As there is no development planned over the life of the (Andrew Newton) plan, the Board has no comment to make from a drainage point of view

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 209 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Dullingham 3.2.13 A total of 5 people/organisations made comments on the draft Dullingham Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation & Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action ID Disagree S L Dullingham Parish Agree Y Y Dullingham Parish Council has no objection to the Support noted. No change. Council content of the Vision for Dullingham. Dr E Taylor Agree Y Y Agreement with the delineation of the settlement Support noted. No change. boundary and protection of the countryside William Allwood Barford Disagree N Y Proposed site for 5 dwellings (inc 2 affordable ) between Dullingham is a small village with some No change. & Co on behalf of a Algar Drive and Taylor’s Field (0.9ha). services. Consultation with the Parish client Council and local community in 2011/12 indicated low levels of support for new allocations on the edge of the village. Infill development will continue to come forward in the built-up area. Dr Aldo Galea Disagree The land between Algar Drive and Taylor’s Field should See response above No change be considered as a potential site for housing notwithstanding that the draft Local Plan is to be submitted to the Inspectorate in the near future. Quen Drury Disagree ? ? Objection to the definition of the settlement boundary in Dullingham is a small village with some No change so far as it relates to land off Brinkley Road which is services. Consultation with the Parish considered to be suitable for infill development. Council and local community in 2011/12 Acknowledgement that the land has been subject to indicated low levels of support for new appeal proceedings. allocations on the edge of the village. Infill (11/00566/FUL)(APP/V0510/A/12/2169542) development will continue to come forward Inclusion within the settlement boundary would add to the in the built-up area. Appeal decision for sustainability of the village, would allow for “rounding-off one dwelling on the proposed site: “of the development envelope. The village has facilities permission refused on principle and detail. and rail station nearby which could support a higher rate of growth than projected. The results of the Dullingham Survey (2012) would support small scale housing development . Described as brownfield. No evidence to suggest that the site had been evaluated as part of the draft village vision as described in Appendix 3 of the Draft Local Plan.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 210 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Ely 3.2.14 A total of 44 people/organisations made comments on the draft Ely Vision.

Policy ELY 1: Housing-led sustainable urban extension, North Ely Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Dan Ogier Agree Ely is a historical city & any development must be Comments noted. A Strategic No change realised in a sympathetic & organic manner Masterplan for the whole site will be prepared to guide future planning applications. N McCurdy Agree Y Y Provided good quality design guide and urban planning Support noted. A Strategic No change principles are created and adhered to that protect distant Masterplan for the whole site will and sequential views of Ely Cathedral and the wider be prepared to guide future setting of the town. planning applications. Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y Support the allocation of land to the north of Ely for Exemplar development Proposed minor Endurance Estates development as a sustainable urban extension. modification to ELY1 It is only proposed to seek self- second sentence to read ‘ Exemplary development relates to design and layout of build schemes on large sites A Strategic Masterplan for the proposed development and the appearance of the (100+ dwellings) where viability the whole site is buildings. The importance of the masterplanning process will support its inclusion. As stated important to deliver in delivering exemplary development needs to be in the final paragraph of HOU 1, exemplary development explicitly stated as part of the first bullet point in ELY1. the final mix of dwelling types and as well as being needed sizes will be subject to negotiation to provide context ...... ’ It is important that the development provides a range and with the applicant mix of dwelling types. But the policy must provide Proposed minor flexibility and should be market driven. A minimum of 5% It is not expected that post 16 modification to 4th from self-build properties could have implications for viability. education facilities will be required last bullet to read on site. ‘...... Where the feasibility The policy be clear that the provision of post -16 assessment education facilities are not expected to come forward on Recognise provision of renewable demonstrates that on-site the development site. energy needs to be both renewable energy technically feasible and financially provision is both Policy ELY1 specifies that where feasible the provision of viable technically feasible and on-site renewable energy generation should be delivered. financially viable, is The requirements under this bullet point should refer to deliverable, this will be 'technically feasible and financially viable' as the criteria required as part of the for determining whether renewable energy provision is development.’ made within the development.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 211 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATIION David Owen Disagree 1. No mention in the LDF about the need for additional 1. The draft Plan refers to No change secondary education development. secondary education needs in 2. How does the use of greenfield land and the high Policy GROWTH 3 and the density concentration of houses help ‘protect and Littleport Vision. enhance the rural setting of Ely (Strategic Objective 8) 2. A Strategic Masterplan for the 3. Concerned about capacity of infrastructure to cope. whole site will be prepared to guide future planning REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATIION applications. The Masterplan will try and ensure that the new scheme is well designed and retains views of the cathedral. 3. Infrastructure requirement recognised as set out in improvement table for ELY. Michael Hendry, Disagree N Y While the residential extension of Ely is supported, as is Comments noted. A range of No change Grovemere Property the provision of local jobs, the focus of this part of the employment allocations are plan ought to be for office based jobs, with a more proposed, notably ELY realistic target of 800 new jobs. Those employment uses 7,8,9,11&12. Need to be flexible to requiring good connections to the local highway network encourage employment and large industrial buildings, including B1 (b and c), B2 development in all these locations and B8 would be better placed at the established Lancaster Way Business Park and money spent on improving the connectivity of North Ely to Lancaster Way.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATIION JH Kisby Disagree This proposal, described as "opportunity to accommodate Comments noted. The adopted No change large-scale growth on the edge of Ely", by "housing-led Core Strategy allocated a sustainable urban extension", extending to Chettisham significant scale of growth in North with 3,000 dwellings, is grossly excessive and Ely. A Strategic Masterplan for the unnecessary. It would distort the character of this little whole site will be prepared to city. The area and extent of proposed growth should be guide future planning applications. reduced by 75%. Ian Allen Disagree N Y I do not believe that there is the political will to deliver the Comments noted. The adopted No change public transport corridors to move the possible 8,000 Core Strategy allocated a extra car drivers out of their cars. The station is on the significant scale of growth in North opposite side of the city to the proposed urban extension, Ely. A Strategic Masterplan for the so vast increases in city congestion can be expected. whole site will be prepared to Made worse by the inclusion of a number of multi storey guide future planning applications car park proposals in central locations. I have no problem taking into consideration with housing growth but it is on the wrong side of the city conclusions from the Ely away from the station. Any major growth should have Transport Modelling Report 2009 been towards Witchford on the ridge, linking Ely with the employment site at Lancaster way and in closer proximity

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 212 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

to the station. Mrs M Brownlow Disagree N There is scant support for the citywide development of Comments noted. A Strategic No change cycle and pedestrian infrastructure. There are a number Masterplan for the whole site will of concrete proposals for multi storey car parks yet none be prepared to guide future that state that developments must fund alternative planning applications taking into modes, There is a recognition that road space is limited. consideration conclusions from The tenor is one of getting access for cars unfettered by the Ely Transport Modelling other infrastructure, 'additional on road infrastructure'. Report 2009 That infrastructure need not be seen as additional but equal. GA Claxton Disagree N N In the Development Framework published in 2011, it Comments noted. A Strategic No change clearly states and shows a substantial green buffer area Masterplan for the whole site will to separate Chettisham from Ely and keeps it's own be prepared to guide future identity. Yet Endurance Company have totally ignored planning applications. the Council, the public consultation and have submitted The emerging scheme still plans to build houses, gardens and a road right in the contains a substantial buffer to buffer area and have joined Ely to Chettisham. Chettisham

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATIION

Phil Rose, Disagree The Council should encourage flexibility, diversity and The District Council supports the No change to Ely 1. Foundation East innovation in housing type and tenure by ensuring that development of CLTs and other provision is made for a percentage (suggest 10%) of the community based schemes, and housing units to be delivered as community-owned Policy GROWTH 6 seeks to housing using Community Land Trust, co-operative encourage and support such housing, co-housing, co-housing models or self-build. development across the district. Such an approach is embodied in the Cambridgeshire However, the District Council quality charter for growth which recognises the valuable cannot insist on the establishment contribution which recognises the valuable contribution of Community Land Trusts (CLTs) that community and resident involvement can play in or similar schemes on particular shaping new housing communities. sites, as they are something which needs to originate from the REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION (Mr Rose community itself. Therefore it has since confirmed via email that he no longer wishes to would not be appropriate to appear on this matter if the Council’s proposed minor require that a proportion of all modification listed under HOU 1 is made – email dated 9 properties on allocation sites May 2013) should be CLTs or similar. However, Policy HOU 1 and relevant housing allocation policies propose that a minimum of 5% of dwelling on schemes of 100+ dwellings should be self- build properties, and this is reflected in Policy ELY 1. No

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 213 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

change proposed to ELY 1 – but minor modification proposed to Policy HOU 1 to refer to CLTs. See Housing section above. Alison Arnold Disagree No link up for non-motorised vehicles (restricted byway) Comments noted No change around & in Ely and nearby settlements. Walkers & cyclists are not the only ones that come under the heading of non-motorised vehicles. A restricted byway covers all the groups that are non-motorised vehicles, which gives no favouritism. Bloggs Disagree N Noted No change Mrs Jane Howell Disagree N Ref: Page 18 3.2.5 Statement 'High level of support from Comments noted. This relates to Proposed minor the local community (44% support on strategic matters in the district as a whole, but more modification to Page 18 March 2012). 173 people responded to the consultation. balanced wording required. 3.2.5 6th bullet to read 44% thought the housing targets were about right, 39% ‘44% support considered thought that they were too high. The difference in the the housing targets percentages is not significant and does not indicate a were about right in high level of support. consultation on strategic matters in March 2012’ Anne Baty Disagree N Balance between housing and employment opportunities Comments noted. The adopted No change is wrong. 3000 new dwellings will not help to improve the Core Strategy allocated a out-commuting problem in Ely. Most people will need to significant scale of growth in North work elsewhere - increasing the numbers commuting out, Ely. A Strategic Masterplan for driving through the centre of Ely to the station, through a the whole site will be prepared to narrow network of highways that are already congested. guide future planning applications. The provision of some 4500 new Equally, 3000 new households travelling to the jobs will prevent further supermarkets in the south of Ely will add to the traffic exacerbation of the imbalance. load. A development this size demands it own The Highway Authority have no supermarket outlet, accessible from the A10. objections in principle subject to Transport Assessment and work Concern about impact of increase traffic and noise on done through the Strategic amenity of the existing residents of Lynn Road. There is Masterplan. little assurance in the hopes for sustainable transport - those who have multi-stop journeys - schools and work and shopping will continue to use the car as a matter of course. Local buses are continually under threat of withdrawal of subsidy/closure, and are too expensive for the larger family on low incomes. Cycle paths and walkways on the development will not encourage further journeys as there are no any in central Ely and the Lynn Road route is unpleasant to cycle along. Wendy Hague, Disagree North Ely Policy Ely 1 Agree with first proposed change, Proposed minor Cambs County The second bullet point within this policy, on page 166, but not the rest as it is considered modification to Policy ELY

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 214 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Council which relates to the two primary schools, needs to be to be too detailed – will be 1, 14th bullet: amended to read: captured under the Strategic  Provide 2 new Masterplan or planning application primary schools  Provide 2 new primary schools through the provision process. through Section 106 of section 106 planning obligations. One is to be agreements. One is provided in the Cam Drive area and one within the to be provided in the central mixed-use area. The sites need to be at level Cam Drive area and with the surrounding land and well integrated and one within the central central to the catchment population they will serve. mixed-use area.

In addition two additional bullet points need to be added . Proposed minor to the policy to properly address the educational modification to Policy ELY requirements of the proposed growth, these being: 1, second bullet:  Provision be made (secured through a section 106  2 Primary schools planning obligation) for a 2 hectare special school with pre-school (years 1 to 11) which is to be located adjacent to facilities and 1 either of the two primary schools. special education  Sufficient land is to be allocated to be provided for 2 needs school pre-school education facilities. Proposed minor modification to Policy ELY 1, two new bullets after bullet 14:  Provide 2 new primary schools with pre-school facilities, one in the Cam Drive area and one within the central mixed-use area.  Provide a special education needs school (age 2 to 11 years) to be located adjacent to either of the two primary schools. Ian Smith, Smiths Disagree Overall, the Church Commissioners positively support the 1. Exemplar means ‘excellent Proposed minor Gore (for Church allocation of land at North Ely for a major sustainable model’ – where a proposal modifications: Commissioners) urban extension. But we object to this policy on the demonstrates a high quality of following grounds: architectural design and Glossary (new entry): sustainable construction/living. Exemplar development 1. We object to use of the term ‘exemplar urban This could be included in the – development that extension’ as the Council does not define what it Glossary. demonstrates a high

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 215 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

means by this. It is too vague and non-specific to be 2. Agree that the reference to quality of architectural of any assistance to applicants and developers. ‘two main landowners’ could design and sustainable 2. It is factually incorrect to state that the site is in the be amended to refer to construction/ living. ownership of two main landowners. It is in the ‘landowners/ consortiums.’ ownership of a number of landowners. 3. Agree that two local centres Supporting text to Policy 3. No evidence that supports two further local centres will now be required. ELY 1, third para: in addition to the key local centre at the Lynn 4. It is not expected that post 16 Road/Highflyer Avenue junction. In our opinion education facilities will be ‘The site is in the there is no commercial case or market interest in required on site. ownership/control of two further local centres and, in reality, the most that 5. Recognise provision of main can be achieved commercially is two local centres renewable energy needs to be landowners/consortium across North Ely as a whole. both technically feasible and and covers….’ 4. We object to the statement that ‘In addition, financially viable developers should explore the potential to provide 6. It is only proposed to seek additional post-16 education facilities within the self-build schemes on large Proposed minor development’. It is not for developers to assess the sites (100+ dwellings) where modification item 3 on educational needs of future residents of North Ely – viability will support its page 163 to read ‘A new that is a matter for the Education Authority and the inclusion. As stated in the final mixed-use area in the District Council – a planning function. If there is paragraph of HOU 1, the final centre of the development such a need this Plan should set out that evidence mix of dwelling types and Two local centres are and land use proposals should be formulated sizes will be subject to proposed. The larger accordingly. negotiation with the applicant centre at the Lynn Road 5. We object to references to large-scale technologies 7. Seek to ensure high quality junction will such as Combined Heat & Power which are not design. provide...... ’ appropriate for North Ely largely on account of the 8. Requirement under Habitat Amend 5th sentence to likely density of development, timing, phasing and Regulations to undertake an read ‘Two additional A environmental factors. Appropriate Assessment in smaller local centres 6. We object to the term self-build because our North relation to large scale should be delivered at in Ely Masterplan discussions with officers have schemes which impact on the Cam Drive area the suggested a different objective for this matter. We conservation interests sou-eastern corner of the object to the requirement for a minimum of 5% self adopted Core Strategy allocated development - to build for the reasons set out in our objection to a significant scale of growth in junction. This will Policy HOU 1 North Ely. A Strategic provide small-scale ...... ’ 7. We do not understand the requirement to comply Masterplan for the whole site with ‘approved Design Codes’ and request that this will be prepared to guide Proposed minor is clarified future planning applications. It modification to 8. We object to the requirement to provide sufficient is agreed that there will only Policy ELY 1 delete 4th information for a project-level Appropriate be two local centres. The bullet A Neighbourhood Assessment. Council will continue to work Centre, providing retail 9. We object to the requirement for a feasibility with the Church and community uses and assessment of the potential for significant on-site Commissioners in relation to amend 5th bullet to read renewable energy provision for reasons set out the planning application for ‘Two small local centre, above in relation to Policy ENV 4. Again it is wholly 800 dwellings providing top up shopping unclear who and how this might be addressed as 9. See response to ENV 4. retail and community Ely North will come forward as a series of separate 10. Comments noted. This will be facilities

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 216 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

planning applications by different parties; and addressed at planning 10. We comment that the requirement to demonstrate application stage. Proposed minor that there is adequate capacity in the foul sewerage modification to network will be established through consultation Policy GROWTH 4 with Anglian Water prior to submission of any reference in table under applications and, ultimately, through formal North Ely Retail/leisure to application consultation with Anglian Water read, ’Neighbourhood centres and 2 local centres’

Proposed minor modification to Page 30 Tables 3.4 & 3.5 Ely Allocations to read, ‘Neighbourhood Local Centres North Ely’

Supporting text to Policy ELY 1, section 4 [delete last sentence]

In addition, developers should explore the potential to provide additional post-16 education facilities within the development.

Policy ELY 1, 4th from last bullet: ‘...... Where the feasibility assessment demonstrates that on-site renewable energy provision is both technically feasible and financially viable, is deliverable, this will be required as part of the development.’ Richard Baty, No view The North Ely Urban extension fails to meet strategic Comments noted. A Strategic No change Transition Ely objectives. The main area of employment growth and Masterplan for the whole site will supermarkets are planned to the south of the city, while be prepared to guide future the main area of housing development is to the north. planning applications, and address sustainable transportation

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 217 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

The development is likely to increase out commuting issues. rather than reduce it, and funnel journeys through the centre of Ely. Conflicts with NPPF para 37 and para. 32 It is not likely to be feasible to re- and Policy HOU 2. open the railway station at Chettisham. No mention has been made of a new rail halt on the railway line at Chettisham to provide a more sustainable pattern of transport. Ogier Aiuto As long as provision is made for improvement of road Comments noted No change traffic on A10 between Ely & Cambridge Ely Cycle Campaign Seek to maximise opportunities for cycling including Comments noted No change segregated cycling routes, cycle parking and discourage on street car parking. Maggie Kent N The Local Plan mentions the high level of out-commuting Comments noted. The adopted No change by residents of recently built housing estates (70%). It Core Strategy allocated a seems wrong to allocate another large housing extension significant scale of growth in North without first addressing this problem. The number of Ely to meet housing need. A houses proposed for North Ely is too high and should be Strategic Masterplan for the whole reduced in scale in order to avoid yet more carbon site will look at access and producing out-commuting and increased traffic movement and seek to promote congestion in the historic streets of central Ely. sustainable travel Claire Davies, DTZ No objection to proposed allocation of land for housing. Comments noted. Will continue to No change (for Royal Mail) Royal Mail will need to carefully consider whether their discuss with Royal Mail their existing delivery facilities are able to handle the additional future requirements, but none deliveries and are able to secure land/property to provide confirmed at the current time. for the growth in their delivery operation. Therefore support the identification of land for employment. Also support the phased approach to development on the basis this may need to include for a new or expanded Delivery Office. Alistair Ingram, Concerned with the potential impact of any convenience Comments noted. Strategic No change Barton Willmore (for goods retailing on its store as the convenience anchor in Masterplan is now only looking to Waitrose) the City Centre. Any convenience goods retailing should provide two local centres to meet be restricted to a maximum of 650 sq m net. top up shopping needs Roslyn Deeming, N Welcome the provision to provide a minimum 30% of the Comments noted. No, change Natural England site as green infrastructure/public open space and the aim to maximise opportunities to make green space multifunctional. Support proposed extension (phase 3) to the Ely Country Park but concerned its more recreational focus could potential impact on Ely Pits and Meadows SSSI in terms of visitor disturbance. Welcome commitment to undertake project level HRA appropriate assessment.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 218 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Meredith Bowles, Design principle 2 - does not consider the new east west A Strategic Masterplan for the No change Mole Architects link should be designed as a multifunctional tree-lined whole site will be prepared which avenue as this will produce a through route which will will look at access and design become a bypass. Instead the road should be narrower, and seek to promote sustainable and be part of the urban character, not open and wide development with trees, verges, no on-street parking etc. Suggest the 'tree-lined avenue' is not in keeping with the character of Ely and should be omitted or radically revised. East Cambs should invest in an urban design (more than a masterplan) for the northern extension. Suggest the Strategic Masterplan should be exemplary and include a requirement for the development to be comply with 'Code for Sustainable Homes Level 5, Breeam Excellent, or Passivhaus standards of construction'. Also on site renewable will always be feasible in the form of solar panels, either PV or solar thermal. Rod Hart With reference to, “….legibility and permeability…..” Comments noted. A Strategic No change please replace these terms with meaningful ones The Masterplan for the whole site will feasibility assessment for, “….significant on-site look at urban design and seek to renewable energy provision….” Must be conducted by an promote sustainable development independent assessor (not employed by or assigned to the developer or ECDC) the assessment should then be independently validated by an independent assessor (not employed by or assigned to the developer or ECDC) Please include this form of words. Ely Group of Internal Part of Ely 1 - west of Lynn Road: This area is outside Comments are noted. It will be No change Drainage Boards the Littleport and Downham Internal Drainage District but important for any developer to (Andrew Newton) in an area that drains into the Board's surface water address surface water issues, as receiving system. The latter has no residual capacity to set out in Policy ENV 8 in Part 1 of accept increased rates of surface water run-off in the Plan. connection with new development proposals. The Board do not support or object to the proposal but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to development of this site to protect lands and properties within the District from increased flood risk

Part of Ely 1, east of Lynn Road: This site is outside the Padnal and Waterden Internal Drainage District but in a highland area that drains to Kettlesworth Catchwater and Clayway Catchwater. Both Catchwaters intercept highland water from the proposed site to protect the Board's pumped catchment. Neither Catchwaters have any residual capacity. Clayway Catchwater is the responsibility of the Church Commissioners and other private landowners. The Padnal and Waterden IDB has

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 219 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

been trying for some considerable time to reach an agreement with the Environment Agency to take responsibility for maintenance. However, a considerable amount of maintenance work will need to be undertaken before the board take over the maintenance. With such a significant area of development, a strategic scheme must be put forward to accommodate and attenuate water prior to discharge. Maeve Thompson- Recent estates in Ely suffer from lack of roadside trees, Comments noted. The adopted No change Starkey and no amenities within a short walking distance. Core Strategy allocated a significant scale of growth in North The proposed plans do not accord with the spatial vision Ely. A Strategic Masterplan for in Chapter 2. Need to require: the whole site will be prepared  A guarantee that Cam Drive will not become busier which look at access and urban and will in fact be pushed back further to the North design issues and seek to secure with traffic calming measures installed sustainable development.  Lines of trees along both sides of Cam Drive should be planted  New housing built to the ‘Passivhaus’ standard  Allotments  Better broadband connections. Policy ELY 2: Retail-led/mixed-use allocation, The Grange, Nutholt Lane Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Foundation East N McCurdy Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Endurance Estates Meredith Bowles Agree Redevelopment could significantly improve the possibility Support noted No change of Ely offering larger -scale retail activity within the historic core. Policy ELY 2 should contain reference to the relocation of the Council offices and be clear as to the intention for these. David Wilson Disagree 1. Does Ely really need more hotels/guesthouses. Comments noted. The Grange site No change 2. If The Grange is to be allocated for retail-led/mixed use offers a good opportunity to expand development, where will the new ECDC offices be built? the City Centre subject to a In a comparable city centre location or not, and what satisfactory alternative site being cost? identified for the ECDC offices. 3. Given the Sessions House is a listed building and

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 220 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

contributes to the historic setting of Ely, would be better With regard to Sessions House any used for communal purpose and not retail/food outlets future use will need to respect its listed status Ian Allen Disagree N The development of new sizeable retail space in the city Comments noted. The Grange site No change centre is to be welcomed. However the removal to an offers a good opportunity to expand unspecified location of the council offices, key public the City Centre subject to a facilities, is contrary to policies that seek to protect town satisfactory alternative site being centres, both in terms of employment and public access. identified for the ECDC offices which If in the other sites listed, Ely3-5 and 7, it was clearly is accessible to the general public. stated that these offices, which now also act as a housing contact centre, were to be located positively as a key part of community infrastructure then their loss from Ely 2 is acceptable. Richard Baty, Disagree N The District Council offices need to be accessible to all Comments noted. The Grange site No change Transition Ely inhabitants of Ely, and needs a city centre location. offers a good opportunity to expand Already in the right place. The proposal to remove them the City Centre subject to a fails the sequential test, (NPPF paras 23 and 24.) satisfactory alternative site being Removing large numbers of Council employees from the identified for the ECDC offices which town centre will adversely affect the cafes and shops is accessible to the general public. that rely on the lunch time trade. There would be fewer opportunities for linked trips to town centre facilities. Anne Baty Disagree N Council offices need to be accessible to all, and therefore Comments noted. The Grange site No change in a central location near to public transport networks. It is offers a good opportunity to expand hard to imagine a more appropriate site than the Grange. the City Centre subject to a Any redevelopment should bear the load of parking satisfactory alternative site being requirements that is generated - thus any residential identified for the ECDC offices which development will need parking spaces to be allocated is accessible to the general public close by - and uncharged for in the future. Ogier Aiuto Disagree Change of use of the Grange should be self financing. Comments noted. The Grange site No change Retail outlets are already struggling in Ely. There is no offers a good opportunity to expand need for more. High quality dwellings should be the City Centre subject to a developed in a sympathetic manner & not just for satisfactory alternative site being developers profitability. identified for the ECDC offices. Dan Ogier Disagree It needs to be self financing. Any development should be Comments noted. The Grange site No change public use/facilities offers a good opportunity to expand the City Centre subject to a satisfactory alternative site being identified for the ECDC offices. Mrs M Brownlow Would appreciate larger shops like M&S. Good accessible Comments noted. The Grange site No change location near current bus stops. As so much new housing offers a good opportunity to expand being built in ELY1, don’t see need for accommodation in the City Centre subject to a ELY2. Old Session building should be treasured and Arts satisfactory alternative site being idea much more suitable. identified for the ECDC offices.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 221 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Wendy Hague, Concern there is an inadequate amount of space for The policy explains that car parking No change Cambs County access, parking and turning of service vehicles. The needs to be re-provided elsewhere. Council suggested ground floor retail area is unlikely to be The plan included in the policy is deliverable. intended to be illustrative only – any detailed proposals would need to be considered as part of the planning application process. Maggie Kent N There is no realistic prospect of any of these sites being Comments noted. The Grange site No change redeveloped. The current uses are perfectly suited to offers a good opportunity to expand these city centre sites. the City Centre subject to a satisfactory alternative site being identified for the ECDC offices. Rod Hart Additional 6373 sq mtrs of comparison retail floor space If leakage rates are to be reduced No change based on current leakage rates. Is this correct? So if then retail provision need to increase leakage reduced by half to, say, 38% then retail space as outlined in the 2012 Retail Study requirement would double to 12746 sq mtrs? This seems unlikely. Policy ELY 3: A Vision for Paradise area Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Ogier Aiuto Agree On the reserve that Paradise Green is not used for car Support noted. Green to be kept. No change parking & remains as it is. Dan Ogier Agree Provided the grassed area is not reduced whatsoever. Support noted. Green to be kept No change Multi-storey car park OK Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Foundation East N McCurdy Agree Y Y Provided redevelopment retains and creates appropriate Support noted. Green area to be kept No change useable green space as a 'release valve' for the town centre and surrounding residential areas. Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y The redevelopment of this site will help to create an Support noted No change Endurance Estates opportunity for the development of a range of uses in the Centre of Ely. Care does need to be taken to ensure that there remains sufficient car parking available to serve the city centre. David Wilson Disagree The building of a multi-storey car park so close to the city Comments noted. Opportunity for a No change centre conflicts with 2 Strategic Objectives: • Avoid the comprehensive mixed use scheme, loss of Ely’s ‘distinctiveness’, with all new development incorporating primarily residential but responding positively to the unique character of this also car parking and community historic city, and respecting the setting and views of Ely uses. Design issues will be dealt with Cathedral’ (Strategic Objective 2) • Protect and enhance at the planning application stage.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 222 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

the historic environment, particularly in the city centre’. (Strategic Objective 9) Ian Allen Disagree N The Paradise area has an existing function that fits Comments noted. Opportunity for a No change sustainability policies in terms of social function and it comprehensive mixed use scheme, reinforces the economic diversity of the city centre. The incorporating primarily residential but existing sports facilities should be upgraded, if necessary also car parking and community using parts of the green space, this could be combined uses. with parking and new council offices all of which are town centre activities. Policies Ely 2 and 3 will lead to a hollowing out of diverse functions in the city centre. The provision of multi level parking is inconsistent with the stated aim of lowering car use in the city centre, Ely Masterplan aspiration, and does not sit well with the conservation area. Mrs M Brownlow Disagree Leave the swimming pool where it is convenient for Comments noted. Opportunity for a No change everyone. Those without cars wouldn't find your plans comprehensive mixed use scheme, helpful. With E1 planned why do we need to turn the incorporating primarily residential but conveniently located pool with more housing. Keeping the also car parking and community area green more important than houses there. Has uses. anyone asked the bowling club if they want their land to be a car park!? Richard Baty, Disagree N Leisure, entertainment, more intensive sport and Comments noted. The relocation of No change Transition Ely recreation uses, health and fitness centres are defined in the Paradise Sports Centre offers the the NPPF as main town centre uses. Thus the existing opportunity for a comprehensive site for the Leisure centre and Swimming Pool is a good mixed use scheme, incorporating one, and moving it to the proposed out of city area fails primarily residential but also car the Sequential test (NPPF para 24) The facilities here are parking and community uses. an important draw to the town centre. They are easily The Highway Authority has no accessed by residents from a wide swathe of Ely on foot objection in principle. Further or by cycle, such as the relatively disadvantaged High masterplanning work will look at Barns area. Those from further out of the city travelling by access, movement and urban design public transport will be expected to make two bus issues. journeys to get to the suggested new location, which is a significant disincentive to taking part in sporting activities. (NPPF para 171). NPPF para 70 advises that planning policy should guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, and this policy is in contradiction to that.

The proposal for a multi storey car park on the Bowls Club to support the Nutholt Lane development and the associated access from Deacon’s Lane contradicts Policy ENV2 as it will have a detrimental effect on the residential amenity of the area and is inappropriate in a small market

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 223 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

town. Deacon’s Lane is a narrow residential road already experiencing traffic flow problems as many residents have no off street parking, and park on the kerbside. Two way traffic is normally not possible. Encouraging extra traffic down this road is not a satisfactory solution to accessing a multi storey car park which in itself will be intrusive and detrimental to the nearby residential areas A park and ride schemes from development areas close to the A10 may be more sustainable. Anne Baty Disagree N The present leisure centre and swimming pool are a part Comments noted. The relocation of No change of the city centre infrastructure, and are defined as such the Paradise Sports Centre offers the by the NPPF (glossary annex 2). They are accessible to a opportunity for a comprehensive wide proportion of the residents of the whole district by mixed use scheme, incorporating foot, cycle and bus, and accessible by local children primarily residential but also car independently. Having to travel out of the city centre will parking and community uses. be a disincentive to sporting participation. Multi-purpose The Highway Authority has no visits to paradise/town centre will cease, adversely objection in principle. Further affecting the traders. Replacing some or all of the present masterplanning work will look at leisure facilities will not only threaten participation but also access, movement and urban design local residential amenity. A multi-storey carpark seems issues. inappropriate in a small market town of this size and type, and access via Deacons Lane would involve a great deal of difficulty given its narrow form with roadside parking and few off-street parking areas. The provision of more and more central parking will encourage more and more traffic-journeys by car. A park and ride scheme running from the north and west of Ely to the station and Octagon areas would allow this land to continue its central leisure function. Maggie Kent N There is no realistic prospect of any of these sites being Comments noted No change redeveloped. The current uses are perfectly suited to these city centre sites. Meredith Bowles, The development of the Paradise Area should be for Comments noted No change Mole Architects predominantly public use, with housing being secondary and above other uses. Rod Hart This “Vision” is at odds with both many of the “mixed use” Comments noted. The relocation of No change statements within the plan and with the wishes of the the Paradise Sports Centre offers the people of Ely. The current sports and leisure facilities opportunity for a comprehensive provided by the Paradise sports centre and swimming mixed use scheme, incorporating pool are well liked, well used and well supported by all primarily residential but also car sectors of the community, they are ideally centrally parking and community uses. The located within the city providing easy and convenient non- Highway Authority has no objection in vehicle access. The “vision” to redevelop this site into a principle. Further masterplanning multi-story car park sends entirely the wrong message as work will look at access, movement

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 224 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

to the nature, quality and character of the City of Ely as a and urban design issues. delightful location to work rest and play. The replacement of the existing “fit for purpose” sports facilities with an “out-of-town” development on the wrong side of the A10 bypass would lead the majority of present users to either stop getting their much cherished exercise or having to drive to the new out-of-town facility – hardly conducive to combating the current obesity pandemic of reducing carbon emissions. This “vision” is deeply flawed. Policy ELY 4: A Vision for the Waitrose car park area Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Ian Allen Agree In principle this is the right place for retail intensification, Support noted No change However any double decking of the car park should be underground, either on this site or beneath the existing Paradise field. Priority should be a simple park and ride scheme in preference to traditional multi storey car parks. Mrs M Brownlow Agree Good idea to extend the shopping centre but only if there Support noted No change is careful planning for: 1 Right sized shops ie some of the larger chains, smaller spaces well catered for in high Street and Market street. 2 Large carpark underneath or above retailing space larger than existing area. Vital to expand car parking not decrease it in this plan. Dan Ogier Agree [No further comments] Support noted No change Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Foundation East Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y The redevelopment of this site will help to create an Support noted No change Endurance Estates opportunity for the development of a range of uses in the Centre of Ely. Care does need to be taken to ensure that there remains sufficient car parking available to serve the city centre. David Wilson Disagree As with the proposal above (ELY 3), providing an element Comments noted. Opportunity for a No change of multi-storey car park provision so close to the city retail led mixed use scheme. Further conflicts with the Strategic Objectives 2 and 9. masterplanning work will look at access, movement and urban design issues. Ogier Aiuto Disagree Leave car parking as it is or improve it to offer more Comments noted. Opportunity for a No change spaces retail led mixed use scheme. Further masterplanning work will look at access, movement and urban design

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 225 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

issues. Michael Hendry, Disagree N In order to deliver the desired links between the Waitrose Comments noted. It is not proposed No change Plansurv Ltd car park site, Newnham Road and Nutholt Lane, detailed that the Newnham Road frontage in the Policy and paragraph 3 of this section of the Ely properties are included in the Vision, it will be necessary to include the land and scheme, therefore no rewording is buildings to the north of the site so that a comprehensive required. redevelopment can be achieved and pedestrian and cycle links can be improved in a meaningful manner. The section heading and Policy should be reworded to read as follows: Retail-led / mixed use allocation – Waitrose car park and Newnham Street area Policy ELY 4: A Vision for the Waitrose car park and Newnham Street area

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION N McCurdy Disagree Y Y Loss of important and busy town centre parking asset. Comments noted. Need to provide No change Will exacerbate and create further congestion and push parking and ensure we don’t create trade out of town. congestion. Alistair Ingram, Disagree N Objects to the proposed redevelopment of its car park (of Noted. This will only proceed with No change Barton Willmore (for which Waitrose is the freeholder), confirms it has no Waitrose agreement. However, the Waitrose) intentions to pursue any redevelopment scheme. Loss of plan covers a 17 year period, car parking would make it less competitive with out of therefore seeks to set out a ‘Vision’ of town stores. what may be appropriate and may come forward in the area. Richard Baty, No view Ownership of this area is unclear, and there appears to be Comments noted. The plan covers a No change Transition Ely no desire by the occupant for any change. How can this 17 year period, therefore seeks to set be included in the Local Plan? out a ‘Vision’ of what may be appropriate and may come forward in the area. Meredith Bowles, No reduction in car parking should be permitted. All efforts Comments noted. Will need to No change Mole Architects should be made to ensure that cars can be reprovide parking on the site accommodated on site. Policy ELY 5: A Vision for land north of Nutholt Lane Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Ian Allen Agree Y The moving of the primarily road based emergency Support noted No change services to an A road location seems sensible, possibly the police could have some town centre presence on a smaller scale co located with the council and housing offices. Ogier Aiuto Agree Police & ambulance good to be relocated on bypass Support noted No change

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 226 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

N McCurdy Agree Y Y Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y This allocation provides land for the development of a Support noted No change Endurance Estates mixture of uses. This is to be supported and will help to contribute to the future growth of Ely. David Wilson Disagree Any proposed move of the Police Station and/or Comments noted. It is agreed that Proposed minor Ambulance Station should not be allowed to happen in inappropriate to refer to ‘realising modification on page order to ‘…realise land values…’ If either or both are to land values.’ 172 second sentence, move, their relocation should be engendered by the need to read, ‘It is possible to provide larger/better facilities to match any demands of that one or both of a growing population. It should also ensure that the these units may wish services they provide are not adversely affected. to move over this period, in order to realise land values and/or to - potentially to provide larger facilities.....’ Richard Baty, Disagree N Both the ambulance and the police services need a The plan covers a 17 year period, No change Transition Ely central location in order to access the whole of the city as therefore seeks to set out a ‘Vision’ of quickly as possible. It is no coincidence that the fire what may be appropriate over that service occupies a very similar location. It is unlikely that period. Also a town centre location there is anywhere suitable for them to move to that would does not always mean the quickest not be more suited to another form of development. There access for emergency vehicles are no proposals to move these facilities so this proposal serving a large rural area. is not justified. Anne Baty Disagree N These uses need to be in a central location to access all Comments noted. The plan covers a No change areas of Ely as quickly as possible. All 3 emergency 17 year period, therefore seeks to set services are based on this broad area - for obvious out a ‘Vision’ of what may be reasons! appropriate over that period. Also a town centre location does not always mean the quickest access for emergency vehicles serving a large rural area. Maggie Kent N There is no realistic prospect of any of these sites being Comments note. The plan covers a No change redeveloped. The current uses are perfectly suited to 17 year period, therefore seeks to set these city centre sites. out a ‘Vision’ of what may be appropriate over that period. Also a town centre location does not always mean the quickest access for emergency vehicles serving a large rural area.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 227 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy ELY 6: Ely Market Square Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Ian Allen Agree Y I fully support this option as anyone who comes forward Support noted No change with car parking proposals will find no support in this policy. Ogier Aiuto Agree Agree for Market Square to be developed with cafes & Support noted No change brasserie type catering outlets with terraces for it to be more used & lively especially in the summer Dan Ogier Agree Market square buildings overdue for sympathetic Support noted No change refurbishment or replacement Phil Rose, Agree Y Y Support noted No change Foundation East N McCurdy Agree Y Y But the open square MUST be retained for townscape Support noted No change and sense of place value. Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y This development will help to provide a mix and range of Support noted No change Endurance Estates uses in the centre of Ely, whilst helping to improve the appearance and contribution to the historic core. This will help to make Ely a more attractive place to visit and will therefore help to improve the vitality and viability of the City. Mrs Jane Howell Agree Y The market square needs revitalising and developing to Support noted No change replace the ugly concrete building in the middle. David Wilson Disagree Support appropriate proposals that would improve the Officers in discussion with owner of No change character and appearance of the Market Square and its the 1960’s building regarding function as a market and activity hub for Ely. There are enhancements. Also investigating two priorities as follows: • potential improvements to the Market Removal/replacement/renovation of the 1960s building on Place with Architects the Market Square. It is to be hoped that the business which currently occupy this site could be persuaded to relocate elsewhere (as a temporary or permanent move). After all, with all the retail development that is being planned in the city centre, there should be several suitable sites. • Much more is needed to make this bland, over-paved area more attractive and appealing and so fulfil its potential to be a prime communal hub of the city. Mrs M Brownlow 2 markets in Ely important bring in lots of people should Comments noted No change be cherished and encouraged by council, not given hurdles set up own framework higher costs. Building you have referred to not architectually helpful to Ely and could

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 228 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

be improved so agree there. Meredith Bowles, Redevelopment of the building in the market square has Comments noted No change Mole Architects severe financial constraints. Could be paid for by housing above, but this would result in a tall building to make it financially viable. Consider relocating part of the Grange eg the Bavarian town of Bad Aibling (population 17,000) Policy ELY 7: Employment-led/mixed-use allocation, Station Gateway Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L David Wilson Agree I would support measures that ensure that the Station Support and comments noted No change Gateway becomes an attractive gateway,, as long as all these measures are compliant with Strategic Objectives 2 and 9. It is very difficult to see how this compliance will be met if two multi-storey car parks are to be built in the area. Dan Ogier Agree On basis that Tesco do not have control or veto on the Support noted No change commercial/retail development. Especially which businesses allowed Phil Rose, Agree Y Y Support noted No change Foundation East N McCurdy Agree Y Y Agree, but believe ELY10 is flawed and this area should Support and comments noted. ELY No change also incorporate the leisure village so can be served more 10 is required to concentrate sporting easily by train and accessible to the greater sized and leisure provision in one location (southern) part of the District. Must be dependant upon which is of sufficient size. The Station prior delivery of the Southern By-Pass and should be Gateway Area can be redeveloped embargoed until by-pass fully operational. with or without the bypass, although the latter will provide an improved environment for redevelopment. Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y The redevelopment of the station gateway area is Support noted No change Endurance Estates considered to be a crucial driver in securing investment into the centre of Ely. The delivery of a transport interchange with clear and legible links to the centre of Ely will help to encourage people to use more sustainable modes of transport. This will also help to provide land for the development of new office and business space which will be an attractive location for development with the efficient rail links to London, Cambridge and Peterborough. This development will help to complement the sustainable urban extension to the north of Ely. Michael Hendry, Disagree N Y The redevelopment of the station area to improve the Comments noted. Scope to provide No change Grovemere Property gateway to Ely is welcomed. It is acknowledged by the both B1 and B2 employment uses

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 229 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Council that the area is dominated by the A142 and which offers flexibility. industrial units, which are unsympathetic and blight the Further masterplanning work will look first impression of the city for thousands of rail and road at access, movement and urban users each day. In light of the Council’s recognition that design issues. the industrial nature of the current Station gateway is a blight to Ely and that many of the industrial units are vacant it seems counterintuitive and unsound to allocate the site for B2 as this would make the redevelopment proposed ineffective it its delivery by reinforcing the industrial nature of the area and creating potential conflict between non-conforming uses. Ian Allen Disagree N This option is predicated on Tesco moving. Tesco will Comments noted. Tesco’s relocation No change only move if it obtains permission for a more remote, will be subject to a retail impact larger store, selling a much greater range of non food assessment to ensure no significant items. If this happens it will undermine existing town harm to the town centre. Scope to centre businesses and crucially make it harder to provide both B1 and B2 employment redevelop the Paradise and council office sites. The uses which offers flexibility. existing experience is not ideal, a hidden bypass, which is The bypass is the County Council’s technically feasible, would remove a lot of through traffic preferred option and enable pedestrian and cycle improvements. In terms of maintaining a balance in the economy the skilled jobs offered by Standens are to be celebrated, the city is after all a key agricultural centre. Ogier Aiuto Disagree Expenses not needed (ie bypass) just needs an extra Comments noted. The bypass is the No change roundabout County Council’s preferred option Richard Baty, Disagree N It is essential that plans for this area do not assume the Comments noted. Greater Anglia are No change Transition Ely acceptance of the Southern Bypass route B scheme, but bringing forward proposals to are flexible and allow for alternatives. (NPPF para 21 implement a bus interchange at the point 3) There is no need to await redevelopment to station create a public transport interchange at the station. All subsidised bus routes could be required to call at the station, rather than just behind the supermarket. Buses that replace trains seem to have little difficulty in using the station forecourt. A visible bus link to the nearby villages and wider Ely area would encourage greater uptake. At present, information on and availability of bus routes is difficult to ascertain.(NPPF 30, 32) Nick Hardy, GVA (for Disagree N The Policy appears to establish the type and amount of Comments noted. Yes it will provide No change Lidl UK) development, however these might also be covered by more detailed design guidance the 'masterplan' or 'SPD'. Clarity over the intended purpose of the SPD should be set out in the Local Plan, is it to provide more detailed design guidance? Anne Baty Disagree N Redevelopment of the area given Tescos wish to move Comments noted. Plans for transport No change will be an enhancement, and employment opportunities interchange being prepared by

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 230 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

are needed. However, I am concerned that housing Greater Anglia. Local plan sets out development and employment areas are mainly proposed County Councils preferred route B for for opposite ends of Ely, rather than being planned bypass, but Station Gateway area will together, to limit harmful car journeys. I am also still happen even if bypass does not concerned that the plans assume that Route B of the proceed. Plan is flexible. southern bypass will go ahead, rather than being flexible enough to allow other solutions if necessary, that would otherwise be disallowed as going against the Local Plan (NPPF para. 21). Transport interchange could already be functioning if bus routes all went via the station rather than Tesco supermarket. In their present form, they are invisible to those arriving at the station, and information is hard to find. There appears to have been no desire for this to be achieved until now. Chris Swain, Disagree N Y We support enhancing the role of the river. But plan could Comments are noted. The policy Proposed minor Environment Agency make more of the opportunity to use the river to improve picks up on matters such as use of modification to Policy both the environment and the economy. Keen to see the river, access to the riverside, ELY 7 (new bullet) enhanced river navigation and tourism role and at the views of the river, and flood risk. The same time relieving the main river channel of existing production of the Masterplan/SPD will ‘Demonstrate that mooring pressures. Could encourage boating and paddle take other detailed design, access the development is sports through provision of shower facilities and launch and construction issues into account. consistent with the facilities. objectives of the Accept that it would be useful to Anglian River Basin It is important to secure more green infrastructure close to include reference to the objectives of Management Plan. the river and naturalisation of river banks. Could add a the Anglian River Basin Management requirement for naturalisation in the policy. This is Plan in the policy. important in helping to meet the Anglian River Basin Management Plans objectives for „Good Ecological Contamination is covered by Policy Status‟, without deterioration. ENV 9 and applies to all Public open space along the river can assist developments. maintenance.

Flood Risk: objections unlikely, assuming that the sequential approach is applied. Most of area is located within flood zone 1. A flood risk assessment will needed.

The Masterplan/SPD for the site should include broad principles for managing water, e.g. through SUDs, rain water harvesting etc.

Ground water and land contamination: The site is adjacent to Ten Mile River, an EU WFD freshwater river with moderate ecological status. This site is underlain by alluvium which is classified as a secondary aquifer. The

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 231 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

groundwater beneath the site and surface water adjacent to the site are valuable resources that need to be protected. We are not aware of any assessments of the site, but the potential for contamination exists because of its current and historic uses – there are risks. As a minimum, a suitable preliminary risk assessment and potentially non-intrusive and intrusive site investigation will be required prior to the submission of any future planning applications. The results may affect drainage and construction solutions, and impact on costs. Lisa Russell See comments under Policy ELY 8 Comments noted No change Wendy Hague, It is considered that the bypass should be shown on the Agree to show an indicative line on Proposed minor Cambs County Map. The development of the Station Gateway area and the Ely map, showing the County modification to Ely Council mitigation of effects of additional HGV traffic for B2/B8 Council’ preferred route, and map: elsewhere is dependent on the Bypass being open to augment the current reference to it in Include indicative line traffic. Without the Bypass, question whether ELY 7 and Policy ELY 9. of bypass. ELY 8 are deliverable. Ely Cycle Campaign Suggest amendment to supporting statement referring to Comments noted. It is agreed we can Proposed minor perceived danger to cyclists and uninviting for give more emphasis to perceived modification to page pedestrians. Also suggest amendments to Policy ELY7 dander to cyclists. 173 2nd para. to read promoting integrated cycle routes linking the Station, ‘....isolates the station Angel Drove and the riverside area and improved cycle and makes the area parking. uninviting perceivably dangerous for cyclists and uninviting to pedestrians.’

Proposed minor modification to Policy ELY7 13th bullet to read ‘ and cycle routes to the Station, Angel Drove and the riverside area ....’ Ely Group of Internal This site is within the Cawdle Fen Internal Drainage Comments are noted. It will be No change Draiange Boards District. The Board's surface water receiving system has important for any developer to (Andrew Newton) no residual capacity to accept increased rates of surface address surface water issues, as set water run-off in connection with new development out in Policy ENV 8 in Part 1 of the proposals. All surface water run-off from any newly Plan. created impermeable areas must be attenuated/accommodated on site, to the Board's requirements. With regard to the Westmill Food site,

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 232 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Angel Drove, the drain that forms the south western boundary of the site is an Internal Drainage Board Designated Main Drain (Cawdle Fen Northern Catchwater). This drain has no residual capacity to accept increased rates of surface water run-off in connection with new development proposals. The Board's Byelaws prevent any construction, building, planting etc. within nine metres of the same without the Board's consent. Policy ELY 8: Station Gateway visions by area Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Ogier Aiuto Agree Standens area to be developed for high quality residential Support noted No change development Dan Ogier Agree [No further comments] Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y The redevelopment of the station gateway area is Support noted No change Endurance Estates considered to be a crucial driver in securing investment into the centre of Ely. The delivery of a transport interchange with clear and legible links to the centre of Ely will help to encourage people to use more sustainable modes of transport. This will also help to provide land for the development of new office and business space which will be an attractive location for development with the efficient rail links to London, Cambridge and Peterborough. This development will help to complement the sustainable urban extension to the north of Ely and together with an enhanced employment offer at Lancaster Way provides all of the necessary ingredient to help Ely to grow and thrive. David Wilson Disagree Area 1 and Area 4 With two multi-storey car parks so Comments noted. Design and layout No change close together the long distance views of the cathedral will be key and can help ensure views must be impaired and therefore come into conflict with are not adversely affected Strategic Objectives 2 and 9. Michael Hendry, Disagree N Y The vision for the existing Tesco site is welcomed as is Comments noted. Typographical error Proposed minor Grovemere Property that for the Hanson concrete, Westmill Foods, EMG Ford to be changed. Scope to provide both modification to site. While the vision for the Standens area is similarly B1 and B2 employment uses which correct typing in welcomed there is a typographical error and the word offers flexibility – therefore no need to Policy ELY8 Area 3 “reailway” should be reworded to read ‘railway’ in the amend the policy in this way. ‘reailway railway’ interests of avoiding confusion. While the redevelopment of Area 4: Angel Drove car park is welcomed, the employment uses proposed needs to be more specific to

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 233 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

ensure that they are compatible with the proposed residential development. The Area 4 section of Policy Ely 8 should be reworded to read as follows in the interests of soundness: “The commuter car park will be redeveloped for B1 (a and c) employment uses. Parking for commuters will be re-provided in multi-storey car parking within Area 1.” Ian Allen Disagree N Area 1 is linked too closely to a Tesco move, some Comments noted. Area 3 No change improvements are possible without the knock on effects redevelopment is proposed with the on the town centre. policy. The council proposes to seek Area 2 , I would not insist on the listing of the concrete affordable housing on development batching plant, and can support this element. sites in Policy HOU3 Area 3, I personally rather like to see 'real' working people about their business. If relocated and the site was available this would be a great opportunity to deliver housing overlooking the river, 40% of it for social rent. REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Mrs M Brownlow Disagree [No further comments] Noted No change Phil Rose, Disagree The council should encourage flexibility, diversity and The District Council supports the No change Foundation East innovation in housing type and tenure by ensuring that development of CLTs and other provision is made for a percentage (suggest 10%) of the community based schemes, and Policy housing units to be delivered as community-owned GROWTH 6 seeks to encourage and housing using community land trust (clt), cooperative support such development across the housing, co-housing models or self-build. Such an district. However, the District Council approach is embodied in the Cambridgeshire quality cannot insist on the establishment of charter for growth which recognises the valuable Community Land Trusts (CLTs) or contribution that community and resident involvement can similar schemes on particular sites, as play in shaping new housing communities. they are something which needs to originate from the community itself. REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION (Mr Rose Therefore it would not be appropriate has since confirmed via email that he no longer wishes to to require that a proportion of all appear on this matter if the Council’s proposed minor properties on allocation sites should be modification listed under HOU 1 is made – email dated 9 CLTs or similar. However, Policy HOU May 2013) 1 and relevant housing allocation policies propose that a minimum of 5% of dwelling on schemes of 100+ dwellings should be self-build properties, and this is reflected in Policy ELY 1. No change proposed to ELY 8 – but minor modification proposed to Policy HOU 1 to refer to CLTs. See Housing section above. Richard Baty, Disagree N Please see our response to Policy Ely 7. Comments noted. Greater Anglia are No change Transition Ely bringing forward proposals to

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 234 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

implement a bus interchange at the station Nick Hardy, GVA (for Disagree N It is very unclear what is meant by 'comprehensive Comments noted. Ely Gateway No change Lidl UK) development' in relation to Area's 1 and 2. The lack of Masterplan will address these issues clarity is a concern as the implication is that an application that is not for comprehensive development will be refused. Also nothing is said in ELY7 or ELY8 about timescales to deliver change or the potential for phased development. In summary, the LPA's expectations in relation to 1) the content of planning applications and 2) the process for securing planning consent (and what is meant by comprehensive) are unclear in the policy as drafted. Anne Baty Disagree N Redevelopment of the area will be an enhancement, and Plans for transport interchange being No change employment opportunities are needed. However, I am prepared by Greater Anglia. Local plan concerned that: sets out County Councils preferred  housing development and employment areas are route B for bypass, but Station mainly proposed for opposite ends of Ely, rather than Gateway area will still happen even if being planned together, to limit harmful car journeys. bypass does not proceed. Plan is  the plans assume that Route B of the southern bypass flexible. will go ahead, rather than being flexible enough to allow other solutions if necessary, that would otherwise be disallowed as going against the Local Plan (NPPF para. 21).

Transport interchange could already be functioning if bus routes all went via the station rather than Tesco supermarket. Lisa Russell, Rapleys Disagree N N In general terms support the requirement to regenerate Comments noted. Ely Gateway Proposed minor the Station Quarter but consider this should include our Masterplan will address issue of modifications to clients entire site, including land to the rear of the former County Wildlife Site but it is not Policy ELY 8, Area Westmills Foods site, currently identified as a County proposed for development and 2: Wildlife Site. therefore not included within the allocation area. With regard to non ‘Sites in this area Support the inclusion of residential and hotel use within inclusion in development envelope, this should be the Station Quarter. However lack of evidence to justify is because it is an comprehensively site's on-going designation for employment. EMP1 allows employment/commercial led scheme. developed for a mix some flexibility for other uses if employment is not viable. of employment Policies ELY7 and ELY8 should include similar caveat. Policy EMP1 makes clear employment uses, potentially allocations identified in Part 2 of the including offices – No evidence of demand for Class B uses, so Policy ELY8 Local Plan should be retained for their and apartments….’ Area2 should be reworded to remove reference to the designated B1/B2 uses. Scope to requirement for offices, as the final uses should be provide both B1 and B2 employment determined by the Masterplan. uses which offers flexibility.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 235 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

No justification why sites in Area2 have extra restrictions Agree that the reference in the policy requiring comprehensive development whilst other sites in (area 2) to offices should be changed other areas can be developed individually. In addition the as the Masterplan and feasibility work recent appeal decision for EMG Ford Group site has yet to be completed. Amend to say reinforces many of the comments above, in particular ‘potentially’ including offices. scope for site to be developed individually and that adequate screening between the Hanson's industrial site Agree that reference to comprehensive and any residential development of the former Westmills development in Area 2 only should be Foods Site could be achieved. removed. Mrs Jane Howell No view Sounds O.K. but difficult to imagine how its going to work Comments noted No change with everything else planned Wendy Hague, It is considered that the bypass should be shown on the Agree to show an indicative line on the Proposed minor Cambs County Map. Ely map, showing the County Council’ modification to Ely Council preferred route, and augment the map: The development of the Station Gateway area and current reference to it in Policy ELY 9. Include indicative mitigation of effects of additional HGV traffic for B2/B8 See Policy ELY 9 section below for line of bypass. elsewhere is dependent on the Bypass being open to proposed minor modification. traffic. Without the Bypass, question whether ELY 7 and ELY 8 are deliverable. The sites in the Station Gateway should be deliverable if the bypass The Ely crossing project is likely to cost in the order of does not come forward. £28m which the County Council is borrowing to help deliver this as a key local priority to help address this barrier to growth. CIL funding will be critically important in support of such a key priority. Katherine Fletcher, Our response also refers to the proposals for the station Comments noted. Ely Gateway No change English Heritage gateway area in Ely which appear to be unsupported by Masterplan will address these issues. evidence in terms of the likely height, bulk and disposition of buildings. The amount of development proposed is so considerable as to render the lack of such information a serious shortcoming. We conclude that the level of development here is likely to be damaging to the conservation area and very likely, to the local views gained from within, and outside, the city. Garth Hanlon, Savills There is a direct relationship between Policy ELY8 and Comments noted. Agreed that Proposed minor (for Healy ELY9 since Tesco is a major landowner within the Station additional wording would help to clarify. modification to Ely8 Investments) Gateway, and a major component of the submitted Area1 to read ‘'The application for the Octagon Park site. Unless a suitable relocation of the alternative site is provided for Tesco then serious Tesco supermarket questions must be asked about delivery of the Station would allow the area Gateway as a new development site. Suggest an to be amendment to policy ELY8 to read: 'The relocation of the comprehensively Tesco supermarket would allow the area to be redeveloped. The

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 236 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

comprehensively redeveloped. The Octagon Park site off Octagon Business Angel Drove (Policy ELY9) provides the opportunity to Park off Angel secure a new site for the Tesco store in order to assist in Drove (Policy the delivery of the Station Gateway' ELY9) may offer potential for its relocation – see Policy ELY9 below. The wider site .....’ Ely Group of Internal This site is within the Cawdle Fen Internal Drainage Comments are noted. It will be No change Drainage Boards District. The Board's surface water receiving system has important for any developer to address (Andrew Newton) no residual capacity to accept increased rates of surface surface water issues, as set out in water run-off in connection with new development Policy ENV 8 in Part 1 of the Plan. proposals. All surface water run-off from any newly created impermeable areas must be attenuated/accommodated on site, to the Board's requirements.. With regard to the Westmill Food site, angel Drove, the drain that forms the south western boundary of the site is an Internal Drainage Board Designated Main Drain (Cawdle Fen Northern Catchwater). This drain has no residual capacity to accept increased rates of surface water run-off in connection with new development proposals. The Board's Byelaws prevent any construction, building, planting etc. within nine metres of the same without the Board's consent. The Board will require continued access for maintenance work in any redevelopment of the area/site. It should be noted that the Cawdle Fen Northern Catchwater is culverted along the south eastern boundary of the site and is Designated Main River under the control of the Environment Agency. Policy ELY 9: A Vision for the Octagon Business Park Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L David Wilson Agree It will be vitally important to ensure that the design, layout, Support noted No change massing and landscaping of this development is of high quality and provides an attractive setting and entrance to and from the city. Ogier Aiuto Agree [No further comments] Support noted No change Dan Ogier Agree [No further comments] Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y This development will help to release other land for Support noted No change

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 237 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Endurance Estates development in and around the station gateway and is therefore considered to be a beneficial scheme for Ely. If this scheme is not brought forward for retail development then there would be the potential to incorporate a new retail supermarket within the development at North Ely. Michael Hendry, Disagree N Y The suggested allocation of the site for B1 and B2 is Comments noted. Site already has No change PlanSurv (for incongruous with the stated aim for the relocation of the planning approval for employment Grovemere Property) Tesco store to this site and the proliferation of bulky uses B1, B2 & B8 goods comparison floor space. The allocation of the site for B2 uses makes the Plan ineffective in its proposed delivery of a bulky goods and food retail park, due to the incompatible nature of these divergent uses and is therefore unsound. The site should be allocated for B1 (a), A1 (food and non-food bulky goods retail) The first sentence of Policy ELY 9 should be amended to read as follows: “The site will be redeveloped for employment uses (B1 (a), and an element of retail development (e.g. for bulky retail goods or a supermarket).” Ian Allen Disagree N Looking at Huntingdon as an example I can see no It is agreed the setting is important. No change reason to suppose that a large retail park of sheds will The Ely Gateway Masterplan will either assist the town centre in economic terms, or address these issues. provide for a quality setting for the cathedral city. The sheds already erected considerably alter the views of the cathedral and landscape associated with it from the southwest. This is after all the route that visitors to the city in previous centuries would have taken, the preservation of this view is essential in order to maintain a real understanding of the form and function of the cathedral.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Mrs M Brownlow Disagree If the road doesn’t happen idea obsolete. Not everyone Comments noted. Site already has No change wants the expensive road ruining view of cathedral. Many planning approval for employment of us want the underpass improved. Don’t need Tesco uses B1/B2 & B8. Local plan sets out relocating out of town. County Councils preferred route B for bypass. Richard Baty Disagree N Plans for this area need to be flexible until the Southern Comments noted. Local plan sets out No change Bypass issue is completely resolved, otherwise County Councils preferred route B for alternatives (including the 'Hidden Bypass' based on route bypass, but Station Gateway area will D) will be excluded prematurely. (NPPF para 21 point 3). still happen even if bypass does not proceed. Plan is flexible. Site already The plans should be limited to business uses, rather than has planning approval for retail, in order to protect the viability of the city centre. If a employment uses B1/B2 & B8. major housing development is to take place on the northern edge of Ely (and we have already set out our The Masterplan for Ely North will

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 238 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

objections to this) it would be more sensible for Tesco to make provision for the retail needs of move to a site on the A10) in the North Ely area. (NPPF the area. para 34,37) This would make that residential development more sustainable and allow the city centre and Lisle Lane supermarkets (Sainsburys and Aldi) to serve the southern sector. This would reduce the overall length of car-based shopping trips and the north-south traffic through the narrow city centre streets. Nick Hardy, GVA (Lidl Disagree N 1 Policy gives impression that Tesco and bulky goods Comments noted. The Masterplan No change UK) retail is a preferred outcome. No indication of the amount will address both the issue of scale of of retail that might be supported. Nothing in Policy Growth retail and what will replace Tesco’s 4 requires employment development at the Octagon should they relocate. With regard to Business Park. Policy GROWTH 4 it does identifies employment development on the site 2 Currently promoting the ESG and the Octagon Business (see * in the table on page 31). Park as separate policy areas. If Tesco were to relocate the Local Plan does not require certainty over what will replace it in ESG ie need to establish permission for redevelopment of the site it leaves behind. Therefore conclude the plan is not positively prepared. Mrs Jane Howell Disagree N I cannot imagine how a retail park with all the varying Comments noted. Design and layout No change shop facia and signage and 24 hour lighting is going to fit important and will be dealt with at the in alongside Ely. planning application stage. Anne Baty Disagree N Planning needs to be flexible until the southern bypass Comments noted. Plan is flexible. No change issue has been fully finalised, as in Policy 7 response. Site already has planning approval Sitting 3 major supermarkets to the south of Ely seems for employment uses B1/B2 & B8. unbalanced. If the Ely North development goes ahead - The Masterplan for Ely North will then why not site Tescos on to that site, alongside the make provision for the retail needs of A10, thus reducing car based shopping trips, and north- the area. south traffic through the centre? Wendy Hague, Part of this site falls within the WWTW Safeguarding Area Comments noted with regard to Proposed minor Cambs County for the Ely (New) WWTW. WWTW Safeguarding Areas Safeguarding Area. Agree to show an modification to Council are designated around existing and allocated WWTW to indicative line on the Ely map, supporting text of prevent encroachment of sensitive development which showing the County Council’ Policy ELY 9 (new would give rise to future amenity issues and impose preferred route, and augment the third para) constraints on the continued operation of the WWTW. current reference to it in Policy ELY The County However, I have liaised with Anglian Water's Planning 9. Council’s preferred Liaison Manager (Planning and Equivalence Team) who route for the Ely has advised me Anglian Water has been approached by southern bypass the developer and carried out an odour assessment which passes through a indicated a low risk. This allocation is therefore small part of the site considered acceptable in the context of the WWTW (as shown on the Safeguarding Area, and no further action in this regard is Ely map and required. discussed in the

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 239 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

section on ‘Other We consider that the bypass should be shown on the Map infrastructure and which includes all draft allocations. The development of community facilities’ the Station Gateway area and the mitigation of the effects below). Any of additional HGV traffic for B2/B8 elsewhere are development dependent on the bypass being open to traffic. scheme will therefore need to make provision for this preferred route.

Proposed minor modification to Policy ELY 9 (last sentence): The development of the site will need to make provision for the County Council’s preferred route of the proposed Ely bypass. be coordinated with the delivery of the proposed bypass. Maggie Kent This should be retained for the proposed (and much Comments noted. Site already has No change needed) business use and not considered for retail use, planning approval for employment which would encourage out of town car journeys and uses B1/B2 & B8. Plan is flexible. harm the viability of Ely city centre and local businesses. Local Plan sets out County Councils If an alternative to the Council’s favoured proposal (Route preferred route B for bypass, B) for a bypass is chosen, it may need to use part of this site. The plan needs to recognise this and retain flexibility. Alistair Ingram, Concerned the plan supports the development of new Comments noted. Site already has No change Barton Willmore (for retail floorspace (to include a supermarket) in an out of planning approval for employment Waitrose) centre location, without having undertaken a sequential uses B1/B2 & B8. Tesco’s relocation assessment as required by NPPF para. 23. Refers to the will be subject to a retail impact Council's 2012 Retail Study Update which shows a need assessment to ensure no significant for 995 sq m net additional need in Ely up to 2031. In the harm to the town centre. short term the capacity position is negligible and does not support planning for additional convenience goods floorspace. Delete reference to convenience goods retailing. Garth Hanlon, Savills Site already has benefit of an existing planning Comments noted. Site already has No change (for Healy permission for employment use. Proposed new hybrid planning approval for employment Investments) application submitted February 2013 involving relocation uses B1/B2 & B8. Tesco’s relocation

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 240 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

of Tesco referred to in ELY8 above. Generally support will be subject to a retail impact ELY 9 but suggest it should be rewritten to read: 'The site assessment to ensure no significant will be redeveloped for employment uses (B1 and B2), harm to the town centre. No further and an element of retail development (eg for bulky retail change required goods or a supermarket). Any proposals incorporating retail development will need to accord to Policy COM1 and demonstrate through a Retail Impact Assessment that there will be no adverse impact on Ely city centre. Proposals for other town centre uses will be considered against the policy tests, including the sequential test, in Policy COM1. Ely Group of Internal The site is within the Cawdle Fen Internal Drainage Comments noted No change Drainage Boards District. The Board have a legal agreement with the (Andrew Newton) developers of this site for disposal of surface water from the development. Therefore, as long as the developer follows this agreement, the Board would have no objections to the proposed development Sean McGrath, Indigo This policy should not include provision for retail Comments noted. The allocation is No change Planning (for development on the basis that if the site is allocated for for partly for retail development, but Sainsbury’s) retail development, an applicant would not be required to does not specify its precise scale and do a retail impact assessment by virtue of paragraph 26 of nature. Instead the policy requires the NPPF. Any reference to the need to do an impact this to be subject to demonstrating assessment could conflict with the NPPF. through a Retail Impact Assessment that there will be no adverse impact on Ely City Centre. This is an important requirement, as the precise scale/nature needs to be explored. This approach does not appear to be contrary to the NPPF. Para 26 does not say that we cannot refer to impact tests in allocation policies. Policy ELY 10: Leisure allocation, land at Downham Road Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L GA Claxton Agree [No further comments] Support noted No change Ogier Aiuto Agree Strongly agree with provision of a new swimming pool Support noted No change Dan Ogier Agree Final plans should be by popular debate/vote. there Support noted No change should be a wide/safe easy cycle & walkway from the city centre, incl. bridge over A10 Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y Support this policy as this will help to deliver key facilities Support noted No change

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 241 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Endurance Estates that are currently lacking in Ely. This development is also adjacent to, and will form an integral part of the sustainable extension of North Ely. This development is welcomed and supported by Endurance Estates Strategic Land. Richard Seamark, Agree N The principle of a leisure allocation at Downham Road is Support noted. Proposed minor Carter Jonas (for strongly supported. Consent has already been granted for modifications: Turnstone Estates) a district wide leisure centre (10/01020/FUM). Community The policy refers to a ‘minimum of 5’ consultation supports the need for a multi-screen cinema screens – therefore Turnstone’s Policy ELY 10 in Ely. Turnstone Estates has identified a national cinema preference for 6 screens fits this ‘Approximately 8 7 operator who are in a position to deliver a multi-screen requirement. hectares of land is facility at this location in a timely manner. Support is allocated….’ offered to the scheme by ECDC as a single landowner. Agreed to amend the site area, and The site is suitable, available and deliverable. amend the allocation map Ely map 8.14 accordingly. Delete Policy Ely 10 Policy wording should be amended to ensure consistency land south of A10. with the proposed scheme:  Change reference to 6 screens rather than 5  Include reference to future leisure-related development e.g. C1, D2 uses, garden centre  Site should be land north of the A10 only – map show some to the south. Need to increase the area shown to the north of the A10. Estimated that 6.87 hectares is required. David Wilson Disagree Moving all these municipal sports and leisure facilities to Comments noted. The area is already No change the edge of the city is a retrograde step for the following a major focus for sport and leisure in reasons: Ely. Consent has already been 1. Pedestrians and cyclists will have to negotiate the A10 granted for a Leisure Centre. barrier to access these facilities via an underpass. 2. The will be considerable increase of expenditure because of the need to build an underpass, pay for its maintenance and finance its surveillance to ensure public safety. 3. Pedestrians will have much longer to walk, or they will need to use public transport in order to access these facilities 4. Placing these facilities on the outskirts of the city gives a very clear message that sports and leisure pursuits are not deemed to be an important aspect of community life in Ely .

Fails to meet Strategic Objective 2 - An important element of its ‘distinctiveness’ and its unique character, is the ability of people to go to the city centre and have easy

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 242 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

access to shopping, commerce, retail and social outlets as well as municipal sports and leisure facilities. Ian Allen Disagree N The preamble states that 'The development should not Comments noted. The area is already No change harm the viability or vitality of Ely city centre'. Is that will a major focus for sport and leisure in not, might not, probably will not? Define please. What Ely. Consent has already been vitality and viability could be added to the city centre if granted for a Leisure Centre. Policy these uses were built on the Paradise site? COM1 allows provision outside of town centres under certain circumstances i.e. no suitable sequential preferable sites of sufficient size Mrs M Brownlow Disagree Leave pool where it is handy for everyone. If want a 2nd Comments noted No change pool for E1 additions put it up there! Cinema good could go on site marked within Ely and A10 Leisure facilities there now, golf, tennis, rugby etc might not want an in vision or reduction of their area. Richard Baty Disagree N See our response to Policy Ely 3. This area is outside the Comments noted. The area is already No change developmental envelope on the 'wrong' side of the a major focus for sport and leisure in bypass. Exceptions allowed to the developmental Ely. Consent has already been envelope are those associated with outdoor recreation granted for a Leisure Centre. Policy and leisure – as in the existing football and rugby clubs, COM1 allows provision outside of and golf range. (Policy Growth 2) A sports and leisure hub town centres under certain of fitness suites, swimming pool, sports halls, cinema, circumstances i.e. no suitable restaurants and cafes are not outdoor activities, but are sequential preferable sites of defined as main town centre uses (NPPF Annex 2 sufficient size. glossary). In granting planning permission for a leisure centre on its own land the Council ignored its own planning policies and failed to apply the Sequential test. (NPPF para 24) There are alternative sites that could accommodate a cinema in the southern Ely redevelopment plans which would be closer to the city centre, use existing pedestrian and public transport links. N McCurdy Disagree N N This should be located within Station Gateway land Comments noted. The area is already Proposed minor parcels to encourage modal shift, particularly if a major focus for sport and leisure in modification to delete entertainment and cinema elements included. The Ely. Consent has already been ELY 10 leisure geographical and population weight of the District is to the granted for a Leisure Centre. With allocation south of southwest of Ely and Downham Road is poorly located on regard land on the town side of the A10 on Ely Map 8.14 the wrong side of Ely for the majority of likely facility A10, it is proposed to delete this part users. Unsustainable traffic consequences. The element of the ELY10 allocation. See of the allocation shown to the east (town side) of the A10, proposed minor modifications above. bounded also by Downham Road and Mallow Close/Columbine Road should NOT be included in the overall allocation. It is unneccessary for inclusion just to provide any likley pedestrian underspass and the policy

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 243 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

should specify no built development. This element is unsuitable for development in terms of proximity to housing, is already frequently prone to flooding and most importantly, forms part of the formal (legally designated) Public Open Space secured for the West Ely urban expansion in late'90s and was also identified in terms of urban design and town setting as a space to remain open and meadowland in treatment and character. Wendy Hague, Disagree Whilst the Leisure Centre has consent, there is concern Comments noted. It is proposed to No change Cambs County that a new cinema to the west of the A10 may give rise to provide a well designed underpass to Council adverse impacts upon the highway network. There is no provide access for pedestrians and scope for a safe at-grade crossing of the A10. cyclists. Maggie Kent N There is only one reason why this site is being proposed Comments noted. The area is already No change for a leisure centre and, more recently, a multiplex cinema a major focus for sport and leisure in – the land is owned by ECDC. These are town centre Ely. Consent has already been uses and need to pass the “sequential test”. Planning granted for a Leisure Centre. Policy permission for the leisure centre was granted in 2010 by COM1 allows provision outside of the ECDC planning committee for their own land despite town centres under certain being clearly contrary to their own planning policies. The circumstances i.e. no suitable site is outside the proposed Development Envelope for sequential preferable sites of Ely. The concentration of city centre uses on the wrong sufficient size. side of the western bypass would harm the vitality of the It is proposed to provide a well city centre. The site is only accessible by car. This designed underpass to provide proposal should be deleted as it is contrary to other access for pedestrians and cyclists. policies in the same document - ENV 1 and COM 1. Meredith Bowles, The biggest drawback is the separation of the centre from Comments noted. It is proposed to No change Mole Architects the town by the bypass. The policy should stipulate, a provide a well designed underpass to much wider and more generous underpass, so that provide access for pedestrians and natural light is better, and the feeling of entrapment is cyclists. minimised. Ely Group of Internal This site is within the Littleport and Downham Internal Comments are noted. It will be No change Drainage Boards Drainage District. The Board's surface water receiving important for any developer to (Andrew Newton) system has no residual capacity to accept increased rates address surface water issues, as set of surface water run-off in connection with new out in Policy ENV 8 in Part 1 of the development proposals. The Board do not object to the Plan. development of this site as proposed but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to development of this site to protect lands and properties within the District from increased flood risk.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 244 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy ELY 11: Employment allocation, Lancaster Way Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L David Wilson Agree It is to be hoped that any expansion and development of Comments noted No charges Lancaster Way Business Park will be in accordance with Strategic Objectives 2, 8 and 9 and that any new buildings will be low level so as not to spoil the view when approaching the city on the A142. Ian Allen Agree I agree with the allocation close to Ely but do not approve the Support noted No change method of allocation prior to inclusion in the local plan, supposedly on grounds of 'urgency'. Mrs M Brownlow Agree Yes extend Support noted No change Ogier Aiuto Agree [No further comments] Support noted No change Dan Ogier Agree Is it appropriate that this is a privately owned site? Also this would Support noted No change be a good area for Ely D.C. to have their own energy generating complex. N McCurdy Agree Y Y Subject to necessary capacity and alignment improvements to Support noted No change A10/Witchford Road roundabout, including westbound slip lane to filter traffic travelling to the site northward along A10. Subject to significant hectares of buffer woodland planting and appropriate lighting controls. Subject to prior delivery of Ely Southern By-Pass Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y This is an important allocation for Ely and the delivery of this Support noted No change Endurance Estates employment land will complement the delivery of new homes at North Ely. This will help to make Ely more sustainable and self sufficient. The provision of employment land at Lancaster Way is a key element of the Local Plan strategy. The allocation should provide for a range of building sizes and mix of uses. The allocation should be flexible to allow the site to respond to market forces and demands. This will help to make Lancaster Way an attractive site to range of occupiers and users. Michael Hendry, Disagree N Y Allocation of 40.5 hectares is welcomed. Comments noted. Agree to Proposed minor PlanSurv (for amend reference to ‘the modification to Policy Grovemere property) Reference to the allocation being developed in accordance with planning permission’ in the ELY 11 (second the planning permission is inconsistent with NPPF and is covered policy, recognising that the sentence): by other legislation. Last sentence in the policy should be current permission could be removed - particularly as it does not reference to which permission superseded as later schemes ‘The area will need to it refers and does not allow for future applications that might come forward. be developed in supersede the existing permission. accordance with the Also agree amend reference current or any Suggest amendments to first paragraph of supporting text as in first paragraph to refer to subsequent planning follows: ‘research and development permissions.’

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 245 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

“Lancaster Way Business Park lies about a mile to the south-west uses’ of the city. It is a successful location for employment, and provides Proposed minor industrial, warehousing, office and research & development The recommended jobs modification to uses on the site of the former RAF Witchford airbase.” target for strategic sites is supporting text to indicative based on CLG Policy ELY 11 (1st The estimated number of new jobs (1973) is inaccurate, making guidelines in relation to jobs para.2nd sentence the Plan unsound. The Environmental Statement (ES), submitted per square metre etc and ‘It is a successful as part of the approved planning permission (08/00563/ESO) on taken from the Lancaster location for the extension land at Lancaster Way estimated that the site could Way planning application employment, and provide 2,518 to 3,194 jobs. Given current economic times, provides industrial, suggest that the jobs estimate should be quoted as 2,250 new warehousing, office jobs. ,and and research and development uses on the site of the former RAF Witchford airbase.’ Policy ELY 12: Employment allocation, Ely Road and Rail Distribution Centre Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L David Wilson Agree Visitors travelling to Ely by rail from Peterborough, Kings Comments noted No change Lynn and Norwich are provided with a bleak and dismal approach as they pass by The Potter Group Site. The Plan should focus on this important ‘gateway’ as well as the Station Gateway. Further development should be an opportunity to improve the visual aspect of approaching Ely by rail from the north and east. Ian Allen Agree Y Recognition of the sensitive environmental constraints. Support noted No change

Ogier Aiuto Agree As long as there is no adverse traffic impact on the Support noted No change proximity of the wildlife site/sailing club area & walking trail Dan Ogier Agree Safeguard for wildlife important. Also a continuous Support noted No change riverside walk provision waterside N McCurdy Agree Y Y Subject to prior delivery of Ely Southern By-Pass Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y The provision of a range of employment sites will help Ely Support noted No change Endurance Estates to grow and to become more viable and self sufficient. The inclusion of a rail connected site in the portfolio of employment sites is welcomed and supported. Roslyn Deeming, Agree Welcomes provision in the policy to avoid any adverse Support noted No change

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 246 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Natural England impact on the adjacent CWS, SSSI and Ely Country Park by providing appropriate landscaping treatment and other necessary mitigation measures Wendy Hague, Policy ELY12 seeks to allocate 12 hectares of land for Agree should add Proposed minor modification to Cambs County employment uses. This site lies almost entirely within the reference to the TSA supporting text (third para) Council Transport Safeguarding Area for the Queen Adelaide and to requirement to ‘….This area has potential to be Railhead and its associated coated roadstone plant, ensure that the redeveloped for a mix of B1, B2 which is designated through the adopted Cambridgeshire employment uses do not and B8 uses, and to have capacity and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific jeopardise the to provide an estimated additional Proposals Plan. This Transport Zone is not acknowledged operations of the Road 469 jobs. However, it should be by either the policy or the supporting text. The Transport and Rail Centre. noted that the Road and Rail Safeguarding Area places a presumption against any Distribution Centre, plus some development that could prejudice the existing or potential adjoining land, is identified in use of the railhead for the transport of mineral and / or the Cambridgeshire and waste (Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, Policy CS23). Peterborough Waste Plan as a The range of employment proposed is wide, covering B1, Transport Safeguarding Area B2, and B8 uses and could potentially include uses which (reference T2F). In this area are sensitive to noise / dust etc. The District Council there is a presumption against should demonstrate that these uses would not give rise to any development that could complaints or otherwise lead to prejudicial circumstances prejudice the existing or which could jeopardise the continued use of the Queen potential use of the protected Adelaide Railhead and / or give further advice within the transport zone (as set out in Local Plan on the types of employment uses which would Waste Policy CS23). Proposals / would not be acceptable. In the absence of this being will therefore need to have provided this Council objects to this allocation. regard to this, and consultation will need to take place with the County Council as Waste Planning Authority.

Proposed minor modification to Policy ELY 12 (insertion of additional bullet): Development proposals within the allocated area will be expected to: Have regard to the Transport Safeguarding Area designation, and avoid prejudicing the operations of the Rail and Road Centre (as set out in the adopted Waste and Mineral Plan). Michael Hendry, Disagree N Y The proposed Road and Rail distribution site has inherent Proposal to restrict uses No change. PlanSurv (Grovemere issues with road access. Therefore proposed that B2 and to those with a rail Property) B8 uses on this site are restricted to those with a specific distribution requirement rail distribution requirement, with a revised jobs target of is considered to be too

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 247 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

413. B2 and B8 uses that require good connectivity to the narrow. However, minor highway would be better located at Lancaster Way modifications are Business Park with its superior links to the A142 and the proposed in response to A10. the County Council’s comments regarding the All references to the Ely Road and Rail Distribution Centre status of the TSA – see within the Local Plan should be revised to Ely Rail above. Distribution Centre for the avoidance of doubt. The first sentence of Policy Ely 12 should be reworded to read as The title of the policy is follows: Approximately 12 hectares of land are allocated considered to be for employment development (B1, B2 and B8 uses) with a reasonable. specific rail distribution requirement.

Policy ELY 13: Ely Riverside area Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L David Wilson Agree Ely Riverside area is a vital destination for tourists and residents Support noted No change alike. Any development proposals should not be allowed to breach Strategic Objectives 2, 8 and 9. Dan Ogier Agree As long as any 'art' sculptures are selected from local Support noted No change artists/schools and voted for by citizens. More moorings provided N McCurdy Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted No change Ben Hooton, Agree Y Y This development will help to improve the mix and range of uses Support noted No change Endurance Estates and new buildings in Ely, helping to enhance the vitality and viability of the city centre. Mrs Jane Howell Agree Y The riverside is a great asset for visitors and residents alike. Support noted No change JH Kisby Disagree I seriously question the rejection of the option to cross the railway Comments noted. This is a Cambs No change by means of a better underpass with increased headroom - this County Council proposal which should be reconsidered in much more detail, also taking into will be subject of a planning consideration the resultant greatly reduced cost of traversing the application in 2013. Ely-Stuntney link. The proposed redevelopment of the station area would provide an ideal once-only opportunity to accommodate this less-intrusive and better option. Chris Swain, Disagree N Y We support enhancing the role of the river. But plan could make Comments are noted. The policy No change. Environment Agency more of the opportunity to use the river to improve both the seeks to encourage the use of the environment and the economy. Keen to see enhanced river river and improved quality of the navigation and tourism role and at the same time relieving the riverside area as far as possible. main river channel of existing mooring pressures. Could The recent establishment of the encourage boating and paddle sports through provision of shower Ely Riverside Working Party facilities and launch facilities. should help to initiate wider

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 248 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

change and improvements in this It is important to secure more green infrastructure close to the area. river and naturalisation of river banks. Could add a requirement for naturalisation in the policy. This is important in helping to meet the Anglian River Basin Management Plans objectives for „Good Ecological Status‟, without deterioration. Public open space along the river can assist maintenance. Mrs M Brownlow Cant find a location for this on the map. Leave the open spaces Comments noted No change alone for walks and relaxation. Don't develop as in new buildings commercial or residential John Maddison (Ely The policy appears to be in direct conflict with the Route B Comments noted. The bypass is No change Crossing Action southern bypass as it appears in your plan. referred to in the draft Local Plan Group) as the County Council’s preferred option. Ogier Aiuto Which tourist attractions? If these are like the 'sculpture monster' Comments noted No change outside the Maltings, it would be better to leave the tourist appeal to nature itself Roger Sargeant Seek the land associated with Ely Marina to be reinstated and Comments noted. Consider a No change recognised as being within the historical and established range of tourist, community or framework of the city. The existing railway embankment, along the leisure uses is more appropriate south eastern boundary of the marina site is a more logical than residential on this side of the development boundary. river. Propose a more appropriate and realistic policy for the Riverside area would be one which incorporates the following additional criteria: • Ely Marina with its associated land is an area where a comprehensive redevelopment scheme, providing a mix of residential, employment, leisure, tourist and community facilities, will be supported as part of a phased plan to create a new viable and sustainable riverside community. • New replacement structures, necessary to maintain the operational viability of the retained marina business will be allowed as part of a comprehensive scheme of redevelopment. • New public access will be provided to serve the redevelopment of the Marina site via an improved/new vehicular bridge and other means of pedestrian access over the River Great Ouse. Meredith Bowles Small scale development on the marina and encouraging the use Comments noted No change by the general public of both sides of the river would make the whole area much more interesting and lively

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 249 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Other Comments

Name / Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID

David Wilson It is vitally important that this development should preserve Ely’s unique identity for the benefit Comments noted. The local Plan No change of residents as well as visitors and tourists. Most of the LDF is dominated by plans to develop reflects the County Councils retail, commerce and housing with six (of the 10) Strategic Objectives and plans to use over preferred option for Route B for 250 hectares of land devoted predominantly to them. The LDF proposes a bypass that spans the bypass. the River Great Ouse and the railway. Yet in the pamphlet entitled Ely Southern Bypass published by Cambridgeshire County Council, there is an acknowledgement that such a bypass would have a significant impact on the local landscape and the setting of the cathedral which contradicts three of its own Strategic Objectives (namely Strategic Objectives 2, 8 and 9)? Michael Hendry The Ely vision and in particular point 6 and its support for the expansion of Lancaster Business Comments noted. The No change (Grovemere Park, given its proven role in delivering new jobs in the District and reducing out-commuting, is recommended jobs target for Property) welcomed and supported. strategic sites is indicative based Object to table – Recommended jobs targets for strategic sites. The inclusion of a percentage on CLG guidelines in relation to mix for the allocation of approximately 40.5 hectares at Lancaster Way Business Park is jobs per square metre etc and inconsistent with other policies in the draft Plan, the extant allocation contained in the Core taken from the Lancaster Way Strategy and the percentage mix included in the extant outline planning permission, which planning application allow for B1, B2 and B8 uses with the following percentage mix: B1 use 17%- 20% B2 42% - 40% B8 41%- 40%. The suggested mix of employment development at North Ely, Station Gateway, Octagon Park and Ely Road and Rail Distribution Centre should be revised to exclude B2 and B8 Uses to ensure that these noisy and bulking operations are focussed to Lancaster Way Business Park to enable the site to deliver the percentage mix of uses required by the extant planning permission.

Suggested below in a replacement recommended jobs targets for strategic sites table: Site Recommended uses Potential number of jobs Jobs Target Strategic Policy Lancaster Way B1, B2, B8 3000 2250 (taken from 2008 ES approximations) ELY 11 North Ely B1 950 800 Ely 1 Station Gateway B1 800 700 ELY 7 and 8 Octagon Business Retail and B1 468 400 ELY 9 Park Ely Rail B2 and B8 with a 450 413 ELY 12 Distribution rail distribution Centre requirement Total 5668 4563 Ian Allen Delete all reference to Route B spanning the river Great Ouse and railway , and insert,' The Comments noted. Policy ELY2 in No change district council will work with the County council to provide a solution to congestion that blights particular seeks improvements the station area and that does not impact negatively on the setting of Ely cathedral' Delete to pedestrian links. Infrastructure reference to limited scope for dedicated cycle lanes and insert car restraint measures in central needs are highlighted in the areas, there certainly is' potential to increase levels of cycling', but only if positive physical ‘Other infrastructure and measures are taken. community facilities’ section.

The most significant points are often in the last section, the plan looks at specific sites with

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 250 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

proposals for wholesale change, yet there is scant support for the citywide development of cycle and pedestrian infrastructure. There are a number of concrete proposals for multi storey car parks yet none that state that developments must fund alternative modes, There is a recognition that road space is limited. The tenor is one of getting access for cars unfettered by other infrastructure, 'additional on road infrastructure'. That infrastructure need not be seen as additional but equal. Mrs M Brownlow At end is comment on transport and new roads. Why do you keep steam rolling this when so Comments noted. No change many object. Also why is council so fixed on ignoring peoples wish to leave car parking FREE Ogier Aiuto Ely is a historical city & any development must be realised in a sympathetic & organic manner Comments noted No change Dan Ogier Get on with it! Noted No change Richard Baty, We are concerned that the Draft Plan specifically promotes Route B as the solution to the Ely Comments noted. The Local No change Transition Ely Railway Crossing problem. If the Local Plan is to be the context in which a decision on the Plan includes reference to the bypass route will be taken, the Plan needs to be flexible enough to allow for other alternative Cambs CC preferred route which solutions, including deepening the existing underpass, Route D or the 'Hidden Bypass' route. will be subject to a planning The County Council may have agreed to pursue Route B in September 2012 but this does not application in summer 2013 mean that this route should automatically be incorporated into the Local Plan. Michael Hendry In order for the comprehensive provision of the redevelopment of the Waitrose car park area Comments noted. These No change (Plansurv Ltd) and the desired links between the site an Newnham Street the ELY 4 Town Centre Opportunity privately owned houses are not Site needs to be extended to include the Newnham Street frontage. The above change will included in the proposal. make the Policy effective and therefore sound. It is proposed that the allocation be redrawn to include the black hatched area on the attached plan. Ely Crossing The aim of the group is to secure a practical solution to the problem of Ely’s rail crossing that Comments noted. The Local Proposed minor Action Group avoids the grave damage to the rural setting of Ely that would be caused by this route. By Plan includes reference to the modification (John Maddison) specifically endorsing Route B rather than remaining open to other routes or solutions to the Cambs CC preferred route B for Illustration of route Ely crossing problem, this aspect of the plan is not "justified" and it is therefore not "sound". the bypass bypass bridge to be Your illustration of the Route B bypass bridge has recently been superseded. updated Stephen Faulkner, While for the most part the emerging Local Plan does not raise any significant cross boundary Comments noted. East Cambs is No change Norfolk County strategic issues, the County Council did highlight the issue of safeguarding and improving the working with Network Rail & Council cross country Norwich to Cambridge and King’s Lynn to Cambridge rail services when Greater Anglia to improve commenting on the Ely Area Action Plan in 2010. Norfolk County Council has aspirations for railway infrastructure improving these cross-country rail services and as such would not wish to see any allocations being taken forward through the Local Plan process which could undermine this aspiration. Alison Arnold Linking up routes in & around Ely, Chettisham, LittleDownham, Littleport, Coveney,Witchford, Comments noted. No change Prickwillow & Soham by a "Restricted Byway" would give Ely a more diverse nature that: *Treats all non-motorised vehicles equal to each other. *Maintains ability for awareness, the value of the duty & care to other non-motorised vehicle users. *Single infrastructure that includes all non-motorised vehicles would give value for money to all. *Relinquishes a more dangerous position. *No group is above the rest. *Highway rights the same. N McCurdy Please do not loose the intrinsic character and identy of Ely by over expansion of built form and Comments noted No change population and ensure design requirements are of the highest integrity and enforced. Ben Hooton, It is important that Ely is promoted as a place with much to offer. Many of the allocations in Ely Comments noted No change

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 251 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Endurance seek to deliver a mix of uses, but the key message is that the allocations all complement one Estates another and that cumulatively Ely has much to offer. It is important to market Ely as having this range of uses and opportunities to secure inward investment and to encourage people and business to locate in the City so that Ely can continue to grow and to develop. This will help to bring about a renewed focus on the City Centre and help to provide a wider mix and range of facilities. Mrs Jane Howell My specific concern relates to the major redevelopment around the railway station ref; ELY 7, Comments noted. These areas No change ELY 8, ELY 9. All three projects are inter-dependent and all rely on Cambridge County do not rely on the bypass and Councils' proposal for the Ely Crossing which still has to go to public inquiry. While there is a can come forward without. stated commitment in the Spatial Strategy 6.3.7 to avoid piecemeal development, the hybrid planning application for ELY 9, called the Octagon Business Park is in fact largely a retail park, and has a Tesco Super store as the lynch pin to the development. Richard Seamark Agree with Ely vision statement and Strategic objectives Support noted No change (Carter Jonas) Wendy Hague, Education: The most significant change in underlying demography and housing numbers Comments noted No change Cambs County occurs in Ely. An additional 418 housing commitments are now included. The forecasts Council suggest that up to 13FE of primary school provision will be required in Ely. There is currently 8FE of primary school provision in Ely. A further 5FE of provision will be delivered in the two primary schools planned to serve the two major new housing developments in the north of Ely. There is a need to bring forward the first of these sites at the earliest opportunity to meet the existing need for places in Ely in both the primary school sector and within early year and childcare. The additional 11-16 pupil numbers suggested by the forecasts in the catchment area of Ely College (includes Littleport – see below) of 17.5FE will support the provision of a new secondary school in Littleport. The County Council’s review of secondary school provision in East Cambs, based on the previous Core Strategy proposals, concluded that to meet the needs of planned development a new secondary school should be provided in Littleport with only limited expansion of other secondary schools within the District being required. However, there remained concerns that the numbers attending the Littleport Secondary School could be at the lower end of the Council’s minimum size of school to ensure its viability and long term success. Additional secondary age pupil numbers effectively removes this as a concern. However, the secondary school may need to be larger and the County Council would be seeking increased CIL contributions to reflect that need. City of Ely Council This document correctly reflects the development of the City of Ely as laid out in the original Comments noted. The North Ely No change Masterplan. The availability of land for employment purposes has been put to the fore in the Masterplan will look at issues of process as has been the need to build the new southern by-pass and enable a total access to the A10 redevelopment of the Station Gateway - the result should be more jobs than homes being developed which should reduce the proportion of out-commuting from the District and especially Ely and its hinterland. The Council feels there is a need for access to the A10 bypass, which should be gained as far East as possible; ie as soon as possible Ely Cycle Under Transport, on page 180 seek amendments promoting alternative on road infrastructure Comments noted. Already No change Campaign eg segregated cycle lanes. makes reference to dedicated cycle lanes. Maggie Kent The promotion of Route B in this local plan is wrong and out of place here because there is a Comments noted. The Local No change simultaneous consultation exercise being carried out by the County Council and the local plan Plan includes reference to the

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 252 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

needs to be flexible enough allow for all possible solutions to the Ely railway crossing problem, Cambs CC preferred route B for including those that don’t involve new road building. The visual and environmental harm the bypass caused by the Route B option conflicts with local plan draft policies ENV1 Landscape and Settlement Character (p 61), ENV2 Design (p 63), ENV9 Pollution (p 75) and ENV12 Listed Buildings (p 78). Promotion of Route B is not “sound”. The Public Consultation - very concerned about the lack of publicity given to the Draft Local Plan in Ely. Claire Davies DTZ The Ely Delivery Office is located in an area characterised by mix of residential, employment Comments noted. Royal Mail No change (for Royal Mail) and industrial warehouse uses. We consider the allocation of the site for residential use have no firm plans to relocate. (potentially as part of a mixed use scheme) may be appropriate in the context of the Retain development envelope as surrounding uses. Any redevelopment needs to be viable to incentivise the business to it is but can review in the future. relocate the operation. Katherine East Cambridgeshire has a rich historic environment which represents an enormous asset to Comments noted. The SA will No change to local Fletcher, English the district and requires sensitivity if it is to passed to future generations in as good a state as need to updated Plan but update SA Heritage we currently enjoy it. None of the district’s heritage assets are more significant than Ely cathedral. Our concerns regarding the present proposals for an elevated bypass affecting the setting of the cathedral are on record, and are referred to in this response. In this matter we consider that insufficient weight has been accorded to the harm to the significance of the cathedral, and that reasonable alternatives have been set aside. In making this response, we have noted some omissions in the draft Sustainability Appraisal, including any appraisal for the Ely Southern Bypass. Roslyn Deeming, Generally support the strategic objectives to create a strategic network of green spaces on the Comments noted No change Natural England eastern side of the town. However concerned about extension to Ely Country Park for the reasons set out in ELY 1 above. Garth Hanlon, Angel Drove application submitted in February 2013 proposes significant investment in Ely, Comments noted. It is not Proposed minor Savills (for Healy investing in new retailing and employment. This will help sustain the economy and retain considered consistent to include modification Ely Investments) expenditure within the town. It will also assist the Council to deliver the Station Gateway site, a new strategic objective but strategic objective 6 Tesco's being an important component of the Angel Drove application. It seems remiss that the could add to existing No.6 to read ‘...... e.g.at role of strategic sites, including Angel Drove (Octagon Park) can have in delivering the North Ely,and the Strategic Objectives. Suggest amendments to include the following wording: 'To provide new Station Gateway area employment and retailing opportunities on the Octagon Park on Angel Drove to strenghten and Octagon Ely's role as a Market Town.' Business Park ‘ Meredith Bowles, The vision should include the possibility of future development on the golf club. It has the Comments noted. Golf club No change Mole Architects enormous advantage of being close to both the station and the proposed business and retail provides a valuable leisure park, as well as being walking distance from the town centre. facility and there are no current plans for its relocation. Sean McGrath, Section 8.14 of the draft Local Plan states that a development envelope has been drawn Comments noted. The No change Indigo Planning around Ely. Despite the fact that the Sainsbury’s store in Ely was approved and is now open development envelope drawn (for Sainsbury’s) and trading, the store still remains outside the development envelope. The store is clearly not around mainly residential in the countryside, as such, the development envelope must be amended to include the store development and excludes and car park. The boundary of the Conservation Area should also be amended to exclude the employment/retail areas where site as there are no factors of special architectural or historic interest on the site or within the these are on edge of Lisle Lane area that would merit protection under Conservation Area designation, as settlements. advocated in the English Heritage/Planning Advisory Service guidance.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 253 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Fordham 3.2.15 A total of 24 people/organisations made comments on the draft Fordham Vision.

Policy FRD 1 : Housing allocation, Land east of 24 Mildenhall Road Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Sally Cornish Agree Y Y This should be the first proposed development to go ahead I agree Support noted. No change. with this development because: 1. Good location in the village 2. The land belongs to the Parish Council and funds raised from the development will be used for the good of the village. 3. Smallarea's (infills) should be developed within the village Fordham Agree We support this allocation because it is a small infill site allowing for Support noted. No change. Parish Council small-scale development. It is owned by the Parish Council and this means that it will be possible for a scheme to be developed that meets local needs and that has the potential to release resources that could be used to support local activities. The site is close to the church, school, pub and bus stops. Mrs Margaret Agree Y Y [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Franklin Beverley Agree Y Y [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Larner Matthew Agree Y Y Sustainable, affordable housing money goes to village Support noted. No change. McCourt Mark Metcalfe Agree It complies with the original responses received in the original Support noted. No change. consultation with the residents of Fordham which stated the they wanted limited housing Eiluned Agree ? ? [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Morgan Mr H Palmer Agree Y Y Ideal site close to school and village centre. Support noted. No change. Mr Roper Agree Y Y [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Emma Ousby, N - Allocation of this site is unsound as another more suitable site has Fordham is a medium size No change. Carter Jonas been rejected. There is currently a pedestrian crossing island opposite settlement and modest growth is LLP (on behalf the site on Mildenhall Road and that this will need to be relocated as proposed outside the development of Cambs part of the development proposal. There is no such problem for envelope to meet local needs, as County providing access into the land at Harry Palmer Close, Fordham. supported by the Parish Council Council) and the local community. Sites off Mildenhall Road scored well in the sites technical work, the Sustainability Appraisal and the

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 254 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

community consultation.

The relocation of the existing pedestrian crossing is not considered to be a significant constraint to the development of this site. Daniel Hewett, There is currently a pedestrian crossing island opposite the site on Please see ECDC response No change. Carter Jonas Mildenhall Road and that this will need to be relocated as part of the above. LLP (on behalf development proposal. There is no such problem for providing an of Ely access into the land at Collin’s Hill, Fordham. Diocesan Board of Finance) Wendy Hague, This site lies within a mineral safeguarding area as identified in the Comments noted. No change. Cambs County Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011). However it is unlikely Council that this site would be a viable mineral resource. The County Council Mineral Planning Authority therefore does not raise any objections to these allocations. Policy FRD 2: Housing allocation, Land between 37 and 55 Mildenhall Road Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Cheffins on Agree We are writing on behalf of the landowner to confirm her agreement to Support noted. No change. behalf of Policy FRD2 allocation land between 35 and 55, Mildenhall Road, landowner Fordham coming forward for development in accordance with the policy proposed. Sally Cornish Agree Y Y I agree this is a good site even though it was not in the Sites Survey Support noted. No change. because: Small area's( infills) should be developed in the village Fordham Agree We have no objection to the inflling of this small site. Support noted. No change. Parish Council Beverley Agree Y Y [No further comments provided.] Support noted. No change. Larner Matthew Agree Y Y Small development and meets Fordham needs Support noted. No change. McCourt Eiluned Agree ? ? [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Morgan Mr H Palmer Agree Y Y Ideal site close to school and village centre. Support noted. No change. Mrs Margaret Disagree ? - disagree as I do not feel it would be of any benefit to the village of Fordham is a medium size No change. Franklin Fordham to permit any more development. It would be detrimental to settlement and modest growth is village life and the infrastructure, Our excellent outstanding Primary proposed outside the development

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 255 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

school is already full to capacity, There are some larger sites within envelope to meet local needs, as the envelope already designated for considerable sized development. supported by the Parish Council Fordham just does not need to grow any more! and the local community. Sites off Mildenhall Road scored well in the sites technical work, the Sustainability Appraisal and the community consultation. Mark Metcalfe Disagree Y Y As the opinion for the original consultation was for limited growth up to Please see ECDC response No change. 10 dwellings and FRD 1 provides that need, I don't wish for any further above. land to be developed. Stewart A Disagree N N This was never an option in the village vision and has been pushed Please see ECDC response No change. Moffatt relentlessly on the village by the planning department through the above. Development and Transport committee.

I believe, and this is the basis of a formal complaint, that the information which contributed to its reintroduction in the village plan was false and the Development and Transport Committee was wilfully misled by the planning office

I believe firmly that the land 35/55 Mildenhall road should not be in the planning process. It was unnecessarily introduced into the process with no consultation and ultimately included in the process under very dubious circumstances. The information supplied by the planning office is clearly contradicted by its own reports and I believe the misinformation was supplied on purpose.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Emma Ousby, N - Allocation of this site is unsound as another more suitable site has Fordham is a medium size No change. Carter Jonas been rejected. Access to the site will need to cut through an existing settlement and modest growth is LLP (on behalf cycle route, and a safe crossing point will therefore need to be proposed outside the development of Cambs provided. There is no such problem for providing an access into the envelope to meet local needs, as County land at Harry Palmer Close, Fordham. supported by the Parish Council Council) and the local community. Sites off Mildenhall Road scored well in the sites technical work and the Sustainability Appraisal.

The need to reroute the existing cycle route and provide a safe crossing route are based upon advice received from the County Council as highway authority and are not considered to be significant constraints to the development of

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 256 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

this site. Daniel Hewett, Access to the site will need to cut through an existing cycle route, and Please see response above. No change. Carter Jonas a safe crossing point will therefore need to be provided. There is no LLP (on behalf such problem for providing an access into the land at Collin’s Hill of Ely Fordham. Diocesan Board of Finance) Wendy Hague, This site lies within a mineral safeguarding area as identified in the Comment noted. No change. Cambs County Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011). However it is unlikely Council that this site would be a viable mineral resource. The County Council Mineral Planning Authority therefore does not raise any objections to these allocations. Policy FRD 3 :Housing Allocation, Land east of 67 Mildenhall Road Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Stewart A Agree Y Y [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Moffatt REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Sally Cornish Disagree N N Do not agree with the allocation of this site for the following Fordham is a medium size settlement No change. reasons: and modest growth is proposed 1. It was not put forward at the begininnig of the consultation. outside the development envelope to 2. The development envelope line should stay at it is, ending at the meet local needs, as supported by the last property. It makes no sense to include an area that is part of Parish Council and the local such a large open area which is being farmed. community. Sites off Mildenhall Road 3. There are far better infill sites in Fordham to develop that were scored well in the sites technical work put forward in the consultation. This site should be excluded as it is and the Sustainability Appraisal. not an infill site.

This is not an infill site. Has not been included in any previous surveys, so the public can not have made comments. Just because its located in Mildenhall rd this does not make it ok to be put forward. Fordham Disagree N We have serious concerns about the proposed allocation of this site Fordham is a medium size settlement No change. Parish Council for the following reasons: and modest growth is proposed a. The site is some distance from village services and shops outside the development envelope to meet local needs, as supported by the which are located on Isleham Road. Parish Council and the local b. The site is a large field in agricultural use and is the community. Sites off Mildenhall Road largest gap in the development frontage. scored well in the sites technical work

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 257 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

c. The Parish Council is very concerned that there is real risk and the Sustainability Appraisal. that the site could be developed for a large volume of housing. The partial develppment of the field wold be contrary to policy ENV 2. d. In the event that this site is included in the Local Plan the existing views towards Isleham should be retained and enhanced. The Parish Council has suggested wording relating to this site. e. More vehicular crossings would have an adverse affect on pedestrian and cycle safety. f. No justifiable grounds to revert to ribbon style development. g. The development of this site would not help to bridge the gap between the main part of the village and the housing on Mildenhall Road. It will not result in services being developed on Mildenhall Road but would result in the loss of a valuable view, more vehicular crossings and the risk of piecemeal development of a very large site.

We therefore ask that site FRD 3 should be excluded as it conflicts with policies GROWTH 4, ENV 1, ENV 2 and COM 7 of the Local Plan.

We would remind the District Council that they still are responsible for reaching their decisions based on sound planning principles and in particular those set out in the National Planning Policy Framework sections 7 to 10 and 17. In our view the inclusion of site FRD3 is unsound.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Mrs Margaret Disagree ? - For reasons already stated regarding Policy FRD2 This third site is Fordham is a medium size settlement No change. Franklin even larger and although the proposal is currently for a limited and modest growth is proposed number of dwellings - if this is allocated it won't be long before outside the development envelope to further applications will/ be submitted resulting in a potentially large meet local needs, as supported by the estate development which will deprive the view across open green Parish Council and the local fen-land, create further hazards on an already heavily used road community. Sites off Mildenhall Road and we will rapidly loose our rural village status. scored well in the sites technical work and the Sustainability Appraisal.

Housing outside of the development envelope is not generally supported as outlined in Policy GROWTH 2.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 258 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Beverley Disagree Y Y [No further comments provided] Fordham is a medium size settlement No change. Larner and modest growth is proposed outside the development envelope to meet local needs, as supported by the Parish Council and the local community. Sites off Mildenhall Road scored well in the sites technical work and the Sustainability Appraisal. Matthew Disagree N Y Appears to be a site that would expand to be non sustainable Please see ECDC response above. No change. McCourt based upon local resource (school, sewerage etc.)

Mark Metcalfe Disagree Y Y As the opinion for the original consultation was for limited growth up Please see ECDC response above. No change. to 10 dwellings and FRD 1 provides that need, I don't wish for any further land to be developed. Eiluned Disagree ? ? I consider that this is not a suitable site for development because it Please see ECDC response above. No change. Morgan is part of a much larger site, the landscape implications are to my mind serious, it would add to the vehicular crossings of the footpath/cycleway and it is not actually needed in terms of housing need. I consider its inclusion in the plan would be contrary to established planning principles and the Council's own draft policies.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Mr H Palmer Disagree N N A large open field with panoramic views development here would Please see ECDC response above. No change. have adverse effects and should remain in its present state.

It would lead to over expansion of a small village and cause problems for the school which has no room for this. Mr Roper Disagree N ? Impact on the landscape and part of a much larger site so cannot Please see ECDC response above. No change. be considered as a small infill site. This could lead to the development of the whole site which clearly the residents do want. Emma Ousby, N - Allocation of this site is unsound as another more suitable site has Fordham is a medium size settlement No change. Carter Jonas been rejected. Access to the site will need to cut through an and modest growth is proposed LLP (on behalf existing cycle route, and a safe crossing point will therefore need to outside the development envelope to of Cambs be provided. There is not such problem for providing an access into meet local needs, as supported by the County the land at Harry Palmer Close, Fordham. The site contains a main Parish Council and the local Council) sewer that passes along the frontage close to Mildenhall Road. community. Sites off Mildenhall Road Anglian Water has indicated that an easement of at least 3 metres scored well in the sites technical work, will need to be provided either side of the main sewer. In addition, the Sustainability Appraisal and the any crossing point for vehicular traffic will need to be designed in community consultation. accordance with the current edition of 'Sewers for Adoption Guide (under S104 of the Water Industries Act)'. There are no such Policy FRD 3 includes reference to the constraints affecting the land at Harry Palmer Close, Fordham. main foul sewer on this site and the need for applicants to work with Anglian Water to resolve this issue.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 259 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Daniel Hewett, The Fordham Draft Village Vision confirms that access to the site Please see ECDC response above. No change. Carter Jonas will need to cut through an existing cycle route, and a safe crossing LLP (on behalf point will therefore need to be provided. There is no such problem of Ely for providing an access into the subject site. The site contains a Diocesan main sewer that passes along the frontage close to Mildenhall Board of Road. Anglian Water has indicated that an easement of at least 3 Finance) metres will need to be provided either side of the main sewer. In addition, any crossing point for vehicular traffic will need to be designed in accordance with the current edition of ‘Sewers for Adoption’ Guide (under S.104 of the Water Industries Act). There are no such constraints affecting the subject site on the southern side of Mildenhall Road. Policy FRD 4: Employment allocation, Land south of Snailwell Road Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Sally Cornish Agree Y Y Employment needs to grow. Support noted. No change. Fordham Agree We have no objections to these proposals and welcome the Support noted. No change. Parish Council proposed provision for bus lay-bys and a pedestrian crossing. Beverley Agree Y Y [No further comments provided} Support noted. No change. Larner Matthew Agree ? ? [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. McCourt Mark Metcalfe Agree Y Y [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Stewart A Agree Y Y [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Moffatt Eiluned Agree ? ? [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Morgan Mr H Palmer Agree Y Y More local employment always good news. Support noted. No change.

Policy FRD 5: Employment allocation, Land north of Snailwell Road Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Sally Cornish Agree Y Y Employment needs to grow. Support noted. No change. Fordham Agree We have no objections to these proposals and welcome the Support noted. No change. Parish Council proposed provision for bus lay-bys and a pedestrian crossing.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 260 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Beverley Agree Y Y [No further comments provided} Support noted. No change. Larner Matthew Agree ? ? [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. McCourt

Mark Metcalfe Agree Y Y [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Stewart A Agree Y Y [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Moffatt Eiluned Agree ? ? [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Morgan Mr H Palmer Agree Y Y Good prospects for more local employment. Support noted. No change. Emma Ousby, The allocation of site FRD5 at Snailwell Road Fordham, is The Plan recognises the importance of No change. Carter Jonas supported. It is proposed that an additional area of employment the A14 and Fordham area, by allocating LLP (on behalf land (approx 4.6ha) should be included. It is in single ownership a very significant amount of new land of Cambs with no legal constraints to development. The site suitability and south of Fordham (see Fordham Village County deliverability has been demonstrated through previous Vision). Policy GROWTH 2 recognises Council) consultation by the Council and the submission of an access the importance of flexibility and statement and Phase 1 Habitat Survey in 2010. responding to the needs of businesses, and supports employment development The allocation of further employment sites is justified taking into in the countryside in numerous account the levels of growth in the district and the conclusions of circumstances. the jobs growth strategy. The additional land is part of a In the absence of significant amount of archaeological evidence Scheduled Ancient Monument – and relating to the site the impact of development is currently English Heritage and the County unknown. The presence of the scheduled ancient monument Council’s Archaeologist have confirmed should not be seen as a reason to exclude this extension from their objection to the proposal. It is the allocation. suggested that the applicant liaises with English Heritage and carries out Local Plans are expected to provide flexible enough to necessary investigative work. The accommodate needs not identified in the plan and changing investigations will determine the exact economic circumstances. This site provides an ideal opportunity extent of the development area. The for a new or existing business. District Council is keen to support jobs growth and employment development, and Policies EMP 2 and 3 allow extensions/new employment development in the countryside. Roslyn N - Please see comments relating to Policy FRD 5. Please see ECDC response to policy Please see Deeming, FRD 5. proposed minor Natural modification to England policy FRD 5 set out below.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 261 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy FRD 6: Employment allocation, Land at Horse Racing Forensic Laboratories Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Sally Cornish Agree Y Y Employment needed. Support noted. No change. Beverley Agree Y Y [No further comments provided} Support noted. No change. Larner Fordham Agree We have no objections to these proposals and Support noted. No change. Parish Council welcome the proposed provision for bus lay-bys and a pedestrian crossing. Matthew Agree ? ? [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. McCourt Mark Metcalfe Agree Y Y [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Stewart A Agree Y Y [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Moffatt Eiluned Agree ? ? [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Morgan Mr H Palmer Agree Y Y Good for district and local employment. Support noted. No change. Roslyn N - Natural England has concerns that this proposed The need to include reference to the Proposed minor modification to Deeming, employment site is closely situated to the Fenland possible requirement for applicants policies FRD 5 and 6 to include Natural Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Chippenham to prepare a project level Habitats the following wording: England Fen Ramsar. We would suggest that there may be a Regulation Assessment is accepted need for a project level Appropriate Assessment to be and policies FRD5 and 6 will be ‘Submit sufficient information, undertaken under the Habitats Regulation Assessment amended accordingly. in consultation with Natural process to ensure there will be no adverse impacts on England, for a project level biodiversity and geological sites of importance. This Appropriate Assessment to be may also prove to be necessary for employment undertaken under the Habitats allocation FRD5 which lies immediately to the south of Regulation Assessment FRS6. We therefore consider that this allocation does process to ensure there will not fully comply with the NPPF and is considered not be no adverse impacts on sound. biodiversity and geological sites of importance as referred to in Policy ENV 7.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 262 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy FRD 7: Employment allocation, Land north of Turners Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Sally Cornish Agree Y Y Employment needed. Support noted. No change. Beverley Agree Y Y [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Larner Fordham Agree We have no objections to these proposals and Support noted. No change. Parish Council welcome the proposed provision for bus lay-bys and a pedestrian crossing. Matthew Agree ? ? [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. McCourt Mark Metcalfe Agree Y Y [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Stewart A Agree Y Y [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Moffatt Eiluned Agree ? ? [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Morgan Mr H Palmer Agree Y Y The business will want to grow and employ more Support noted. No change. staff. Amec (on This site is crossed by a National Grid high pressure The need to include reference to Proposed minor modification to behalf of gas pipeline. FRD 6 is also located in close proximity applicants considering the policies FRD 6 and 7 (additional bullet National Grid) to the same pipeline. We require that no permanent location of point): structures are built over or under pipelines or within National Grid’s transmission the zone specified by agreements. Materials or soils pipeline as part of this Take account of the location of the should also not be stacked or stored on the top of the development of these National Grid’s gas transmission pipeline route. Safe and unrestricted access to any of employment sites is accepted pipeline in the design of the pipelines should be maintained at all times. Should and these policies will be development and have met the these sites be taken forward the developers of these amended accordingly. requirements of .National Grid and sites should be made aware of these issues. the Health & Safety Executive relating to this issue. Policy FRD 8: Employment allocation, Land south of Landwade Road Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Sally Cornish Agree Y Y Employment needed. Support noted. No change. Beverley Agree Y Y [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Larner

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 263 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Fordham Agree We have no objections to these proposals and welcome the Support noted. No change. Parish Council proposed provision for bus lay-bys and a pedestrian crossing. Matthew Agree ? ? [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. McCourt Mark Metcalfe Agree Y Y [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Stewart A Agree Y Y [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Moffatt Eiluned Agree ? ? [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Morgan Mr H Palmer Agree Y Y In the right area to provide more industry. Support noted. No change.

Other Comments

Name / Organisation Page / Policy Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID

Additional housing Bidwells on behalf of Fordham is a sustainable location for housing development as it has Fordham is a medium size Proposed minor allocations Scotsdales Nursery a good range of local facilities, public transport connections to other settlement and modest growth is modification to and Garden Centre settlements and is accessible to employment sites to the south of proposed outside the development Map 8.16 Ltd the village. envelope to meet local needs, as (Fordham) to supported by the Parish Council include existing A greater level of housing provision is required given the lack of and the local community. Sites off access to availability of affordable and market housing for young people. Mildenhall Road scored well in the Scotsdales site sites technical work, the within proposed It is proposed that two further sites located to the north of the Sustainability Appraisal and the development Garden Centre should be allocated for housing. community consultation. envelope. The land is owned by Scotsdales and has no encumbrances and is available for development. It is agreed that the access into Scotsdales should be included in The first site is considered to have a capacity of 10 dwellings and is the development envelope. the second could provide 15 dwellings.

The first site is partially brownfield and has an established access on to the main road. The appearance of this land is less rural and unspoilt in comparison to other potential housing sites within the village. Both sites are located within 400m walking distance of the village centre and most of the village facilities services are accessible by public transport.

It is proposed that the village development boundary should also be amended slightly to include the current access to the Scotsdales site.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 264 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Additional housing Mr N Bridge The land to the rear of 26 Isleham Road, Fordham should be Fordham is a medium size No change. allocation considered for inclusion in the local plan for small scale housing settlement and modest growth is development to meet local needs. proposed outside the development envelope to meet local needs, as  The land is currently unused and is scrubland and supported by the Parish Council diseased fruit trees. It is bordered on two sides by the rear and the local community. Sites off gardens of residential properties and agricultural land. Mildenhall Road scored well in the  The land is of a size which would make it not commercially sites technical work, the viable agricultural land. It is within a short walking distance Sustainability Appraisal and the of the primary school and other local amenities. community consultation.  Vehicular access could be provided form Isleham Road or Mildenhall Road if development in conjunction with the neighbouring land.  The land is of a size which would make it not commercially viable agricultural land.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Development Mr & Mrs Bridgeman We would like to request that the area of garden to the North East Fordham is a medium size No change. envelope of our dwelling (land at 2B Moor Road) for the following reasons: settlement and modest growth is proposed outside the development  The existing development envelope dissects our property. envelope to meet local needs, as The NPPF clearly states that boundaries should be clearly supported by the Parish Council defined by physical features that are recognisable and and the local community. Sites off likely to remain permanent. Mildenhall Road scored well in the  Core planning principles encourage the effective use of sites technical work, the land. At the moment the area of land in question is too Sustainability Appraisal and the small for a paddock and too large to be used as a garden. community consultation. There were previously cottages on the site so it would be regenerating a previous domestic site.  The site now includes a domestic outbuilding in the north east corner.  The NPPF encourages the ability of people to ‘self build’ their own homes and encourages the opportunities to develop in areas on the fringes of settlements.  Our proposal would have no impact on the wider landscape or the rural setting of this part of Fordham and would not conflict with development plan policies which seek to protect these interests.  Our site would have less impact on the village and countryside than the proposed allocation.  Our site is far better screened and our CIL contribution of £15-20k would similarly help to support the local community.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 265 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Additional housing Emma Ousby, The land at Harry Palmer Close, Fordham should be included as a Fordham is a medium size No change. allocation Carter Jonas LLP (on housing allocation in the Local Plan. It is in single ownership with no settlement and modest growth is behalf of legal constraints to development. The site is currently vacant and is proposed outside the development Cambridgeshire difficult to manage given its size. envelope to meet local needs, as County Council) supported by the Parish Council The development of any of the proposed allocation sites would have and the local community. Sites off greater negative impact on the character and appearance of the Mildenhall Road scored well in the locality than development at Harry Palmer Close. This site sites technical work, the represents a clear infill opportunity which would not encroach on Sustainability Appraisal and the land which has a community or aesthic value. community consultation.

The sites located on Mildenhall Road would have potential character/visual impact as they are in prominent locations on a main road which runs through the village. There would also be a negative impact on views into and out of the Fordham conservation area.

The District Council has taken forward the Parish Council’s preferred options for housing development. Decisions must be based on sound evidence and planning justification. Additional Emma Ousby, Please see comments to Policy FRD5 above. Please see ECDC response above. No change. employment Carter Jonas LLP (on allocation behalf of R M Will Trust) Additional housing Daniel Hewett, The land at Collin’s Hill, Fordham should be included as a housing Fordham is a medium size No change. allocation Carter Jonas LLP (on allocation in the Local Plan. It is is located to the east of Fordham settlement and modest growth is behalf of Ely and abuts the development envelope to the north and west. proposed outside the development Diocesan Board of Fordham is identified as a Group Settlement in policy 7 of the envelope to meet local needs, as Finance) adopted East Cambridgeshire Local Plan. supported by the Parish Council and the local community. Sites off The land is currently allotments and paddock land and offers the Mildenhall Road scored well in the opportunity for residential development.The site is better related to sites technical work, the village services and facilities than sites FRD1, FRD2 and FRD2. The Sustainability Appraisal and the proposed allocated sites has not been justified when considered community consultation. against reasonable alternatives. Additional housing Sarah Cornish The land behind the new development, Rule Gardens was excluded Fordham is a medium size No change. allocation in the Sites Survey even though repesentation was made. There settlement and modest growth is needs to be more houses built. 10 is not sufficient for the growth of proposed outside the development Fordham. There is a huge need for affordable and market houses in envelope to meet local needs, as the parish of Fordham. I understand that 600 families came forward supported by the Parish Council for the 32 dwelling s at the Rule Gardens development. I do not and the local community. Sites off know how many were local people. I think the draft vision should Mildenhall Road scored well in the include sites for affordable homes giving a good mix of rented, part sites technical work, the ownership and affordable market homes. Sustainability Appraisal and the community consultation.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 266 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Consultation process Beverley Larner The questionnaire is far too complicated and lengthy. The objectives The questionnaire included No change. of the original consultation should have been made clear at the start questions relating to each of the of this process. All that appears to have been achieved from this is proposed allocation sites and the selection of sites for houses and sites for business. Where are provided an opportunity to make the questions for Infrastructure and community facilities? comments on any other part of Fordham Vision including infrastructure/community facilities. Housing allocations Mark Metcalfe The District Council's Development & Transport Committee have Fordham is a medium size No change. gone against the views of Fordham Parish Council and the settlement and modest growth is community's wishes for limited housing growth. The Development & proposed outside the development Transport Committee have bowled over to hard lobbing by an envelope to meet local needs, as individual land owner and have added and removed adhoc without supported by the Parish Council any consultation with the Parish Council and its parishioners. Surely and the local community. Sites off the views of the community should come before one individual. I, Mildenhall Road scored well in the therefore, propose that only FRD1 is put forward for housing growth sites technical work, the and the other sites are removed. Sustainability Appraisal and the community consultation. Policy FRD 2 Stewart A Moffatt Please see comments relating to Policy FRD2. Please see ECDC response relating Please see to Policy FRD 2. above. REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION General/ Eiluned Morgan I would like to register my broad support for the Fordham vision but I Support noted. Please see ECDC No change. policy FRD 3 strongly object to the inclusion of site FRD3. response to relating to Policy FRD 3. REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Additional housing Hollie Howe, Savills It is proposed that a further site at Isleham Road, Fordham should The Local Plan does not allocate No change. allocations (UK) Ltd (on behalf of be allocated for housing as the amount of infill housing which is specific sites within development St. Johns College) likely to come forward is unlikely to meet the District Council’s envelopes. The principle of housing housing target of 93 dwellings. development within development envelopes is broadly supported The site lies within the settlement boundary and accommodates a under Policy GROWTH 2 – with farm/haulage complex. The site is in a sustainable location within applications being considered walking distance of the primary school and local facilities. against policies in the Local Plan

In the longer term land to the east of Isleham Road, Fordham should Fordham is a medium size be considered for residential development. It is currently in settlement and modest growth is agricultural use and would contribute to meeting the District proposed outside the development Council’s housing target. This site is also in a sustainable location envelope to meet local needs, as located opposite Fordham primary school and directly adjacent to supported by the Parish Council the built up area. and the local community. Sites off Mildenhall Road scored well in the The land west of Isleham Road, Fordham should also be considered sites technical work, the for residential development as part of the Fordham Vision as it is a Sustainability Appraisal and the brownfield site which would provide an appropriate extension to community consultation. Fordham.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 267 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Infrastructure/ James Cutting, Reference to the implications of development of development on the The Visions focus on infrastructure No change. community facilities Suffolk County A14/A142 junction should be included in the Fordham Vision. requirements in each settlement. Council The A14/A142 junction is a strategic matter and is mentioned in Policy GROWTH 3.

Haddenham

3.2.16 A total of 14 people/organisations made comments on the draft Haddenham Vision.

Policy HAD 1: Housing allocation, land off Rowan Close Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Jane Howell Agree Y 63% of respondents to the village vision approved of housing Support noted, No change. allocation off Rowan Close myself included. Sally MacEachern Agree Y Y All seems sensible. Support noted. No change. Sally Markwell Agree Y Y Rowan Close currently provides some smart, easily Support noted. No change. accessible housing the style and price of which is probably suited to the young professional couples. I believe extending Rowan Close to include more of the same level and style of housing would address the shortfall of this accommodation in Haddenham. Mrs. Ann Palmer Agree Y Y Affordable housing should be a priority especially for local Comments noted. The third bullet in No change. Haddenham people. Development should also take account the policy refers to the retention of of residential amenity of nearby properties. Concerned about hedgerow and provision of soft drainage and waterlogged nature of the site. Important to landscaping. Drainage and amenity preserve wildlife in the area, particularly the hedgerow issues will need to be considered as habitat. part of the planning application process. Alistair Roberts Disagree Proposed allocation is contrary to results of the 2011 The results of the consultation were No change. community consultation, when the majority were in favour discussed with the Parish Council, small-scale housing developments of up to 10 dwellings. and they were keen for some The allocation will have an impact on increasing levels of additional housing to be provided in vehicular traffic, both private and commercial, already the village to meet local needs. making use of the roads through Haddenham village. Haddenham is a large sustainable village with a range of services and facilities, and the proposed level of

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 268 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

growth is considered to be appropriate. Plansurv Ltd (on Disagree N The reference to affordable housing provision as follows is The current affordable housing No change. behalf of FC Palmer unnecessary as it second guesses Policy HOU 3 and results wording provides some guidance to and Sons) in unnecessary repetition. “Provide an element of developers and the public on the affordable housing (currently 30%) as required under Policy proportion of affordable housing HOU 3, with priority being given to people in local housing which is currently sought, as set out in need.” It is proposed that the bullet point be reworded to Policy HOU 3. As such, it is read: “Provide an element of affordable housing as required considered to be useful and under Policy HOU 3, with priority being given to people in reasonable. local housing need.” The word ‘natural’ is considered to be My client objects to the first paragraph of the housing reasonable – and is similar in allocation – land off Rowan Close and the reference to the meaning to ‘obvious’. proposed allocation as a “natural” extension of the existing housing development. The development of housing is not a process of nature and therefore cannot be described as natural. The reference should be reworded to read “obvious” or “sensible” in the interests of clarity.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Neil Bryant Y [No further comments] Noted. No change.

Policy HAD 2: Housing allocation, land at New Road Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Jane Howell Agree Y 64% of respondents to the Village Vision approved Support noted. No change. housing allocation at New Road including myself. Mr. AJ Bland Agree ? ? Only small concern is access on to what is already very Comments noted. The County busy road. Access needs to be wide to allow left/right Highways Officer has confirmed that entrance into the main road. the principle of development in this location is acceptable, providing that the site is accessed at one point to the south-west of the site. This point is captured in the 5th bullet in the policy. Detailed design and access issues will be considered as part of the planning application process. Mrs Ann Palmer Agree Y Y Affordable housing is needed. Concerned about amount See ECDC response above. of traffic this will entail in an already very busy road. Juliet Cann Disagree ? ? I live next to the proposed site. Concerned about the See ECDC response above. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 269 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

impact of cars on this road. Would like the hedges to be maintained properly as they are at present blocking my light to the side of my property. Houses would enhance the areas appearance but maybe not so many. Plansurv Ltd (on Disagree N HAD2 is undeliverable and therefore unsound. The site is Comments noted. The County No change. behalf of FC Palmer close to a sharp bend to the east and a more gradual Highways Officer has confirmed that and Sons) bend to the west, both of which restrict visibility for the principle of development in this vehicles. There are already six properties and a building location is acceptable. Detailed plot, with extant planning permission, which have direct design and access issues will be access onto New Road, opposite the proposed allocation considered as part of the planning – plus a further 6 dwellings off Elizabeth Way. There is a application process. The site at New risk of endangering highway safety. Road scored well in the Site technical appraisal process, the Sustainability HAD 2 should be reduced to approximately 15 dwellings Appraisal, and the community with the remaining nine dwellings being allocated on an consultation process. Land at Hill alternative site at Hill Row, Haddenham. The proposed Row scores less well, particularly in change will ensure the delivery of some dwellings if New terms of impact on the visual Road cannot safely deliver the numbers envisaged and character and appearance of the provide the opportunity to improve the character of the village. Conservation Area in this location. Proposed supporting text and new policy relating to the Hill Row allocation. Proposed rewording of Policy HAD 2 should be reworded to read: “0.8 hectares of land is allocated for residential development of approximately 15 dwellings.’

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Neil Bryant Y [No further comments] Noted. No change.

Policy HAD 3: Employment allocation, land at Haddenham Business Park, Station Road Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Jane Howell Agree Y 95% of respondents to the Village Vision supported small Support noted. No change. business development at Haddenham Business Park myself included. Sally Markwell Agree Y Y Haddenham is crying out for local, sometimes part-time Support noted. No change. work. Mrs. Ann Palmer Agree Y Y Should provide local employment, and support the Support noted. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 270 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

development of the new houses – help to reduce congestion. Neil Bryant Agree Y Support in principle. But concerned about whether The County Council’s Highway’s No change. employment will be for villagers or commuting workers. If officer has confirmed that the visibility the latter then there is clearly an issue over increased is sufficient, given the recent traffic on the A1421. Access/exiting the site is an issue extension of the 40mph zone. See given the poor visibility and the speed of vehicles coming comments at end of this section. from Witcham Toll. May require some form of traffic management at the junction of the site and extension of the 30 and 40 mile speed limit further down the A1421. PlanSurv (on behalf Disagree N Y Client is owner of Haddenham Business Park. The 1. Agree that a geographical Proposed minor of Grovemere allocation is welcomed and supported, but would suggest: reference in the supporting text modification to Property Limited) could add clarification. Not supporting text to 1. The policy should include a geographical reference, considered necessary to define Policy HAD 3, first and a breakdown of the B1 use class. Should read as the various B1 use classes, as paragraph: follows: "0.8 hectares of land is allocated for taken as read. employment development at south of the ‘The proposed Haddenham Business Park (B1 (a, b and c), B2, B8 2. Policy GROWTH 2 and Policies employment EMP 2, 2 and 4 allow employment allocation, located to 2. The third paragraph of the Employment section of the development in the the south of the Vision should be changed as it allows employment countryside/on the edge of existing at development within or on the edge of the village, villages. Therefore it would not be Haddenham Business thereby damaging the spatial vision for Haddenham appropriate or reasonable to Park, will provide for and allowing speculative development. Need to make the suggested change. a mix of uses…..’ create a clear focus for the delivery of additional employment development at the Haddenham Business Park. Should be altered as follows: "Other suitable new employment proposals within or on the edge of the village will be supported in principle, subject to Policies EMP 2, EMP 3 and EMP 4."

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Susan Mills There is adequate visibility to the site, now the 40mph Comments noted. The inadequate No change. (Highways Officer), speed limit is in place. However, concerned about lack of space in the verge means this Cambs County pedestrian access to the site – there is inadequate room restriction is difficult to overcome. Council in the highway verge of Station Road to provide a safe The site is available and offers the footway link. most deliverable option for new employment development in the village.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 271 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Other Comments

Name / Organisation Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID

Sally Markwell I am impressed that the opportunity is taken to ensure all locals can have a say in the Comments noted. No change. future of our village. Plansurv Ltd on My client objects to the reliance of the Local Planning Authority on the village vision The District Council has taken No change. behalf of FC Palmer questionnaires as its sole justification for allocations. The response rate for account of site technical work, and Sons households consulted in Haddenham was just 14%, which is an insufficient sample to Sustainability Appraisal results, plus be representative of the view of the local population. The evidence base is flawed and the results of consultation with the the Council must take a balanced view when considering how many and what Parish Council and local community, allocation should be made, based on clear evidenced justification. in producing the draft Vision. This approach is considered to be sound REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION and NPPF compliant. Neil Bryant Consideration should be given to the provision of cycle/horse paths along the A1421 Comments noted. No change. to Witcham Toll Mrs. Ann Palmer Has provision been made for extra pupils at the schools? Also doctors survery- even These matters are picked up in the No change. more people waiting at the surgery. Do we have enough doctors, nurses to cope with Infrastructure section in the Vision. ever more increasing patients? Jane Howell Yes, 72% of respondents to Haddenham Village Vision want to retain the The Vision proposes the retention of a No change. development envelope with the area outside being protected open countryside. I trust development envelope. that this will continue to be the case. BGG Associates Our Client, Mr G Bethell, is the owner of one of the possible residential development The proposed allocation sites scored No change. Limited (on behalf of sites identified on the Haddenham Consultation Map (2011) - ‘Land off Chewells well in the site technical work, the Mr G Bethell) Lane’. The site is available for development, and is extremely well related to the Sustainability Appraisal, and from the centre of Haddenham, within easy walking distance of the shops and other facilities. It results of consultation with the Parish is therefore more sustainable than the other sites which have been identified. The Council and the local community. The site’s boundaries, built form, character and use ensure that it relates to the built form land off Chewells Lane scored of the village. The development of the site would not appear out of place when viewed particularly poorly in the technical against the backdrop of the existing built environment. The already established trees work - the County Council’s Highways and hedgerows would minimise any visual / character impact on the surrounding Officer has indicated that it is not countryside. This site is better than land at New Road as there uncertainty about clear how the site could be safely delivery due to the possible retention of the employment use, and concerns about accessed. adverse visual impact from the A1123, and highway safety. Chris Anderson My client would like to propose a new site for housing development, at 14A-16 Station The County Council’s Highways No change. Road – for approximately 14 dwellings. The site (0.5ha) is owned by my clients family, Officer has indicated that additional and is available and deliverable. The site is located on the eastern side of Station junctions serving estate development Road and to the rear of existing dwellings and commercial premises and close to the on Station Road will not be centre of the village and its amenities. The site area comprises of an existing vehicular acceptable. The sites technical work access from Station Road that currently serves 2 dwellings at No’s 14A & 16 together indicated that other sites in with a former agricultural holding to the rear (including redundant agricultural storage Haddenham score better. buildings). The site has a strong sense of enclosure which reinforces its location as

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 272 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

part of the village centre and thus differentiates this site from those on the outer edge The development envelope in this of the settlement. Technical work shows that adequate access and visibility splays can location has been extended slightly to be achieved, and that the site is suitable in other respects (details provided). follow the logical boundary of the rear of the buildings at 14A-16 Station Also object to the alteration of the Village Development Envelope as now shown Road, and has been reduced slightly within the Haddenham map. The development envelope now excludes some of my on land to the south of 14A to follow client’s adjoining land along the eastern side of the Development Envelope. This is the logical field boundary. These incorrect and my client respectfully requests that the Development Envelope boundary changes are considered to be of the Village Vision plan should be amended so as to reflect the line of this boundary defensible and iron out these previous within the Core Strategy Adopted Proposals Map. anomalies. Gladman Haddenham is a sustainable settlement with a range of services, and should It is recognised that Haddenham is a No change. Developments accommodate a greater level of housing growth than is being proposed through the relatively large village with a range of Local Plan. This could assist the Council in meeting the housing needs. Stratetic services – therefore a number of new urban extensions are supported but we have concerns about the delivery timescales allocations are proposed. The level of for this type of development. growth is considered to be reasonable, and has been supported by the Parish Council. Significant progress is being made towards the expansion of North Ely – a planning application has recently been submitted.

Isleham 3.2.17 A total of 45 people/organisations made comments on the draft Isleham Vision.

Policy ISL 1: Housing allocation, land south and west of Lady Frances Court Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L David Alberry- Agree Acceptable to expand to accommodate a total of 15 dwellings. Support noted. No change. King

Clive & Susan Agree 20 dwellings should be considered for this site considering the Support noted. No change. Patterson plot size. Very much in favour as will hopefully provide affordable housing in excess of required 30% Martin C Agree Y ISL.1 is only an extension of the existing new development. Support noted. It is proposed that this No change. Rawlings However, this extension should comprise affordable housing only site should provide a minimum of 30% to match that which already exists on the site. I do not believe affordable housing. However the owners that this village needs any more unaffordable executive housing. of the land (Lady Peyton charity) have indicated that a greater amount of

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 273 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

affordable housing may be provided on this site. Mark Smith Agree New housing, especially affordable housing, is vital for the village Support noted. No change. and this appears a good site with good access. Mrs Hazel Agree Because this is charity land, the majority of affordable housing Support noted. No change. Thompson could go to local people who are often priced out of the local housing market. Our Vision had a big need for affordable and starter homes. To continue on the site would not cause any significant harm to the environment. Parish Council supported. Mrs Pauline Agree Because this is charity land, the majority of affordable housing Support noted. No change. Wilkes could go to local people who are often priced out of the local housing market. Our Vision had a big need for affordable and starter homes. To continue on the site would not cause any significant harm to the environment. Parish Council supported. Policy ISL 2: Housing allocation, land at 5a Fordham Road Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L David Alberry- Agree Y Y Acceptable to expand the village envelope to accommodate a Support noted. No change. King total of 10 houses of which 3 will be affordable.

Clive & Susan Agree Generally in favour. Support noted. No change. Patterson Martin C Agree ISL.2 is only an extension of the existing new development. Support noted. It is proposed that this site No change. Rawlings However, this extension should comprise affordable housing should provide a minimum of 30% only to match that which already exists on the site. I do not affordable housing. believe that this village needs any more unaffordable executive housing. Mark Smith Agree New housing, especially affordable housing, is vital for the Support noted. No change. village and this appears a good site with good access. Mrs Hazel Agree A small development which may help to reduce speed limit Support noted. No change. Thompson into the village. Supported by the Parish Council.

Mrs Pauline Agree A small development which may help to reduce speed limit Support noted. No change. Wilkes into the village. Supported by the Parish Council. Mrs Rachel & Disagree We have the following concerns: This site is adjacent to a number of Proposed minor Mr John Rees 1. Impact on property/garden – noise, disturbance, loss residential properties on Fordham Road. modification to of light, light pollution and overlooking. Any development would need to consider Policy ISL 2: 2. Impact on the character of the area – development the impact on these properties as part of the should be in keeping with houses in the area. planning application process. It is therefore 'Have particular 3. Housing density seems excessive when compared to considered that the wording of Policy ISL2 regard to site

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 274 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

sites ISL3 and ISL4. should be amended to refer to residential layout, building 4. Adequacy of infrastructure. amenity as well as the visual impact of this height and soft 5. Road safety – area in need of traffic calming development. landscaping to measures minimise the 6. Maintenance of boundary landscaping and fencing of The District Council has not identified any visual impact of properties. infrastructure constraints relating to this site development 7. Area is currently hedgerow and fields and is used as which would prevent or constrain the from Fordham hunting ground for an adult barn owl. development of this site for housing. Road and to minimise the Policy ENV 2 (Design) requires applicants amenity impact to have regard to the local context of sites on adjoining which would include the design of existing residential houses in the vicinity. properties'.

The maintenance of any proposed landscaping and the design of any boundary features including fencing are detailed issues would be considered as part of the planning application process. Policy ISL 3: Housing allocation, land west of Hall Barn Road Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L David Alberry- Agree Y Y Acceptable to expand the development envelope to accomodate Support noted. The County Council as No change. King 12 houses including 4 affordable. See item 9. Highways Authority has advised that The vision on the 90 deg. bend is currently acceptable for both vehicular access should be provided to H.G.V's and car drivers. In order to maintain the drivers' vision, this site from Hall Barn Road rather than especially cars, the location of any housing or landscaping will Temple Road. Therefore Policy ISL 3 have to be carefully considered. In the development of the site refers to vehicular access being provided it might be easier to have a one-way system in and out, utilising from Hall Barn Road. both Hall Barn Road and Temple Road. B T King This proposed site is ideally situated on the edge of the village Support noted. No change. adjacent to and opposite existing dwellings and close to all amenities. Access to the main Isleham to Fordham Road which links to the A142 can be easily accessed without going through the village. Also this site is close to the existing and proposed industrial units and so could be easily reached on foot. With sympathetic landscaping this development site would have a very low visual impact on the surroundings and therefore meet all the criteria that the Isleham Parish Council and the E.C.D.C. were looking for in the Isleham vision for the future

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 275 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Martin C Agree Consideration should be given to improving road to the site which Support noted. The Cambridgeshire No change. Rawlings is a narrow lane. County Council Highways Officer has advised that access is acceptable in I have no problems with this site being developed as it does not principle from Hall Barn Road. If expand the village envelope but just infills an existing gap in improvements are identified as being existing housing. However, thought must be given to improving necessary this will be dealt with through the road to this site. At the moment it is a narrow lane. the planning application process. Mark Smith New housing, especially affordable housing, is vital for the village Support noted. No change. and this appears a good site with good access. Mrs Hazel Bungalows would enhance the entrance into the village from this Support noted. The type and mix of No change. Thompson point. Services and facilities already exist on this road, and no housing will be determined at planning significant harm would impact on the environment. Also this was application stage, as set out in the supported by the Parish Council - in the Vision. second bullet of Policy ISL 3. Mrs Pauline Bungalows would enhance the entrance into the village from this Support noted. See response above. No change. Wilkes point. Services and facilities already exist on this road, and no significant harm would impact on the environment. Also this was supported by the Parish Council in the vision. Clive & Susan Disagree Generally in favour. Consideration should be given to providing a Highway visibility from Hall Barn Road No change. Patterson good line of sight around the corner of Temple Road/Hall Barn would be considered further as part of Road. the planning application process. Policy ISL 4: Housing allocation, land west of Pound Lane Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Hayley Davies My mother Wendy Davies, owns the land and the land is Support noted. No change. on behalf of available for housing development. Have sought planning Wendy Davies permission at least twice before though it was refused. The site is suitable for 3-4 houses who would benefit from the views and village location. Sheldrick Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. R. T. Sheldrick Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. David Alberry- Disagree N N Pound Lane is Isleham's only designated road (B1104) and is There is a typographical error in Map 8.9 Proposed minor King very busy with a blind corner before the 1693 Church where for Isleham. A corrected version was modification to parking is only available on the road. The East side of Pound issued in advance of the Local Plan Map 8.19 Lane accommodates 4 different groups of back-land public exhibition at Isleham. (Isleham). development and a public footpath to Waterside (side of No.34). NOTE: It has been designated the incorrect ISL number - it ISL4 to be

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 276 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

should be ISL 5. See Map 8.19. renamed as ISL5

The wall adjoining the Pound Lane site will need to be completely ISL5 to be demolished (over 60 metres) to accommodate a Footpath (only Obtaining vehicular and pedestrian renamed as 0.5.m. between kerb and road). The 3 houses could easily be access to the site will involve the ISL4. accommodated on the southern element. The northern part of the demolition of a small part of the wall. site could be sold to the church for parking. It would diminish the However, the wall, is an attractive and Proposed minor need to park outside of the Church and also maintain views of the historic feature in the Conservation Area modification to priory. and the remainder should be retained as supporting text of much as possible – hence the criteria in Policy ISL 4: draft Plan. A footway along the boundary is not proposed. ‘Extend the existing footway on the west of Pound Lane between Church Street and 15 Pound Lane to the south-east part corner of the site.’ Kim Downey Disagree ? ? Concern about traffic safety on this road and speed, particularly Cambridgeshire County Council has No change. when the church is used. Also leads to congestion when tractors advised that safe vehicular and or larger farm machines are trying to get down the road. pedestrian access to the site is possible from Pound Lane. Concerned that the development proposal to provide “Extend the existing footway on the west of Pound Lane to the south part of The proposal to extend the footway on the site.” Will narrow the road and make access up and down the the west side of Pound Lane to the south road worse. part of the site relates to the existing footpath between the junction with Also the proposed access and crossing point into the northern Church Street and 15 Pound Lane and part of the site will be on the bend. would therefore not involve land close to the bend. Building 3 dwellings will block the view of the priory from the road and the chapel. The policy includes a criteria (bullet 1) which seeks to limit the visual impact of We need starter homes and more Council homes in the village development and retain sightlines of the for local people. priory from the road.

Comments on housing are noted. This scheme is too small to support the provision of affordable housing, but other proposed allocations in Isleham will include an element of affordable housing.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 277 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

English Disagree N - English Heritage is concerned that development of this site would Comments are noted. The Members to Heritage have a seriously adverse effect of the setting of Isleham Priory. Cambridgeshire County Council’s consider English (Katharine The site affords open views of the priory from the adjoining Archaeology Officer has also informally Heritage Fletcher) highway which would be enclosed by the proposed housing. raised concerns. comments on archaeological importance. Martin C Disagree N ? Concerned about congestion, parked cars and road safety on Cambridgeshire County Council has Members to Rawlings Pound Lane – particularly on church days due to proximity of St advised that safe vehicular and consider English Andrews & Free Chapel. Building houses would compound the pedestrian access to the site would be Heritage current problem. possible from Pound Lane. comments on archaeological English Heritage has objected to the importance. Would be better to provide car parking on this site and get the proposed development on the grounds of cars off the road? Also concerned the fact that the site maybe of the impact on the scheduled ancient archaeological importance and this would be lost if development monument. Comments are noted. The takes precedence. Cambridgeshire County Council’s Archaeology Officer has also informally raised concerns. Mark Smith Disagree ? ? This proposed development appears to be unnecessarily close to Comments noted. Members to the jewel in Isleham's crown - namely the Priory and associated consider English land. Heritage comments. Mrs Hazel Disagree Would have agreed, fully - if road and pathways could have been Cambridgeshire County Council has No change. Thompson wider. Access very limited. Need to secure an agreement with advised that safe vehicular and highways = to keep the road safe for children walking to and from pedestrian access to the site would be school. Large lorries use this road, often using the curb. possible from Pound Lane. Mr David Disagree N N Concerns over the impact to the scheduled ancient monument Comments noted. Members to Wichard and surrounding area. Site has potential archaeological consider English importance within the Conservation Area. Also concerned about Cambridgeshire County Council has Heritage access to the site and increased traffic. Pound Lane is already advised that safe vehicular and comments. congested and has existing constraints with regards to the width pedestrian access to the site would be of the road and general visibility. I strongly object to this plan. possible from Pound Lane.

English Heritage has objected to the proposed development on the grounds of impact on the scheduled ancient monument. The Cambridgeshire County Council’s Archaeology Officer has also informally raised concerns. Mrs Pauline Disagree Would have agreed fully if road and pathways could have been See response above. No change. Wilkes wider. Access is very limited. Need to secure an agreement with highways to keep the road safe for children walking to and from school. Large lorries use this road, often using the kerb. Mrs Tracy Disagree N N Not suitable for more houses. See response above. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 278 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Wichard

Policy ISL 5: Housing allocation, land at Church Lane Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L A Ashley Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. S Bond Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. David Alberry- Agree Y This is ISL 4 - NOT ISL 5. See Map 8.19. There is a typographical error in Map 8.9 Proposed minor King for Isleham. A corrected version was modification to Reference to Policy HOU 3 should be removed as there is no issued in advance of the Local Plan Map 8.19 requirement for affordable housing on a 5 house site. public exhibition at Isleham. (Isleham).

Agree with the use of Ellwood Road as site access. Policy HOU 3 (Affordable Housing) ISL4 to be requires developments of 5 or more renamed as ISL5 dwellings in the north of the district to provide a minimum of 30% affordable ISL5 to be housing. renamed as ISL4.

B. M. Clarke Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. C Clarke Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. Lynn Clarke Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. Sheldrick Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. J A Flatt Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. M Clarke Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 279 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

of five dwellings on site. P Flatt Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. J D Fleet Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. Mrs Fleet Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. R G Givin Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. P Martin Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. G. E Middleton Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. G Musto Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. P Norman Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. Sheldrick Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. R. T. Sheldrick Agree We are satisfied that the proposals will not have any adverse Support noted. No change. effect on the land and therefore agree to his plans for a maximum of five dwellings on site. Mlt Architects Agree N Y Allocation for 5 dwellings is sound. Two additional areas of land This development of further land for No change. (Brian should be included as part of the housing allocation: housing adjacent to Coates Drove as Halstead) proposed would require the removal of at  1.4 hectares to the east of Church Lane accessed from least part of the existing hedging to allow Coates Drove retaining the hedge on the northern for the creation of a new vehicular boundary. access. Coates Drove which is currently  An area accessed from the end of Ellwoods Close for a public byway would also need to be two dwellings. improved to enable vehicular access.

It is considered that the development of additional land to the east of Church Lane with vehicular access from Coates Drove would have a greater visual

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 280 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

impact than the proposed housing allocation site by altering the existing character of Coates Drove [check location of proposed site].

The area of land at the end of Ellwoods Close has been included in the proposed development envelope for Isleham. The Local Plan does not allocate specific sites within development envelopes. The principle of housing development within development envelopes is broadly supported under Policy GROWTH 2 – with applications being considered against policies in the Local Plan. Kim Downey Disagree More Traffic will be passing down busy Pound Lane due to Cambridgeshire County Council has No change. Church Lane being 50% a one way street. Church Lane is an old advised that safe vehicular access to the narrow lane with limited space to add paths, surely this will make site would be possible from Church Lane the road narrower In this village we need starter homes, I'm a by making improvements to the existing single person, I have lived here all my life, I work in the village vehicular access point which is in the shop (for 15 years) and have worship at Pound lane Free Church same ownership as the allocation site. since I was 12 years old (20 Years) but I have to rent a property in the village because there is not either starter/council house in Isleham. Mr Mitchell Disagree N This site was unanimously opposed at Parish level. Cambridgeshire County Council has No change. advised that safe vehicular access to the 1. Land from which site would be accessed is very site would be possible from Church Lane unsuitable for traffic, in bad state of repair and has by making improvements to the existing hidden corners. vehicular access point which is in the 2. The proposed properties would be so close to existing same ownership as the allocation site. properties that light and outlook would be greatly impaired. The potential impact of this development on neighbouring residential properties on Church Lane will be considered further as part of the planning application for this site. The third and seventh bullet points of Policy ISL 5 are intended to ensure that residential amenity of these properties is fully considered. This will include the proposed site layout and building heights (3rd criterion) and additional landscaping on the western boundary of the site (7th criterion).

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 281 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Clive & Susan Concerned that development of this land would have a negative Cambridgeshire County Council has No change. Patterson impact on Church Lane and result in a significant increase in advised that safe vehicular access to the traffic. site would be possible from Church Lane by making improvements to the existing  The proposed development has little or no support from vehicular access point which is in the the Parish Council and local community. same ownership as the allocation site.

 The development is not required to meet present Whilst the Parish Council voted to not housing need. There is the potential that the site could support development on this site, the be developed further following the first phase. matter was considered by the District Council’s Development and Transport  A development of 5 houses would negate the need to Committee and it was resolved to include meet the requirement to provide a mix of housing to this site in the Draft Local Plan for public meet local needs. consultation at a committee meeting on January 2012.

The number of houses proposed on the site is based on the site’s location and characteristics and is considered to be reasonable. Required to make provision for affordable housing in accordance with Policy HOU 3. Martin C Disagree Whilst I do not have a problem with the development of this site I It is proposed that vehicular access to No change. Rawlings am concerned over vehicle access. A new access road will be the site will be from the existing access required. I am also concerned over the impact that the point on Church Lane to minimise the development of this site will have on Coates Drove impact on the character and appearance environmentally. of the locality.

It is also proposed to protect and enhance the existing vegetation on the northern boundary of the site to protect the existing character of Coates Drove. Policy ISL6: Employment allocation, land adjacent to Hall Barn Road Industrial Estate Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L David Alberry- Agree Y Y The speed limit of 60 mph. at the access point to Hall Barn Road Support noted. The potential need to No change. King should be reduced to 30mph. Agree with employment being reduce the speed limit on Hall Barn Road focused in one area of the village on Hall Barn Road. would need to be considered by the County Council as the Highway

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 282 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Authority. Martin C Agree Y ? Will encourage more employment to the village, which currently is Support noted. No change. Rawlings sadly lacking. Mark Smith Agree ? ? [No further comments provided] Support noted. No change. Mrs Hazel Agree Good site as amenities for the industrial estate such as services, Support noted. No change. Thompson accessibility are all ready in place. Has Parish Council support.

Mrs Pauline Agree To continue with the industrial estate, amenities such as services, Support noted. No change. Wilkes accessibility area all already in place. Has Parish Council support. Mrs Tracy Cannot see why this would effect anything. Support noted. No change. Wichard

Clive & Susan Development should have a lower visual impact than the existing The policy includes criteria requiring a No change. Patterson industrial units. These should also include smaller office good standard of design and layout. units/storage which would cater for smaller or starter businesses. Detailed design, layout and access issues will be considered through the planning application process. The size and nature of employment development is not specified, but it is likely to include a mix of sizes and units. There is known to be a demand for smaller industrial/starter units in the area. Other Comments

Name / Page / Policy Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID

Housing David Alberry- Village Vision has been completed under pressure from a higher The District Council is responsible for No change. King authority. the preparation of the Local Plan and has sought the views of local It is not possible to define a suitable mix of dwelling types and sizes to residents and organisations as part of meet the needs of Isleham. The number of bedrooms in houses are this process. recorded on the sale of the property. Policy HOU 2 of the Local Plan The next review should stress that affordable housing is needed. explains the process for determining the mix of housing which will be provided on open market sites. This will be a matter for negotiation between the District Council and applicants as part of the planning application process.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 283 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Infrastructure Cambridgeshire More limited expansion of primary school provision required is required Comments noted. The Isleham Vision No change. & community County Council, in other village schools most notably Isleham. refers to the need to explore options facilities Wendy Hague for additional primary school provision within the village. Proposed Alison McGreavy, Land south-west of Isleham Recreation Ground and north-east of It is accepted that this site would be No change. housing Tim Aves and Fordham Road comprising 2ha of the southern part of the site should be marginally closer to the core of the alloction Elizabeth Driver developed for housing. The remainder of the site would continue to be village than the proposed housing used for agriculture. allocation at 5a Fordham Road. However the site is largely open and The site is closer to the core of the village than the proposed housing there is a significant distance between allocation at 5a Fordham Road. The site is suitable for development as the existing residential properties on it lies between two houses and would be screened by established trees Fordham Road. It is considered that and bushes at 14 Fordham Road and the industrial buildings located on the development of the land adjoining Hall Barn Road. The site can be easily accessed without travelling into Fordham Road, Isleham for housing the village. would have a significant impact on the landscape given that this land is The 5a Fordham Road site is considered acceptable in highway terms. visible from both Fordham Road and Therefore the revised proposal site should also be considered. Traffic Hall Barn Road. The site scores less would not need to travel into the village unlike a number of the sites well in the District Council’s Site included in the Vision. Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal report. The site was part of a larger area (7ha) which was proposed for housing development and a new primary school. It is unsurprising the original proposal site attracted a significant number of objections given its size and proximity to the largest number of existing dwellings. The revised proposal relates to a smaller area (less than a third of the total site) and is more distant from properties in West Street and Hall Barn Road. Housing Colin McGreavy Area of land at Sheldrick’s Road, Isleham suggested for inclusion in the No change. development envelope.

The current lane dissects the old and disused farm buildings and moving the line would enable 3 dwellings to be built partially replacing the existing buildings on site. The site is self contained and a more positive area to build on in comparison to grass or paddock land within the village. Proposed Mrs Sargent The land adjoining 4 Fordham Road, Isleham was previously used a It is considered that the development No change. housing farmyard and has fallen into disrepair and become overgrown and of the land adjoining 4 Fordham alloction unsightly. The view when approaching the village from Fordham is spoilt Road, Isleham for housing would by these dilapidated and disused buildings and the unmanaged have a significant impact on the landscape. Consider including part of this land for residential landscape given that the land is development in the Isleham Vision. visible from both Fordham Road and Hall Barn Road. The site scores less well in the District Council’s Site Assessment and Sustainability

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 284 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Appraisal report. General Suffolk County Given the relatively small scale of development proposed at Isleham the Comments noted. No change. Council (James County Council has no comments to make at this time. Cutting)

Infrastructure The Ely Group of Lack of capacity within Board’s surface water receiving system to Comments noted. It will be important No change. & community Internal Drainage accept additional surface water from development. Developer will need for any developer to address surface facilities Boards to provide sufficient surface water accommodation prior to the water issues, as set out in Policy ENV development of this site to protect land and properties from increased 8 in Part 1 of the Plan. flood risk. This work will need to be undertaken at the expense of the developer and maintained by a competent authority.

Kennett 3.2.18 A total of 2 people/organisations made comments on the draft Kennett Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L David Barker, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Evolution Town Planning James Cutting, - - - Given the relatively small scale of development proposed, Comment noted. No change. Suffolk County the county council has no concerns relating to the Kennett Council Vision at this time. However, if development that (KEN/1/1) generated significant transport movements were to come forward, the county council would request particular consideration of the impact on the junction of the B1085 and B1506 in Kentford, in line with usual transport assessment processes.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 285 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Kirtling and Upend 3.2.1 A total of 5 people/organisations made comments on the draft Kirtling and Upend Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Kay Wadey Support small amount of new building Support noted for infill policy. The No change. in the current envelope only. exceptions policy is a district wide policy Exceptions could lead to a domino that allows some development outside escalation which would irreversibly the development envelope where it is ruin the quiet character here. Good appropriate to need. broadband for those needing to work The District Council is part of a county from home would be terrific. wide scheme to bring better broadband to areas in greatest need and should be implemented by 2015. Lady Fairhaven, Strong support for more affordable Affordable housing can come forward No change. Fairhaven Estate housing to attract young people to the outside the development envelope as a village. Various sites appropriate for rural exception (assessed against criteria this which could provide smaller in Policy HOU 4). dwellings for younger families or retired people. The Parish Council proposes to explore all options for the provision of a shop. The pub should be kept as a pub. If a shop were attached to it, this may be Highways improvements are included in too distant with no pavement – the priority list within the Vision. perhaps a house in the street could have a shop attached, closer to the centre of the village.

The road surface and pavements could be improved. Kirtling Parish Council Agree with existing development A meeting with Kirtling Parish Council Proposed minor modification to the envelopes. However, request that was held on 15th May 2013. It was Vision: each planning application, whether it agreed that the Vision should include a is inside or outside the present commitment to a review of the Local Plan Housing development envelopes, is judged on within 2 years, at which point the Parish Kirtling and Upend are likely to its own merits. Would like Council would like to explore options with continue to grow at a slow rate with approximately 20 new dwellings to be the District Council for further growth of new housing being mainly built on built over 20 years in Kirtling (none in Kirtling. suitable ‘infill’ sites within the village. Upend). To avoid large estate-type No new housing allocations are development, any future development proposed on the edge of Kirtling or

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 286 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

should be limited to one or two Upend. However, the Parish houses. The current envelopes do not Council would like the opportunity provide space for such growth, and to explore options in the future, with Kirtling being a sprawling, and welcomes the indication in the scattered village, some new Local Development Scheme that a residences would have to be located review of the Local Plan will outside the present building commence within 2 years. A envelopes. We would like to request a ‘development envelope’ has been review of the present development Changes discussed at meeting and drawn around both villages to define envelopes within the next two years. change of wording agreed with Parish the built-up areas of the villages Can you amend the draft to include Council. where infill development may be the above changes? permitted. Due to the dispersed nature of both settlements Kirtling Can the following paras to be village particularly is characterised amended to reflect the community's by scattered groups of dwellings in wish to see the pub reopened for attractive countryside, and there business and to be retained as a are separate sections of the community facility: development envelope.  para 8.19.6 - line 2 after 'Technology Ltd,' insert 'a public Employment house (currently closed)' There are a small number of current  para 8.19.8 - include new Priority businesses in the village, including 3 'Retain the public house as a the Garage and ATL Agricultural business', Technology Ltd, and B&B  renumber present Priorities 3-5 establishments in Kirtling and Fittocks as 4-6 Stud in Upend. The pub in Kirtling is  para 8.19.10 - Insert an current closed. However, there is additional sentence at start of little……. para - 'As at March 2013 the public house is up for sale or Infrastructure and community facilities rent'. Line 2, delete 'but with the [third para.] A small shop attached to closure of the pub this is unlikely the pub has in the past been to be feasible in the near future', suggested as a location for a village and insert 'and if the pub is shop in Kirtling. The pub is currently reopened the aspiration for a closed. If the pub is re-opened this shop might be fulfilled.' option may be potentially explored in the future. but with the closure of the pub this is unlikely to be feasible in the near future. However, this The provision of a shop remains an aspiration and is a medium priority for the parish. Sharon Smith Disagree ? ? Add The Red Lion Pub to the list of See response to Kirtling Parish Council. See proposed minor modifications businesses in the village. The pub above, relating to the pub has potential to be important source Public houses are seen as a community

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 287 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

of local employment. facility which will be sought to be retained under Policy COM 3. (Please see Please add 'Retain Village Pub' as a comment under Kirtling Parish Council priority. The Red Lion is the only pub below) in the village and has been well supported by local people. Hazel & Steve Disagree ? ? We support infill housing in the village Affordable housing can come forward No change. Bowles to enable the village to be sustainable outside the development envelope as a and to support local amenities, i.e. a rural exception (assessed against Policy shop. We agree that there should be HOU 4). no development outside the village, but feel that the development envelope should be bigger to encourage more affordable housing.

Little Downham

3.2.2 A total of 16 people/organisations made comments on the draft Little Downham Vision.

Policy LTD1: Housing allocation, land west of Ely Road Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Angela Agree Y Y Reasonably well thought out plan. Particularly keen on improved Support noted. No change. Diamond bus service from Little Downham to Ely.

Wary of further developments planned for area as it will change the nature of the village. South Agree Sensible policy of consultation and involvement. Support noted. No change.

Lucy Acred Strongly oppose proposals for Ely Road, Little Downham. Cambridgeshire County Council has No change. Consideration should be given to the amount of traffic at the top advised that safe vehicular access to end of Cannon Street and the number of vehicles turning into the site would be possible from Matthew Wren Close. Amount of noise, traffic and number of cars Cannon Street subject to further parked on the road will increase as a result of new development. investigation as part of the planning application process. Fear that Little Downham will eventually join up with Ely. The owner of the workshop at 7 Do we really need more homes here? Not all of the houses on Cannon Street has stated that the

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 288 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Chamber Way have yet to be sold. workshop could be removed to enable the development of this site Prefer that Mr Saberton’s yard should remain in its current use as it has been of great benefit to farmers. Ron and Concerned at suggestions of an access road off Cannon Street Cambridgeshire County Council has No change. Maddy Brown which will increase the volume of traffic which is currently used by advised that safe vehicular access to agricultural and HGV vehicles. This will lead to serious accidents the site would be possible from becoming more likely. Cannon Street subject to further investigation as part of the planning Area of land ideally suited for proposed burial site. application process.

Concerned about drainage and ensuring that area doesn’t Little Downham Parish Council is become a floodplain. currently considering offers of land from landowners for the provision of Concerned about proposed building heights and potential for burial land elsewhere in the parish. property to be boxed in by development. All developments will be required to demonstrate that the surface water runoff can be accommodated within the site as set out in Policy ENV 8 (Flood Risk).

The potential impact of this development on residential properties on Cannon Street will be considered further as part of the planning application for this site. The first and second bullet points of Policy LIT 1 are intended to ensure that residential amenity of these properties is fully considered. Peter & Kay Disagree Concerned about potential access on to Cannon Street where Cambridgeshire County Council has No change. Houghton present workshop stands. This part of Cannon Street is already advised that safe vehicular access to busy and the proposed entrance is opposite Matthew Wren the site would be possible from Close. Cannon Street subject to further investigation as part of the planning Raises congestion and road safety issues. Site should be application process. accessed off Ely Road, as it is straight with good visibility and located at a distance from junction with Cannon Street. .

Proposed road would interfere with the privacy of the occupiers of nos 5 and 7. Tim James Disagree Access via Cannon Street would be unsuitable as there is Cambridgeshire County Council has No change. existing congestion at the junction of Matthew Wren Close and advised that safe vehicular access to

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 289 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Cannon Street and will increase the risk accidents at Cannon the site would be possible from Street/Ely Road junction. Cannon Street and/or Ely Road subject to further investigation as part Access from Ely Road would also carry risk unless traffic calming of the planning application process. is introduced due to regular disregard of speed limit. Mr R Joy Main concern relates to access to the site. If access is provided Cambridgeshire County Council has from Cannon Street could affect the entrance to my garage advised that safe vehicular access to (which is directly opposite the workshop at 7 Cannon Street). the site would be possible from Could lead to dangerous traffic congestion at a 4 way cross roads Cannon Street subject to further due to traffic moving both ways along Cannon Street and investigation as part of the planning accessing garage and proposed building site. application process. Situation could be alleviated by making access to the site off Ely Road. Infrastructure requirements are covered in the table and the Lack of reference to the provision of infrastructure to support the Infrastructure section of the Little building of 25 houses. Downham Vision. Michael Disagree N Y Policy LTD1 is unsound as it does not provide the required The Little Downham Parish Plan No change. Hendry, housing numbers to meet the level of need identified in the Little (2003/04) identified support from Plansurv Ltd Downham Parish Plan (2003/04) including the number of residents within the Parish for the (on behalf of households under 25 years and fails to provide employment development of additional homes for Mr B Cox) opportunities to reduce out commuting. young people and small family homes. However this document does not It is proposed that the housing allocation should be extended to identify a specific figure for the the south east to enable the delivery of a further 45 dwellings. amount of housing which is required within Little Downham or the Parish as Policy LTD 1 is ineffective in providing a vehicular access from a whole. Ely Road (at a distance from Cannon Street) while retaining the existing hedgeline. The development of small scale businesses on the edge of Little REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Downham will be supported in accordance with Policy EMP 3 (New employment development in the countryside)

The development of further housing on Ely Road was considered as part of the assessment of housing sites at Little Downham. It was considered that the development of the neighbouring land for housing would have a more significant visual impact on the landscape than the proposed housing allocation site. The proposal was not supported by the Parish Council and this position was

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 290 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

endorsed by the District Council’s Development & Transport Committee in January 2013.

Development proposals will be expected to retain as much of the original hedgeline as possible (4th paragraph of supporting text to Policy LTD 1) e.g. a small section may be lost if access is provided off Ely Road. Michael Disagree N Y Comments as above. See ECDC response above. No change. Hendry, Plansurv Ltd It is proposed that the housing allocation should be extended to (on behalf of G the south east to enable the delivery of a further 34 dwellings. A Hobbs & Sons (Farms) Ltd Michael Disagree N Y Welcome allocation of land west of Ely Road (policy LTD 1) but The Council’s preference is to secure No change. Hendry, object to requirement to provide 0.16ha of public open space as on-site provision of new informal open Plansurv Ltd part of the development. space as part of residential (on behalf of developments, in order to serve the Mr K Garrod, REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION needs of the new community and Mr P create an attractive living Saberton, Mr environment. D Grey, Mr P Hall, Mr D The expectation is that housing Harrison, Mr R developments of 20 or more dwellings Smith, Ms T will be of a sufficient size to enable Cordery and on-site open space provision to be Mr J Murfitt) made in accordance with Policy GROWTH 3. Michael Disagree N Y Suggest amendments to fourth and fifth paragraphs of housing It is accepted that there are a number Proposed minor Hendry, section to correct typographical errors as follows: of typographical errors in the wording modifications to Plansurv Ltd of the supporting text for Policy LTD 1 fourth and fifth (on behalf of “It will be important to retain as much of the original hedgeline which should be corrected. paragraphs of the Mr B Cox, G A and roadside trees as possible, and provide additional supporting text Hobbs & Sons landscaping along the boundaries of the site.” relating to policy (Farms) LTD 1: Ltd, Mr K “As this site is located to close to existing residential properties Garrod, Mr P on Cannon Street and Ely Road there will be a need to ensure “It will be important Saberton, Mr that development is sensitively designed to minimise its impact.” to retain as much of D Grey, Mr P the original Hall, Mr D REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION hedgeline and Harrison, Mr R roadside trees as

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 291 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Smith, Ms T possible, and Cordery and provide additional Mr J Murfitt) landscaping along the boundaries of the site.”

“As this site is located to close to existing residential properties on Cannon Street and Ely Road there will be a need to ensure that development is sensitively designed to minimise its impact". Sue Bull, Site is located within Waste Water Treatment Works Comments noted. No change. Anglian Water safeguarding area as identified in the County Council’s Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. However Anglian Water has undertaken an odour assessment which showed a low risk. We therefore consider development of this site to be acceptable. Wendy Hague, Site lies wholly within Mineral Safeguarding area for sand and Comments noted. No change. Cambridgeshir gravel as set out in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough e County Minerals and Waste Core Strategy unlikely that site would be a Council viable mineral resource. The County Council as Mineral Planning Hague) Authority therefore does not raise any objections to this allocation.

Site lies partially within the safeguarding area for Little Downham Waste Water Treatment Works. Anglian Water has carried out an odour assessment which indicated a low risk. This allocation is considered acceptable in the context of the Waste Water Treatment Works safeguarding area. Andrew Lack of capacity within Board’s surface water receiving system to Comments noted. It will be important No change. Newton, The accept additional surface water from development. Developer will for any developer to address surface Ely Group of need to provide sufficient surface water accommodation prior to water issues, as set out in Policy ENV Internal the development of this site to protect land and properties from 8 in Part 1 of the Plan. Drainage increased flood risk. This work will need to be undertaken at the Boards expense of the developer and maintained by a competent authority.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 292 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Other Comments

Name / Page / Policy Organisation & Summary of response ECDC response Action ID General Angela Concerned about the large number of houses to be built in the area in Little Downham is medium village with a No change. Diamond the future. good range of services. Modest scale development is proposed, to meet local housing needs. Infrastructure Cambs County There is more limited expansion of primary school provision required Comments noted. Reference is made to No change. & community Council in Little Downham. the need for additional primary school facilities places in the Little Downham Vision. Infrastructure Sue Foulger In principle supportive of plan and the siting of houses but have Conditional support noted. No change. & community concerns about infrastructure of more houses being built in the village. facilities The Little Downham Vision refers to the No plans to extend the primary school. need to ensure that sufficient primary school places are made available. Shortage of GP surgeries in the area which will be compounded by developments in Ely, Littleport and surrounding villages. Policy GROWTH 3 refers to the need for new and expanded GP provision in the Little Downham is increasingly prone to power cuts which has caused area and the need for electricity damage to electrical appliances. How will the situation be when new infrastructure to be upgraded in the district. houses are built? Policy GROWTH 3 refers to the need for electricity infrastructure to be upgraded within the District. UK Power Networks are aware of the power cuts experienced by residents of Little Downham and are intending to undertake works to the existing substation and cabling to address this issue. Biodiversity Tim James Recent developments have given little regard to the preservation of Development will be expected to minimise No change. existing wildlife habitats. It is essential that the remaining hedgerows the harm and loss of environmental are preserved and the development replaces any flora which is features including existing hedgerows in removed. accordance with Policy ENV 7 (Biodiversity and Geology). The mains power supply is unable to cope with the population growth and this issue will need to be resolved. Policy GROWTH 3 refers to the need for electricity infrastructure to be upgraded within the District. UK Power Networks are aware of the power cuts experienced by residents of Little Downham and are intending to

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 293 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

undertake works to the existing substation and cabling to address this issue. Mr R Joy Please see comments under Policy LTD 1. Please see response under Policy LTD 1. No change.

Biodiversity Mark Miller None of the established trees located parallel to Ely Road, should be Developers will be expected to maximise No change. cut down. the retention of the trees on Ely Road in accordance with policy LTD 1. Housing South We need to win the political argument for more housing. Support noted. No change.

Little Thetford 3.2.3 A total of 2 people/organisations made comments on the draft Little Thetford Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Ely Group of The Board's surface water receiving system has no residual Comments noted. Surface water No change. Drainage Boards capacity to accept increased rates of surface water run-off in drainage and flood risk are captured connection with new development proposals. The Board do under Policy GROWTH 3 and Policy not support or object to the proposal but require that the ENV 8. necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to development of this site to protect lands and properties within the District from increased flood risk Philip Ambrose of I would like to have the site at The Wyches included in the East The Parish Council has since No change Cheffins (on behalf of Cambridgeshire Draft Local Plan for combined residential and formally considered the proposals: Mrs Paull) community use with part of the land being given to the Parish they do not wish to give support. Council.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 294 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Littleport 3.2.4 A total of 9 people/organisations made comments on the draft Littleport Vision.

Policy LIT 1: Housing/employment allocation, west of Woodfen Road Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Paul Sutton, Agree N Y Support the principle of mixed used development Support noted. No change. Cheffins (on to the west of Woodfen Road. behalf of Mr David Watson) The amount of employment land is not justified The District Council will work with the given the existing vacant sites on the Saxon Way landowner/developer of this site to Business park and large allocated sites on agree a detailed masterplan for this Wisbech Road that have the benefit of planning site which will set out the amount and permission but have yet to be developed. range of employment uses which will be provided on this site. Our analysis has identified a surplus of employment land in the district.

The amount of employment land on this site should be substantially reduced. Policy LIT1 should state that the amount of employment land will be subject to a detailed assessment of the demand and supply for B1/B2/B8 uses. Roslyn Disagree N - Support the provision of a minimum of 1.6ha of Support noted. Proposed minor modification to Deeming, public open space as part of development. Policy LIT 1 (fifth bullet): Natural It is acknowledged that Littleport is England Public open space should form part of wider identified a focus for green ‘Provide a minimum of 1.6 hectares green infrastructure provided across the site and infrastructure improvements as of public open space on site, into the countryside. identified in the Littleport Masterplan including land for provision of a play and the Cambridgeshire Green area This provision should have Infrastructure Strategy. Therefore it is regard to the need to provide propose to include reference to green links into the countryside and infrastructure including public open should form part of the wider space as part of this green network in Littleport’. housing/employment allocation.

Wendy Hague, - - - We contend that there should be a single point of Comments noted amend the policy Proposed minor modification to Cambs County access off the A10 to serve employment land at accordingly. supporting text, third para.: Council Saxon Business Park as well as Policy LIT 1. ‘…..Part of the issue is that whilst

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 295 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

There is no scope for adequate industrial access there may be potential to provide off Wisbech Road given the existing traffic flows. vehicular access to residential dwellings from Woodfen Road, employment uses will need to be accessed from either the A10 (via a new roundabout) or A10 roundabout (via a new arm).or Wisbech Road. The suitability, cost….’

Proposed minor modification to Policy LIT 1 (7th bullet):  Demonstrate through a Transport Assessment that the site can be safely accessed by vehicles. This may involve provision of two separate access points with the housing part only accessed via Woodfen Road, and the employment part accessed either via the A10, or a new roundabout arm or directly off Wisbech Road (to be determined through the….’

The Ely Group - - - Lack of capacity within Board’s surface water Comments noted. It will be important No change. of Internal receiving system to accept additional surface for any developer to address surface Drainage water from development. Developer will need to water issues, as set out in Policy ENV Board (Andrew provide sufficient surface water accommodation 8 in Part 1 of the Plan. Newton) prior to the development of this site to protect land and properties from increased flood risk. This work will need to be undertaken at the expense of the developer and maintained by a competent authority. Policy LIT 2: Housing allocation, land west of Highfields Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Robert Fairey, I act as Agent for the Martin family who are the Support noted. No change. Brown & Co owners of the land. I confirm they are in (on behalf of agreement with this policy and the land is

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 296 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Martin family) available for residential development.

Roslyn Disagree N Support the provision of a minimum of 2.0 ha of Support noted. Proposed minor modification to Deeming, public open space as part of development. Policy LIT 1: Natural England Public open space should form part of wider It is acknowledged that Littleport is ‘Provide a minimum of 2 hectares of green infrastructure provided across the site and identified a focus for green public open space on site, including into the countryside. infrastructure improvements as land for provision of a play area identified in the Littleport Masterplan This provision should have Welcome commitment in this policy for a project and the Cambridgeshire Green regard to the need to provide level Habitats Regulation Assessment to be Infrastructure Strategy. Therefore it is links into the countryside and undertaken to ensure there will no need adverse propose to include reference to green should form part of the wider impacts on European sites. infrastructure including public open green network in Littleport’. space as part of this housing allocation. Andrew Lack of capacity within Board’s surface water Comments noted. It will be important No change. Newton, The receiving system to accept additional surface for any developer to address surface Ely Group of water from development. Developer will need to water issues, as set out in Policy ENV Internal provide sufficient surface water accommodation 8 in Part 1 of the Plan. Drainage prior to the development of this site to protect Boards land and properties from increased flood risk. This work will need to be undertaken at the expense of the developer and maintained by a competent authority. Policy LIT 3: Employment allocation, land west of 150 Wisbech Road Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Julian Sutton, My client supports the allocation of the land west of 150 Wisbech Support noted. No change. Signet Road, which although undeveloped has the benefit of planning Planning (on permission for a B1 business park (12/00932/FUL). behalf of James Retail Ltd) Rod Hart Should include a safe cycling route. The proposed allocation site is bound by a No change. footpath/cycle route on Wisbech Road. The Ely Group Lack of capacity within Board’s surface water receiving system to Comments noted. It will be important for No change. of Internal accept additional surface water from development. any developer to address surface water Drainage issues, as set out in Policy ENV 8 in Part 1 Boards Developer will need to provide sufficient surface water of the Plan. (Andrew accommodation prior to the development of this site to protect land

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 297 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Newton) and properties from increased flood risk.

This work will need to be undertaken at the expense of the developer and maintained by a competent authority. Policy LIT 4: Employment allocation, land north of Wisbech Road Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Dean Jordan, Agree Y Policy LIT4 provides the most suitable and Support noted. No change. Cheffins on sustainable location for additional employment land. behalf of Thurlow Nunn It forms a logical extension to the existing Holdings employment area which will allow businesses to expand. The site is accessible and deliverable immediately and will help to attract new businesses and jobs to the area.

The site is located over 2000m from the centre of Littleport which means it will not have a negative impact on the residents of Littleport. Rod Hart Site is located in a flood risk area and on the wrong This employment allocation site is located in Flood No change. side of the bypass to facilitate safe walking and Zone 2 (medium probability of flooding). The cycling from the town centre and railway station. Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework states that the B1 (business), B2 (general industry and B8 (storage and distribution) uses which have been proposed on the site would be appropriate in Flood Zone 2.

The land to the north of Wisbech Road is a logical extension to an established employment area on the edge of Littleport

Cambridgeshire County Council as Highways Authority have not requested that the existing footway should be extended as part of this development. Andrew Lack of capacity within Board’s surface water Comments noted. It will be important for any No change. Newton,The receiving system to accept additional surface water developer to address surface water issues, as set Ely Group of from development. out in Policy ENV 8 in Part 1 of the Plan. Internal Drainage Developer will need to provide sufficient surface

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 298 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Boards water accommodation prior to the development of this site to protect land and properties from increased flood risk.

This work will need to be undertaken at the expense of the developer and maintained by a competent authority. Policy LIT 5: Strategy for Littleport Town Centre Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Rod Hart Need to actively discourage The purpose of Policy LIT 6 is to encourage a greater range of retail and No change. low-end restaurants/fast food town centre activity within Littleport Town Centre. However it is establishments, take aways considered that it would be difficult to limit specific types of uses which and hairdressers. are likely to locate within the town centre given that each planning application is considered on its merits. Policy LIT 6: Primary and secondary school, land west of Camel Road Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Wendy Hague, There is forecast need for a new It is acknowledged that Proposed minor modifications to supporting text of Policy Cambs County secondary and primary schools in Cambridgeshire County LIT 6: Council Littleport. Concerns relating to the Council has undertaken further loss of playing fields, lack of a technical work which identifies [first para.] Cambs County Council has identified a need Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, the agricultural land south- for a new secondary school in Littleport to provide lack of pedestrian/cycle links and west of Littleport Leisure additional secondary places within the Ely/Littleport area. the terminology used for site Centre as the preferred The expectation is that the secondary school will be allocation i.e. “an area of search”. location for a primary and opened in September 2016. A Special Education Needs secondary schools (including Facility will also be required as part of this school, to The Strutt & Parker report special educational and cater for children age 2 to 19 years. The County (commissioned by Cambridgeshire disability needs). Council has also …’ County Council) identifies the key risks pertaining to the future It is therefore proposed to [second para.] Land west of Camel Road is currently development of the school. We amend the wording of Policy occupied by agricultural land, Littleport Leisure Centre, expect further discussions with the LIT 6 and the supporting text playing fields and public open space. The exact location District on the basis of this report to to refer the County Council's of the primary and secondary school, within an area of ensure the Local Plan is sound in preferred location for the search to the west of Camel Road will need to be the respect of this allocation. schools and the expectation subject of further investigation work by the County

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 299 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

that vehicular access to this Council. As part of which the following issues will require The County Council must make site would be from Camel further consideration: provision to cater for the increased Road on land owned by the demand for specialist provision Littleport Leisure Centre Trust  The proposed primary and secondary schools across East Cambridgeshire for (following discussions with the should be located within close proximity to the pupils with Special Education Trust). existing built framework of Littleport subject to any Needs. We are working on a physical constraints and the need to protect proposal to deliver this alongside Reference to Special residential amenity. This is to ensure that these the new secondary school in Education and Disability educational facilities can be easily accessed by foot Littleport. We will seek to include Needs should also be included and cycle from other parts of Littleport and to this proposal in a future review of in policy LIT 6. reduce the visual impact on the countryside. the CIL Infrastructure Project List.  The proposed schools and associated vehicular access should be located on a suitable site which limits the potential disruption or loss of the existing playing fields and public open space to the west of Camel Road. This is to ensure the continued public use and enjoyment of the playing fields and open space (owned by Littleport Parish Council and Littleport Leisure Trust) which are important community facilities within Littleport. The County Council may also be expected to off-set the loss of any playing fields or open space, and demonstrate that alternative provision is made in accordance with Policy COM 3.

Technical work undertaken by the County Council indicates that the most sustainable and deliverable option for the location of the school is agricultural land to the south-west of the Leisure Centre building, as identified on the Littleport map. This location should limit potential disruption or loss of the existing playing fields and public open space, and be easily accessed by foot and cycle from the town. Vehicular access will need to be gained from the northern part of Camel Road, and potentially require a small area of playing fields to be utilised. The County Council will be expected to off-set the loss of any playing fields or open space, and demonstrate that alternative provision is made in accordance with Policy COM 3.

The precise boundaries of the school site have yet to be determined. The provision of the 3 schools would normally require approximately 8.5ha of land.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 300 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

However, the County Council should also will need to explore whether it would be practical to share the current Leisure Centre facilities for school purposes. As well as reducing land take, as sharing facilities may also assist their long-term financial viability and security for community use.

[fifth para.] The County Council will be expected to demonstrate, via a Transport Assessment, that the site can be safely accessed and that any impact on the highway network can be adequately mitigated. Vehicular access (for cars and buses, plus pedestrians and cyclists) is likely to be will be provided via the northern part of off Camel Road, although options may be explored via Wisbech Road.

Proposed minor modification to Policy LIT 6:

A broad area An area of search to the west of Camel Road has been identified for a new primary, and secondary and special education needs school and associated playing fields, buildings and car parking (which will require approxmistely 8.5 hectares of land). This would normally require approximately up to 8.5 hectares of land (but may be less if facilities are shared with the adjoining Leisure Centre).

Development proposals will be expected to: [second bullet] Demonstrate through a Transport Assessment that safe vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access can be provided into the site, (likely to be via Camel Road) (with the main vehicular access point from the northern part of Camel Road). ‘’.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 301 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Lode and Long Meadow 3.2.5 A total of 2 people/organisations made comments on the draft Lode and Long Meadow Vision.

Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Sian Derbyshire The National Trust has a long term vision for Wicken Fen, Most routes have yet to be Proposed minor modifications to for the National which is part of the Green Infrastructure Strategy for confirmed, so it is difficult to Infrastructure and Community Trust Cambridgeshire. For Lode & Long Meadow, the Vision mark these on a map. The facilities section: includes more cycle routes to both Quy and Lode. National Trust has since confirmed an additional project First row in the table: in Lode parish, which should ‘More cycle routes – From Lode be specifically referred to in to both Quy and Waterbeach, the Infrastructure section. The facilited by creation of the project is known as the Waterbeach Link. ‘Waterbeach Link’ and will upgrade an existing footbridge Second row in the table: over the river and link to a key ‘Footpaths – To continue the bridleway. development and maintenance of the network. Including creation of the Waterbeach Link.’ Ely Drainage This area is outside the Swaffham Internal Drainage Comments noted. Surface No change. Board District but in an area that drains into the Board's surface water drainage and flood risk water receiving system. The Board's surface water are captured under Policy receiving system has no residual capacity to accept GROWTH 3 and Policy ENV 8. increased rates of surface water run-off in connection with new development proposals. The Board do not support or object to the proposal but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to development of this site to protect lands and properties within the District from increased flood risk. Work must be undertaken at the expense of the developer of the site and maintained in perpetuity by a competent authority. Please not that a consent is required direct from the Board to create any new discharge into or increase the rate of flow in any watercourse or piped system within the District in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning process.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 302 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Mepal 3.2.6 A total of 3 people/organisations made comments on the draft Mepal Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Mepal Parish Council Disagree N Y Need to add, among existing amenities, chapel. Parish The chapel could be included as an Proposed minor Council concerns include existing amenity. modification: (1) the need to retain our primary school (2) designation of a conservation area (1) Comments noted. The County ‘Description of Mepal’ (3) road realignment to old alignment at School Lane by Council has not identified Mepal section, second para: Village Hall and at junction with Bridge Road as traffic primary school as being at risk, in calming and to enhance village aspect terms of over or under capacity. Facilities in the village include a shoop and (2) The designation of a conservation post office, church, area could be considered by the chapel, public hall….’ District Council after an assessment of the built fabric and the landscape setting of the village has been undertaken in consultation the local community as a whole

(3) School Lane traffic calming is already referred to in the Infrastructure table. Michael Hendry, Disagree The Village Vision is protectionist and short-sighted. The Mepal is a small village with some No change. PlanSurv (for settlement boundary for Mepal should be revised to services and facilities. Consultation Grovemere Property include the land south of Brick Lane, between the A142 with the Parish Council and local Ltd) and Sutton Road to allow for the controlled mixed use community in 2011 indicated low expansion of the village. The CIL payments received as a support for additional allocations on result of the development should be focussed on the edge of the village. Infill delivering the improvements highlighted by the community development will continue to come and offer a real opportunity to secure much needed forward within the built-up area. The improvements. Parish Council will receive 15% of these CIL receipts. Ely Group of Internal This area is outside the Littleport and Downham Internal Comments noted. Surface water No change. Drainage Boards Drainage District but in an area that drains into the drainage is captured under Policy (Andrew Newton) Board's surface water receiving system. The Board's GROWTH 3 and Policy ENV 8. surface water receiving system has no residual capacity

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 303 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

to accept increased rates of surface water run-off in connection with new development proposals. The Board do not support or object to the proposal but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to development of this site to protect lands and properties within the District from increased flood risk. Work must be undertaken at the expense of the developer of the site and maintained in perpetuity by a competent authority. Please not that a consent is required direct from the Board to create any new discharge into or increase the rate of flow in any watercourse or piped system within the District in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning process.

Newmarket Fringe 3.2.7 A total of 4 people/organisations made comments on the draft Newmarket Fringe Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Sara Beckett, Save Agree - - We are pleased to say we would like to endorse the view taken by the Support noted. No change. Historic Newmarket Councillors. Action Suffolk County Agree - - The county council supports East Cambridgeshire’s broad approach Support and comments noted. No change. Council to the Newmarket Fringe, in restricting development to infill and coordinating growth with Forest Heath. It is noted that East Cambridgeshire’s approach is to resist the loss of community facilities, a principle which is not questioned. However, community facilities in the Newmarket Fringe should be considered within the context of the town as a whole. A recent process undertaken within Newmarket, facilitated by the Prince’s Foundation for Building Community, may be a useful guide for implementing this. Woodditton Parish Agree Y Y Woodditton Parish Council agrees readily with the main points of the 1. The Football Club does not No change. Council draft. The comments are: have any firm intentions to move 1. Housing and Employment: If the Town Football Ground becomes from the current site. This available for development the Council would like it to be used partly situation will be monitored. for light industrial units and partly for modest sized housing developments. 2. Advised PC to redirect urgent 2. Vision & infrastructure: The Council would like urgent structural works to CCC Highways. work on the road over rail bridge in Woodditton Road. The bridge is weak (vehicle limit 7.5 tons) so heavy HGVs go through residential

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 304 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

streets. Also the bridge is narrow without a footway for pedestrians-- some danger to walkers and children. Ms S A Beckett Disagree ? ? Concern if Newmarket Football Club move, the land will be sold for The Football Club does not have No change. housing development. So to say that growth will be small would not be any firm intentions to move from correct Development has already started on land very close to this the current site. This situation area consisting of 18 or 19 dwellings will be monitored.

Prickwillow 3.2.8 A total of 7 people/organisations made comments on the draft Prickwillow Vision.

Policy PRK 1: Housing allocation, land adjacent to Putney Hill Road Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Luke Tozer Agree Y Y The site is of appropriate size for the Support noted. The site (along Proposed minor modifications: proposed dwellings, accessible from with the whole village and existing infrastructure, close to village surrounding area) is located in Housing section - new final paragraph: amenities, and would provide a sensible an area of flood risk. As stated regularisation of the village boundary. in Policy PRK 1, development It should be noted that Prickwillow is Agree with the proportion of 30% proposals will need to located in an area of flood risk, and affordable housing. The land is low lying so demonstrate that flood risk on therefore all development proposals will flood risk on the site requires mitigation. the site can be adequately need to satisfy the requirements of the mitigated. A Flood Risk NPPF, and demonstrate through Flood Assessment has been carried Risk Assessments that risks can be out on the site and approved adequately mitigated. A Flood Risk by the Environment Agency. Assessment for the proposed allocation Accepted that this position site at Putney Hill Road has been could be clearer in the approved by the Environment Agency supporting text to the policy. (dated June 2012).

Employment section, final sentence: ‘….will be supported in principle, subject to Policies EMP2, EMP3 and EMP4, and satisfactory resolution of flood risk (see Housing section above). Max Pocock Agree Y ? Village needs more residents to sustain the Comments noted. No change. limited facilities. Mike Wilson Agree ? ? It appears to be an appropriate area for Comments noted. No change. development. Concerned about impact on saleability of new bungalow behind Corner

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 305 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Close. Stephen Day Agree ? ? I think more houses would be beneficial to Support noted. No change. Prickwillow and that the site chosen is appropriate. Ivan Cox Disagree N ? To avoid village sprawl should develop on The site technical work No change. infill sites – better than an estate. My family indicated the allocation site own an area between 'Margoltom' and scored better, and this option 'Sunnyside' at Old Bank which would be also gained most support in suitable for residential development. Willing the community consultation to consider for affordable housing only. process. Affordable housing development is sometimes permitted as an exception outside development envelopes. Have passed respondent’s contact details to the ECDC Housing Officer. Ely Group of Internal This site is within the Middle Fen and Mere Comments are noted. Surface No change. Drainage Boards Internal Drainage District. The Board's water drainage is picked up in (Andrew Newton) surface water receiving system has no Policy GROWTH 3 and Policy residual capacity to accept increased rates ENV 8. of surface water run-off in connection with new development proposals. The Board do not object to the development of this site as proposed but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to development of this site to protect lands and properties within the District from increased flood risk. Work must be undertaken at the expense of the developer of the site and maintained in perpetuity by a competent authority. Please not that a consent is required direct from the Board to create any new discharge into or increase the rate of flow in any watercourse or piped system within the District in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning process.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 306 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Other Comments

Name / Organisation Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID

Luke Tozer Improved infrastructure to the Village (both Broadband and As listed in the infrastructure table – No change. pedestrian/cycle routes) would make the village more viable, support noted. sustainable and attractive for residential occupants without the reliance on the car. Max Pocock There is a remark in the preamble that "residents travel to Ely Agree that it would be sensible to include Proposed minor modification to second for goods and services". It may well be true for the majority, but the word ‘many’ residents. paragraph in ‘Description of Prickwillow’: not all (including myself). At least say "most residents appear to travel to Ely for goods and services, but others will use ‘Facilities include a village hall with play Soham, Cambridge and Bury St Edmunds" area, church and Hiams Sports and Social Club. Many residents travel to nearby Ely for their goods and services….’ Mike Wilson Important to improve broadband – new housing will be The County Council’s Highways Officer Proposed minor modification to Policy worthless without it. The recent Connecting Cambridgeshire has indicated that footway connectivity to PRK 1 – new bullet: award for works does not, at the moment, guarantee the rest of Prickwillow would also need to improvements in Prickwillow. be addressed. Policy should be amended  Demonstrate that the site can be to pick up this issue. suitable accessed by pedestrians, Cycle/footpaths - would hope that development of PRK1 will and provide any necessary require provision of additional footpaths, as a minimum to link improvements to the local footpath Corner Close and Hiams to Main Street. network Stephen Day I think that consistent broadband should be available in Broadband is an important facilities, but it No change. Prickwillow before the houses are built. would be difficult to resist development on this basis. Tony Pearson Need to: As listed in the infrastructure table – No change.  Reduce speed of traffic comments noted. The County Council  Provide pedestrian/cycle paths - but have been told they Education team has not indicated a need cost too much. for a new primary school in Prickwillow.  Improve public transport - but not enough people to make it worthwhile.  Provide more Village activities.  Enable broadband - already being dealt with.  Consider new school?  Improve Recreation Field - we don't have one!

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 307 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Pymoor 3.2.9 A total of 6 people/organisations made comments on the draft Pymoor Vision.

Policy PYM 1: Housing allocation, land northeast of 9 Straight Furlong Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Mrs C Parson Agree Pymoor needs new houses for local people who work the Comments noted. The principle of housing for No change. land. essential agricultural workers is broadly supported under Policy HOU 5. Why not use infill instead of a block of houses, this will keep the village as a village. The principle of infill housing development within the development envelope at Pymoor is broadly supported under Policy GROWTH 2. Eric Barker Disagree Infill housing should be provided around the village rather The principle of infill housing development No change. than on a single site located in the flood plain. within the development envelope at Pymoor is broadly supported under Policy GROWTH 2. Lack of school and bus service. A site specific Flood Risk Assessment has been prepared for the allocation site which has shown that the risk of flooding can be adequately mitigated [check wording of letter from EA].

It is acknowledged that Pymoor currently has a limited range of community facilities and public transport. However there was community and Parish Council support for the development of small scale housing at Pymoor. Mrs P Farrell Disagree Do not agree with proposal due to lack of shops, school It is acknowledged that Pymoor currently has a No change. and transport and the surrounding land has drainage limited range of community facilities and public problems. transport. However there was community support for the development of additional small scale housing at Pymoor.

A site specific Flood Risk Assessment has been prepared for this allocation site which has shown that the risk of flooding can be adequately mitigated [check wording of letter

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 308 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

from EA]. Deborah Jupp Disagree ? ? The Draft Pymoor Vision is misleading and incorrect: Cambridgeshire County Council is currently Proposed minor undertaking a review of public transport modification  There is no public transport from Pymoor. Dial a services which are currently subsidised (Description of ride service now in question. including those provided at Pymoor. Pymoor):  The village hall/sport and social club are the same building. Reference will be altered to the village 'Pymoor has a  Local businesses are small and would not cover hall/social club building. limited range of employment of 10 dwellings suggested. facilites - there is  Drainage in Pymoor is not adequate A site specific Flood Risk Assessment has been a village  There is a lack of facilities for children in Pymoor prepared for this allocation site which has hall/sport and as clubs/schools are located in the next village or shown that the risk of flooding can be social club, a Ely. Play area suitable for children under the age adequately mitigated [check wording of letter Sport and of 5. from EA]. Social Club,  Would welcome growth to the village if recreation infrastructure needs are addressed. playing field and  Irresponsible to provide affordable housing in a a play area.' village which has no shops, school, public transport, proper street lighting or social amenities. Mark Taylor Disagree N Y Disagree with proposal for on development of 10 dwellings The proposed housing allocation at Pymoor No change. on a single piece of land in Pymoor. Difficult or impossible could be developed by a single developer or a to find a single developer to take on such a project. number of different developers.

More sustainable to allow 2 dwellings on each of the The principle of exception sites being original proposed sites which could be acquired by self developed for affordable housing at Pymoor builders or small local builders. Proposal would enhance and elsewhere within the district on unallocated village without a single imposing development. sites is broadly supported under Policy HOU 4.

Contributions towards social housing could be still be Policy HOU 3 requires developments of 5 or provided through smaller donations from landowners and more dwellings to provide affordable housing. maybe one or two sites could be designated for social Registered Social Landlords prefer larger housing. housing sites to allow for economies of scale when managing affordable housing. Therefore smaller sites are unlikely to provide affordable housing as defined by Government. Andrew No objection to development of site but highlight the lack Comments noted. It will be important for any No change. Newton, The of capacity to accept further surface water run-off as a developer to address surface water issues, as Ely Group of result of new development. set out in Policy ENV 8 in Part 1 of the Plan. Drainage Boards The Board would require the necessary surface water (Andrew accommodation is put in place prior to development taking Newton) place. This is to be funded by the developer and maintained by a competent authority.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 309 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Consent would be required from the Board for any new discharge into or increased rate of flow in any watercourse of piped system in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning system. Other Comments

Name / Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID

Deborah Jupp The Draft Pymoor Vision is not very clear about The District Council's Housing Supply Paper provides a current estimate of when No change. when the housing will be built or when the housing allocation at Pymoor is expected to be developed (20xx/20yy). It is not infrastructure in the village will be addressed. considered necessary to include this information in the Local Plan as these assumptions will be reviewed on an annual basis. It is unclear what sort of dwellings is being proposed (houses, bungalows or flats). Policy PYM 1 is not prescriptive about the type of housing which will be provided on this site. This is to enable the mix of housing which is proposed to be Lack of notice and publicity about public exhibition considered further by the District Council as part of the planning application held in village (2 days notice). Public exhibition process. was held during school holidays when most people would be on holiday, at work or looking after children. Mrs C Parson Why a block of 10+ houses to be built on the It is considered that the proposed housing allocation site can be developed without No change. floodplain? significant visual impact on the landscape. The other housing sites at Pymoor which were considered for allocation by the Council are considered to have a Will infill housing development be given planning greater impact on the landscape if developed or potential highway constraints. permission if the housing allocation goes ahead? A site specific Flood Risk Assessment has been prepared for this allocation site Has public transport been considered ? None at which has shown that the risk of flooding can be adequately mitigated [check Pymoor. wording of letter from EA].

Can local school cope as some local children The principle of infill housing development within the development envelope at could not get into school. Pymoor is broadly supported under Policy GROWTH 2 and is likely to continue to come forward within the village.

Cambridgeshire County Council is currently undertaking a review of public transport services which are currently subsidised including those provided at Pymoor.

Pymoor is currently located in the catchment area for Downham Feoffes Primary School. Reference is made to the need for sufficent primary school places to be provided in the Little Downham Vision.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 310 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Queen Adelaide 3.2.10 A total of 3 people/organisations made comments on the draft Queen Adelaide Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Andrew Newton, The This site is within the Padnal and Waterden Internal The Queen Adelaide Vision does not No change. Ely Group of Internal Drainage District. Lack of capacity within Board’s surface allocate any specific sites for Drainage Boards water receiving system to accept additional surface water development. from development. Developer will need to provide sufficient surface water accommodation prior to the development of this site to protect land and properties from increased flood risk. This work will need to be undertaken at the expense of the developer and maintained by a competent authority. Geoff Scolting The shape of the development envelope does not accord Agree. This is a drafting error. Proposed minor with land ownership, and it is not clear why an agricultural Anomaly was identified during review modification to the holding is included within the development envelope - see of development envelope but was not Plan: map. adjusted. [Development envelope to be The estimated new buildings statistics do not reflect The windfall estimate is a best guess, modified to exclude actual position. Another 3 dwellings should be included. partly based on past trends. agricultural land.] Mark Shelton Disagree Y Y Disagree with the tight village envelope and lack of There was some support from local No change. provision for housing development within Queen people for additional housing on the Adelaide. Queen Adelaide will only get some public edge of the village during the facilities if the population is allowed to grow. Should consultation process. However, the identify land in the Vision for 20 or so new houses, a response rate was very low, and it proportion of which need to be affordable housing. was also difficult to identify suitable sites for expansion as the village is The rest of the vision for E. Cambs looks good. New constrained by railway lines and housing and schools are definitely needed in the district; rivers. Following discussion with the the children of many local residents have to move out of City Council, it was determined not to the district to find housing and work. allocate land in the Vision.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 311 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Reach 3.2.11 A total of 3 people/organisations made comments on the draft Reach Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation & Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action ID Disagree S L Nick Aklam Agree Y Y Development other than minor infill would destroy its Comments noted. Traffic calming is No change. unique and fragile character. Any development in Reach mentioned in the Infrastructure table must be of questionable sustainability given its limited at Section 8.29 infrastructure, negligible employment opportunities and absence of a discreet site. I would have liked to have seen more about traffic calming, protection of cyclists on the Burwell Road and, even more so, into Newmarket. Sian Derbyshire, The National Trust has a long term vision for Wicken Many of these routes have yet to be No change. National Trust Fen, which is part of the Green Infrastructure Strategy determined, so it is not possible to for Cambridgeshire. For Reach, the Vision includes show on the Vision map or Proposals more cycle routes and improved footpath networks. Map(s). These routes should be shown in the Vision or Proposals map. Ely Group of Interanal The Board's surface water receiving system has no Comments noted. Surface water No change. Drainage Boards residual capacity to accept increased rates of surface drainage and flood risk are captured water run-off in connection with new development by Policy GROWTH 3 and Policy proposals. The Board do not support or object to the ENV 8. proposal but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to development of this site to protect lands and properties within the District from increased flood risk.

Snailwell 3.2.12 No responses were received on the draft Snailwell Village Vision.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 312 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Soham 3.2.13 A total of 12 people/organisations made comments on the draft Soham Vision.

Policy SOH 1: Housing allocation, land off Brook Street Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Cambs County Agree The site lies partially within the Minerals Safeguarding Area Comments are noted. No change Council (MAS) for sand and gravel designated by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011). However, after taking into account the limited extent of the MSA, and potential stand-off areas into account (from adjacent development and the common land which is also a County Wildlife Site) it is unlikely that this site would be a viable mineral resource. The County Council as Mineral Planning Authority therefore does not raise any objections to this allocation on this ground. Diana Donald Disagree Concerned that: Comments are noted. The Plan aims to No change.  The development will be on greenfield land, which is a finite maximise the effective re-use of resource, and will be needed to grow food when the oil runs brownfield land within settlements. out. However, the nature of the district means  The site is larger than that proposed in the Core Strategy there is a limited supply of brownfield Amendment of 2007. land, and therefore some Greenfield land  The development will not provide housing for local people is required to meet local housing needs. and those working locally. This has not happened elsewhere. Anglian Water has indicated that,  Lack of capacity at Soham sewage treatment works and in following an upgrade to Soham STTW foul sewerage network, as referred to in the Core Strategy. scheduled for Summer 2013, there  Those in power who have their own agenda for Soham and should be capacity in Soham to cater for the views of local people are mainly ignored. further growth. E. Johnson Disagree N N Concerned that development will spoil an ancient common view The policy seeks to ensure that the No change. to Soham, which should be kept as it is. Also the housing is not setting, character and biodiversity of the needed, as much remains unsold still. The river is called 'The nearby Commons and County Wildlife Snal', not Lode. Under localism hopefully our councils will listen Site will not be adversely affected. Policy to us and stop this now. 11 also applies. J. Metcalfe Disagree Concerned about: Only part of the site is an area of high No change.  High flood risk. What safeguards will residents have built in flood risk. The policy states that to their homes to alleviate this? applicants will need to demonstrate that  Need for a new pumping station? flood risk on the site can be adequately  There will be hundreds of extra traffic movements a day mitigated. Anglian Water has not onto a narrow, already well-used stretch of road. indicated that a new pumping station will

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 313 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

 What if minor land owners do not wish to sell their land? be required. The County Highways  County Wildlife Site 55 will be put at risk, due to close Officer has not raised objections to the proximity of housing and increased foot/cycle traffic. principle of the scheme, but the policy  Description of site requirements has incorrect wording. requires developers to demonstrate "significant areas of open space and landscaping will through a Traffic Impact Assessment that therefore be required, particularly on the northern and the site can be safely accessed. A western edges" This should read "on the northern and Masterplan for the whole area will need EASTERN edges." to be approved, but land may come  Better connection to East Fen Common may result in forward in phases. The policy seeks to cycles and/or motorbikes using the common for dirt track ensure that the setting, character and racing. The access points should be provided with biodiversity of the nearby Commons and "chicaine" / kissing gates as installed at present on County Wildlife Site will not be adversely Loftus(?) Bridge near Greenhills. affected. Policy SOH 11 also applies.  Adverse impact on the character and setting of the Policy GROWTH 3 in Part 1 of the Plan Commons from this scale of development. seeks to secure infrastructure and other  Capacity of infrastructure to deal with growth. benefits from development schemes. The Council has an adopted Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule which should ensure monies will be generated for the parish. K. Disagree N N Too many houses on a flood plain. Access problems. Only a small part of the site is an area of No change. Bussingham high flood risk. The policy states that applicants will need to demonstrate that flood risk on the site can be adequately mitigated. The County Highways Officer has not raised objections to the scheme, but the policy requires developers to demonstrate through a Traffic Impact Assessment that the site can be safely accessed. Phil Rose, Disagree The Council should encourage flexibility, diversity and innovation The District Council supports the No change. Foundation in housing type and tenure by ensuring that provision is made for development of CLTs and other East a percentage (suggest 10%) of the housing units to be delivered community based schemes, and Policy as community-owned housing using Community Land Trust, co- GROWTH 6 seeks to encourage and operative housing, co-housing, co-housing models or self-build. support such development across the Such an approach is embodied in the Cambridgeshire quality district. However, the District Council charter for growth which recognises the valuable contribution cannot insist on the establishment of which recognises the valuable contribution that community and Community Land Trusts (CLTs) or resident involvement can play in shaping new housing similar schemes on particular sites, as communities. they are something which needs to originate from the community itself. REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Therefore it would not be appropriate to require that a proportion of all properties on allocation sites should be CLTs or similar. However, Policy HOU 1 and

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 314 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

relevant housing allocation policies propose that a minimum of 5% of dwelling on schemes of 100+ dwellings should be self-build properties, and this is reflected in Policy SOH 1. Andrew The Brook Street site is outside the Middle Fen and Mere Internal Comments are noted. It will be important No change. Newton, The Drainage District. However, lower areas are drained into the for any developer to address surface Ely Group of Drainage District by arrangement (which can be terminated under water issues, as set out in Policy ENV 8 Internal the terms of that agreement). There is also no residual capacity in Part 1 of the Plan. Drainage within the Drainage District to accept increased rates of surface Boards water run-off in connection with new development proposals. The Board do not support or object to the proposals but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to the development of the site to protect lands and properties within the district from increased flood risk. Work must be undertaken at the expense of the developer of the site and maintained in perpetuity by a competent authority. Please not that a consent is required directly from the Board to create any new discharge into or increase the rate of flow in any watercourse or piped system within the District in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning process. Policy SOH 2: Housing-led/mixed-use allocation, land off Station Road Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [no further comments] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Geoffrey Agree [no further comments] Support noted. No change. Langridge, Soham Allotment Society Diana Donald Disagree Concerned that: Comments are noted. The Plan aims to No change  The development will be on greenfield land, which is a finite maximise the effective re-use of resource, and will be needed to grow food when the oil runs brownfield land within settlements. out. However, the nature of the district  The site is larger than that proposed in the Core Strategy means there is a limited supply of Amendment of 2007. brownfield land, and therefore some  The development will not provide housing for local people and Greenfield land is required to meet local those working locally. This has not happened elsewhere. housing needs. Anglian Water has

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 315 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

 Lack of capacity at Soham sewage treatment works and in indicated that, following an upgrade to foul sewerage network, as referred to in the Core Strategy. Soham STTW scheduled for Summer  Those in power who have their own agenda for Soham and 2013, there should be capacity in Soham the views of local people are mainly ignored. to cater for further growth. E. Johnson Disagree N N We do not need houses to support a station! Localism means that The development of the station will only No change. plans should agree with community views. use part of this area, and the proposed mix-use scheme on the site should help to regenerate this part of Soham. The development of this area received the highest level of community support of all options, during consultation on the Soham Masterplan in 2010. J. Metcalfe Disagree Concerned about: Only part of the site is an area of high No change.  High flood risk area. What measures will be built in to the flood risk. The policy states that site to ensure the risk is lessened? applicants will need to demonstrate that  Dense development so there could be noise problem from flood risk on the site can be adequately trains, road traffic and commercial activities/deliveries. mitigated. The policy states that noise Also, existing noise levels from industrial units may be and vibration pollution should be excessive. adequately mitigated. The policy  Will parking be provided for commuters/train passengers? indicates that parking facilities for the  If minor landowners do not sell up, what is the alternative? station will be provided. The policy states that a Masterplan for the whole area will need to be approved, but recognises that land may come forward in phases. K. Disagree N N Flood plain. Only part of the site is an area of high No change. Bussingham flood risk. The policy states that applicants will need to demonstrate that flood risk on the site can be adequately mitigated. Policy SOH 3: Housing-led/mixed-use allocation, Eastern Gateway area Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Neil Waterson, Disagree N N Scotsdales supports this policy and, in The proposed alternative wording Accept. Propose minor modification to Bidwells (on particular, the identification of 3 hectares of land does not alter the meaning of the the Plan - Policy SOH 3: behalf of for the provision of a new Garden centre or original text. Sctosdales) employment uses. Scotsdales supports the 'The Masterplan will need to be reference that the revised Masterplan should not updated and submitted as part of any necessarily include the Garden Centre site and outline planning application for the that it can be considered separately. However, it Eastern Gateway development and is considered that the wording of the draft policy approved by the District Council. These

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 316 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

is slightly confusing and ambiguous. On the one may or may not include the garden hand, the policy suggest that there should be an centre site. The revised masterplan will outline planning application for the 'whole site' need to build on and reflect the key and then on the other it suggests that the principles and elements in the revised masterplan may or may not include the Conceptual Masterplan. It may or may garden centre site but should have regard to it. not include the Garden centre site, but will need to have regard to it.’ Minor alterations should be made to the wording of the draft policy to address this ambiguity and suggest the following revised wording: 'The Masterplan will need to be updated and submitted as part of any outline planning application for the Eastern Gateway development and approved by the District Council. These may or may not include the garden centre site. The revised masterplan will need to build on and reflect the key principles and elements in the conceptual masterplan.'

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION

Cambs County Disagree Amendments to Policy SOH3 are required in Comments are noted. Proposed minor modification to Council order to clarify how the educational facilities are supporting text (6th para.): to be delivered and address the need to provide ‘Although a housing-led scheme, the additional pre-school provision. Suggest the Eastern Gateway is notable for the following changes: significant amount of community uses and open space that will be provided. 1. Bullet point 5 amended to read The allotments will need to be re- 'approximately 0.8 hectares for an provided with enhanced facilities for extension of Weatheralls primary school allotment holders, whilst the site to be secured through a Section 106 development will provide vital land for legal agreement.' the expansion of the primary school 2. Include a further bullet point as follows: and the medical centre, and provision 'Sufficient land is to be allocated to be of a new pre-school facility. ……’ provided for a pre-school education facility.' Proposed minor modification to Policy SOH 3 (5th bullet): The site is almost entirely within the Minerals Approximately xx hectares for an Safeguarding Area (MAS) for sand and gravel extension of the Weatheralls Primary designated by the Cambridgeshire and School site and provision of a new Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core pre-school facility. Strategy (July 2011). However, after taking into account the limited extent of the MSA, and potential stand-off areas into account (from the road, adjacent development and the common

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 317 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

land to the north and south which is also a County Wildlife Site) it is unlikely that this site would be a viable mineral resource. The County Council as Mineral Planning Authority therefore does not raise any objections to this allocation on this ground. Diana Donald Disagree Mixed use development is not working. Conflict It is Government policy to support No change. between social housing and private market inclusive and mixed use schemes owners. Soham has become a dumping ground (see National Planning Policy for problem people from Ely. Framework para. 50).

This is an area of flooding and it is time that Only a very small part of the site is ECDC takes note and stops being so an area of high flood risk. The policy irresponsible in an attempt to turn Soham into a states that applicants will need to dormitory town and also attempt social demonstrate that flood risk on the engineering. site can be adequately mitigated. E. Johnson Disagree N N No more houses! Do not need them and past a There is an identified requirement No change. school!!! for additional housing in the district to meet local housing needs. Soham is a relatively sustainable Market Town with a range of facilities, services and jobs. The County Highways Officer has not raised objections to the scheme, but the policy requires developers to demonstrate through a Traffic Impact Assessment that the site can be safely accessed. J. Metcalfe Disagree Concerned about: Anglian Water has indicated that, No change. 1. Capacity of waste water treatment works following an upgrade to Soham to deal with the development STTW scheduled for Summer 2013, 2. Highways capacity past Weatheralls there should be capacity in Soham School and whether provision will be to cater for further growth. The made for a drop-off area for school County Highways Officer has not children raised objections to the principle of 3. Status and quality of existing footpaths the scheme, but the policy requires and bridleways. Need to metal these and developers to demonstrate through include street lights a Traffic Impact Assessment that 4. Threat of vandalism to allotments which the site can be safely accessed. will increase from housing nearby. Need to The policy states that existing rights be adequately fenced and have access of way across the site must be restricted to allotment holders only. retained and enhanced. The Charity 5. Some of the new housing and the moved has been involved in the allotments are shown on Charity Land. Is preparation of the Masterplan for

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 318 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

this a legitimate use for the land? the area and has not indicated an 6. Whether new soil on re-located allotments issue relating to legitimacy. The area will be equivalent quality policy states that the allotments 7. Noise issues arising from mix of uses on should be re-provided with the site, and from the A142. additional facilities including water 8. Access to A142 must include a supply and car parking. Soil quality roundabout from Day One. It should not be may vary across an allotment site. triggered by the number of houses built. The policy states that noise and 9. Impact on the character, setting and vibration pollution should be biodiversity of the Commons. adequately mitigated. The County 10. Capacity of infrastructure to deal with Highways Officer has indicated that growth. a roundabout will not be needed to facilitate the early phases of development. The policy seeks to prevent harm to the nearby Commons. Policy GROWTH 3 in Part 1 of the Plan seeks to secure infrastructure and other benefits from development schemes. The Council has an adopted Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule which should ensure monies will be generated for the parish. K. Disagree Too dangerous for school. Loss of footpaths. The County Highways Officer has No change. Bussingham not raised objections to the principle of the scheme, but the policy requires developers to demonstrate through a Traffic Impact Assessment that the site can be safely accessed.

The policy states that existing rights of way across the site must be retained and enhanced. Phil Rose, Disagree The Council should encourage flexibility, The District Council supports the No change. Foundation diversity and innovation in housing type and development of CLTs and other East tenure by ensuring that provision is made for a community based schemes, and percentage (suggest 10%) of the housing units Policy GROWTH 6 seeks to to be delivered as community-owned housing encourage and support such using Community Land Trust, co-operative development across the district. housing, co-housing, co-housing models or self- However, the District Council build. Such an approach is embodied in the cannot insist on the establishment Cambridgeshire quality charter for growth which of Community Land Trusts (CLTs) recognises the valuable contribution which or similar schemes on particular

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 319 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

recognises the valuable contribution that sites, as they are something which community and resident involvement can play in needs to originate from the shaping new housing communities. community itself. Therefore it would not be appropriate to require that a REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION proportion of all properties on allocation sites should be CLTs or similar. However, Policy HOU 1 and relevant housing allocation policies propose that a minimum of 5% of dwelling on schemes of 100+ dwellings should be self-build properties, and this is reflected in Policy SOH 3. Geoffrey Disagree N N The Allotment society is worried about the The exact re-location of the Proposed minor modifications: Langridge, relocation of the Weatherills allotments. These allotments within the site is a Soham are statuary allotments so have special detailed issue which will be Supporting text to Policy SOH 3, third Allotment safeguards. The allotments plots are a determined through the revisions to para. Society community and take many years to establish. the Masterplan and the planning The allotments must be in one location, its not application process. At this stage it ‘….In addition, a significant area of new practicable or financially viable to put them on looks like the allotments would need Common land/open space is provided, more than one site. This view is supported by to be partially relocated, and plus land for the re-location of the Soham Town Council. therefore on a minimum of 2 sites – existing allotments within the site. The although these locations could allotments are located at the only The plan proposes that the site is replaced by feasibly be relatively close to each feasible point of access from the town, an area of the same size but the law requires other. It is therefore proposed to and therefore their re-location is a that there must be an allowance for future slightly alter the wording of the critical part of the development scheme. demand. There are also standards for the policy to be more flexible, reflecting In accordance with Policy COM 3, replacement plots, security, water supply the fact that the matter will need to the District Council would expect to disabled access etc. Several areas of the looked at in the revised Masterplan. see the re-provision of an equivalent proposed Gateway site are waterlogged and It is also proposed to include area of allotments on the Eastern totally unsuitable for allotments. The question of reference in the supporting text to Gateway site, plus the provision of a security is also a problem, as most of the other allotment facilities such as water supply, parking areas, and Gateway area is crossed by footpaths. These water supply and parking, which adequate security measures (e.g. would need to be diverted. may be required as part of the re- fencing/gates). As statutory location. allotments, the re-location will also The Exhibition display in Soham was a joke!!! 2 need to accord with relevant boards and a 1" thick file!!! There was only 2-3 The exhibition on the draft Soham statutory requirements. The Town days notice, and the display was during the day Vision and Local Plan was widely Council and Soham Allotment when many people are unable to attend. publicised, and contacts on our Society would prefer the allotments database were given 6 days notice. to be permanently re-located in one We also consider the proposal of a through road It should also be noted that place within the site, rather than into Pratt St is madness, anyone who lives there extensive site-specific consultation multiple locations. However, the or is anywhere near at school times would was carried out on the Eastern exact location and configuration will agree. It needs to be foot/cycle access only. Gateway site in late 2010 as part of need to be determined through Otherwise it will be a rat run. the preparation of the Eastern preparation of a revised Masterplan

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 320 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Gateway Masterplan. This included for the site. It is estimated there is a half-day workshop with key capacity in the Eastern Gateway area stakeholders (including the for up to approximately 600 dwellings. REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION allotment society) and a public exhibition. The Allotment Society were fully involved in this process. Policy SOH 3 (second part, third bullet) Development proposals will be expected to:  Provide alternative land of an equivalent size within the site to facilitate the re-location of the existing allotments. The allotment land should be provided in multiple locations, be accessible by car, foot and cycle, and include the provision of a water supply, parking and adequate security measures.

Andrew The boundary of the Middle Fen and Mere Comments are noted. It will be No change. Newton, The Internal Drainage District skirts around the edge important for any developer to Ely Group of of the town. Therefore, some of the sites are address surface water issues, as Internal within the Drainage District. The Boards surface set out in Policy ENV 8 in Part 1 of Drainage water receiving system has no residual capacity the Plan. Boards to accept increased rates of surface water run- off in connection with new development proposals. The Board do not support or object to the proposals but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to the development of the site to protect lands and properties within the district from increased flood risk. Work must be undertaken at the expense of the developer of the site and maintained in perpetuity by a competent authority. Please note that a consent is required directly from the Board to create any new discharge into or increase the rate of flow in any watercourse or piped system within the District in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning process. The Boards main drain passes through this development area. The proposed roundabout on the A142 is where the main drain passes under the road. If the

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 321 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

drain has to be diverted, this would have to be done at the developer's expense to the satisfaction of the Board. As well as providing drainage to Soham, the watercourse carries water from Soham Lode into the fen for spray irrigation. Policy SOH 4: Employment/mixed use allocation, land east of The Shade Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L K. Agree Useful area with good road access. Support noted. No change. Bussingham Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [no further comments] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Geoffrey Agree [no further comments] Support noted. No change. Langridge, Soham Allotment Society Cambs County Agree The site lies partially within the Minerals Safeguarding Area (MAS) Comments noted. No change. Council for sand and gravel designated by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011). However, after taking into account the limited extent of the MSA, and potential stand-off areas into account (from the road and adjacent development) it is unlikely that this site would be a viable mineral resource. The County Council as Mineral Planning Authority therefore does not raise any objections to this allocation on this ground. Diana Donald Disagree Concerned that: Comments are noted. The Plan No change.  The development will be on greenfield land, which is a finite aims to maximise the effective re- resource, and will be needed to grow food when the oil runs out. use of brownfield land within  The site is larger than that proposed in the Core Strategy settlements. However, the nature of Amendment of 2007. the district means there is a limited  The development will not provide housing for local people and supply of brownfield land, and those working locally. This has not happened elsewhere. therefore some Greenfield land is  Lack of capacity at Soham sewage treatment works and in foul required to meet local housing sewerage network, as referred to in the Core Strategy. needs. Anglian Water has indicated  Those in power who have their own agenda for Soham and the that, following an upgrade to views of local people are mainly ignored. Soham STTW scheduled for Summer 2013, there should be

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 322 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

capacity in Soham to cater for further growth. E. Johnson To school yes we have needed one for years. Rest no. Comments noted. No change. Andrew The boundary of the Middle Fen and Mere Internal Drainage District Comments are noted. It will be No change. Newton, The skirts around the edge of the town. Therefore, some of the sites are important for any developer to Ely Group of within the Middle Fen and Mere Internal Drainage District. The address surface water and flooding Internal Boards surface water receiving system has no residual capacity to issues, as set out in Policy ENV 8 Drainage accept increased rates of surface water run-off in connection with in Part 1 of the Plan. Boards new development proposals. The Board do not support or object to the proposals but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to the development of the site to protect lands and properties within the district from increased flood risk. Work must be undertaken at the expense of the developer of the site and maintained in perpetuity by a competent authority. Please not that a consent is required directly from the Board to create any new discharge into or increase the rate of flow in any watercourse or piped system within the District in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning process. Lower parts of The Shade area are prone to flooding in extreme rainfall events and are not suitable for development. Policy SOH 5: Employment allocation, land west of The Shade Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [no further comments] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Geoffrey Agree [no further comments] Support noted. No change. Langridge, Soham Allotment Society Diana Donald Disagree Concerned that: Comments are noted. The Plan No change.  The development will be on greenfield land, which is a aims to maximise the effective re- finite resource, and will be needed to grow food when use of brownfield land within the oil runs out. settlements. However, the nature  The site is larger than that proposed in the Core of the district means there is a Strategy Amendment of 2007. limited supply of brownfield land,  The development will not provide housing for local and therefore some Greenfield people and those working locally. This has not land is required to meet local happened elsewhere. housing needs. Anglian Water has

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 323 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

 Lack of capacity at Soham sewage treatment works indicated that, following an and in foul sewerage network, as referred to in the upgrade to Soham STTW Core Strategy. scheduled for Summer 2013,  Those in power who have their own agenda for Soham there should be capacity in and the views of local people are mainly ignored. Soham to cater for further growth. E. Johnson Disagree N N We have an industrial estate and Fordham Road site better Comments noted. No change. for this than 95 houses planned. Cambs County Disagree The site lies almost entirely within the Safeguarding Area Comments noted and accepted. It Proposed minor modification Council for Soham Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW). Within would be useful to provide some to the supporting text of Policy WWTW Safeguarding Areas there is a presumption against clarification about the WWTW in SOH 5 (new paragraph at development which would be occupied by people. the policy text and the policy itself. end): However, Anglian Water's Planning Liaison Manager (Planning and Equivalence Team) has advised me that a ‘The site lies within the full assessment survey of Soham WWTW was carried out Safeguarding Area for the for the new school site. This assessment indicated that Soham Waste Water SOH5 is at medium risk of odour impact. Further Treatment Works. As part of information on the type of employment use would be the planning application needed to assess the sensitivity to odour impact and process, an odour possible mitigation by design of the development could be assessment will need to be investigated to determine compatibility or otherwise. This carried, to demonstrate risks constraint and the need for further assessment should be can be adequately explicit in the Local Plan as some types of employment use mitigated.’ may not be capable of being delivered. Proposed minor modification to Policy SOH 5 (new bullet):

‘Demonstrate that odour risk relating to the nearby Waste Water Treatment Works can be adequately mitigated.’ Sue Bull, An odour survey and assessment of Soham WWTW Comments noted. See proposed minor Anglian Water indicates that SOH5 is at medium risk of odour impact. modifications above. Further information on the type of employment use would be needed to assess the sensitivity to odour impact and possible mitigation by design of the development could be investigated to determine compatibility or otherwise. Andrew The Boards surface water receiving system has no residual Comments noted. It will be No change. Newton, The capacity to accept increased rates of surface water run-off important for any developer to Ely Group of in connection with new development proposals. The Board address surface water and Internal do not support or object to the proposals but require that flooding issues, as set out in Drainage the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place Policy ENV 8 in Part 1 of the Plan. Boards prior to the development of the site to protect lands and properties within the district from increased flood risk. Work must be undertaken at the expense of the developer of the

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 324 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

site and maintained in perpetuity by a competent authority. Please note that a consent is required directly from the Board to create any new discharge into or increase the rate of flow in any watercourse or piped system within the District in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning process. Lower parts of The Shade area are prone to flooding in extreme rainfall events and are not suitable for development. Policy SOH 6: Employment allocation, land east of the A142 bypass Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Cambs County Agree SOH6 lies wholly within the Minerals Safeguarding Area (MAS) for Comments noted. No change. Council sand and gravel designated by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2011). It is also close to an irrigation reservoir which was subject to incidental mineral extraction. However, after taking into account the limited extent of the MSA, and potential stand-off areas into account (from the road and adjacent development) it is unlikely that this site would be a viable mineral resource. The County Council as Mineral Planning Authority therefore does not raise any objections to this allocation on this ground. Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Diana Donald Disagree Concerned about: The site is allocated for industrial, No change.  Lack of explanation of what this employment and business storage or office development (B1, would be B2 and B8), and could therefore be  Loss of agricultural land developed for a wide range of  Ability to deliver employment, given state of Soham High different business uses which cannot Street and high turnover of shops and empty shops. be predicted in advance. This flexibility is key in supporting the local economy. Although the Plan supports the re-use of land and premises for business uses, the need for expansion cannot be catered for on brownfield land alone. There is a need to utilise some agricultural land. The Council’s Employment Study indicates considerable potential expansion of jobs in the district over

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 325 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

the next 20 years.

K. Disagree This land was due for development 20 years ago. Soham and Comments noted. No change. Bussingham East Cambs turned it down. Geoffrey Disagree The bypass needs to be the boundary for the town. The policy recognises the need to No change. Langridge, minimise visual impact and create an Soham attractive development scheme when Allotment viewed from the A142. The policy Society refers to design, layout and the need for significant landscaping and a buffer zone adjoining the A142. E. Johnson N N Impact on Moores Trust land? Contacted the respondent to clarify No change. the comment. No response provided. Policy SOH 7: Town centre opportunity site, Budgens site Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Diana Donald Agree The size of Budgens might as well increase if it is sustainable. Support noted. No change. Concern about whether site will be cramped. Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Foundation East James Sutton, Agree My client strongly supports the proposals to seek the regeneration Support noted. No change. Signet of Soham Town Centre, through the identification of key Planning (on opportunity sites. The Budgens supermarket site (which benefits behalf of from an extant planning permission for an extension) is a key site James Graven to retain for future food retail uses to support the vitality of the Group) town centre. My client considers that the future town centre regeneration of Soham must be based on retail lead initiatives and that, in particular, any new food supermarket development in the town should be located within Soham Town Centre. E. Johnson Disagree N N Budgens site is not town centre, its residential. The Budgens site has an existing No change. retail store and associated carparking. Planning permission was granted in 2012 for an extension to the store within the curtilage of the existing site. The site lies within the designated Soham Town Centre, as shown in Map 7.2 on page 87 of the draft Local Plan.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 326 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy SOH 8: Town centre opportunity site, Church hall area Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L K. Agree Should be car park or replace hall. This site was bought by Support noted. No change. Bussingham local people and should not have been sold. Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Foundation East James Sutton, Agree My client strongly supports the proposals to seek the Support noted. No change. Signet regeneration of Soham Town Centre, through the identification Planning (on of key opportunity sites within the town centre. behalf of Residential development only on the Church Hall site would James Graven present a significant lost opportunity to improve the health and Group) long-term growth in the town centre. Agree that the the Church Hall area should be allocated as a town centre opportunity site to provide a suitable opportunity for new retail development. My client considers that the future town centre regeneration of Soham must be based on retail lead initiatives and that, in particular, any new food supermarket development in the town should be located within Soham Town Centre. Diana Donald Disagree I thought this was already set out for housing for elderly people The supporting text to the policy explains No change. and this has not been specified. In fact nothing has been that extant planning permission exists for allocated for elderly people who do not want to be on a noisy 8 dwellings on the site. Policy HOU 1 site. Concerned that Sanctuary Housing elderly properties are specifies that all housing schemes of not affordable. 50+ dwellings should provide a proportion of dwellings that are suitable or easily adaptable for occupation by the elderly or people with disabilities. J. Metcalfe Disagree Why not build a new Coop store with an in-house post office The site is identified for retail and an No change. on the site, with better car parking. Then present Coop site element of could be landscaped and turned into a car park. commercial/community/residential development. It would not be reasonable for the Council to specify a particular end-user for the site. E. Johnson N N Should be a church hall or community centre. It belonged to Comments are noted. The Church hall No change. the town, brought by the town's people, so should be returned site has been sold to a commercial to us. developer and the hall removed. Policy SOH 8 proposes that the site should be developed for retail uses, with potentially an element of community uses as part of

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 327 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

a mixed-use scheme.

Policy SOH 9: Town centre opportunity site, Cooperative store area Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Diana Donald Agree Support for expansion of the supermarket on the site. Some Comments noted. No change. concern about whether site will be cramped, and impact on the houses behind. E. Johnson Agree Should be cleaned up/rebuilt to reflect the area, houses that Support noted. No change. surround it. Maybe knock down and make into a town green then. Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Foundation East J. Metcalfe Disagree Why not build a new Coop store with an in-house post office on The current Coop site is owned by No change. the site, with better car parking. Then present Coop site could be the Cooperative Group and has landscaped and turned into a car park. significant commercial land value.

Policy SOH 10: Town centre opportunity site, Fountain Lane recreation ground and car park Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Foundation East K. Disagree No more development, one of the best assets left in Soham well The Recreation Ground itself is not No change. Bussingham used by town children. proposed for re-development in the draft Vision. There is scope to re- develop the carpark and toilets area to provide better facilities and make better use of space. E. Johnson N N Leave it as it is. It has been encroached upon too much as it is. The Recreation Ground itself is not No change. proposed for re-development in the draft Vision. There is scope to re- develop the carpark and toilets area to provide better facilities and make better use of space. Diana Donald No view Unsure what this is. Expansion of the Pavilion building is a good Comments noted. No change. idea. Concerned about the amount of graffiti and abuse of

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 328 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

facilities already offered there and believe more cameras are needed. Policy SOH 11: Green lanes and Commons Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Diana Donald Agree All should show respect for the natural habitat of Soham. There Comments noted. The design and No change. need to be policies about litter, noise and ASB as I have layout of the environment can impact witnessed with some distress. on littering and anti-social behaviour. However, for the most part, such issues are beyond the remit of the planning system – and are led by other agencies such as the Police. E. Johnson Agree [No further comments] Support noted. No change. J. Metcalfe Agree Agree that the lanes and commons should be left alone. Cycle Support noted. No change. link with Wicken needs careful thought, as drove lanes are not appropriate for being "tarmaced". Phil Rose, Agree Y Y [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Foundation East Geoffrey Disagree We need to keep our commons and footpaths/rights of way they Comments noted. No change. Langridge, are a great asset to Soham Soham Allotment REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Society K. Unique to this country and should be left alone. Comments noted. No change. Bussingham (SOH/5/8) Other Comments

Name / Page / Organisation & Summary of response ECDC response Action Policy ID Infra. Cambs County The addition of a third primary school in the Town opening in September 2013, the Comments noted. No change. Council Shade School, will provide sufficient capacity to meet forecast primary school numbers in the Town.

The combined secondary school numbers across the catchment area of Soham and Bottisham Village Colleges confirm the need for a limited expansion of one or both of schools at a future date (from 16FE to 18FE).

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 329 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Infra. Robert The County Council welcomes the strategic objective to re-open the railway station Comments noted. No change. Feakes, at Soham, which links to Suffolk County Council's priority to improve sustainable Suffolk County transport links in this part of the region. This is consistent with the Suffolk Local Council Transport Plan's long term aspiration to enable a direct rail link between Newmarket and Ely. Infra J. Metcalfe Concern about ability of infrastructure to cope with growth. Comments are noted. Policy No change. GROWTH 3 in Part 1 of the Plan seeks to secure infrastructure and other benefits from development schemes. The Council has an adopted Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule which should ensure monies will be generated for the parish. Infra./G Diana Donald The Vision proposes excessive expansion without any explanation as to how The draft Vision and Local Plan seeks No change. en. health, policing and sewerage infrastructure are to cope. There is also no to deal with infrastructure requirements explanation what the employment growth is to be or why agricultural land is being arising from growth, and includes put under concrete which also increases flood risk on what is already flood plain. information on the employment ECDC has already admitted there are no contingency plans for flooding. All in all strategy for the district. It seeks to the "vision" is the ideal of a few people without actually thinking it through properly. maximise the re-use of brownfield I haven't actually made proposals, but would propose that not one more building land, and ensure that issues such as should be erected until all the infrastructure is put in place or at least assured in flooding are dealt with. The draft Vision detail. is the product of extensive consultation and community engagement on the REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION ON THE ABOVE Soham Masterplan.

Other comments: Other comments:  There is a need for another healthcare surgery.  The PCT/NHS has not identified  The new primary school is already oversubscribed. the need for a new surgery (it will  Level of crime, graffiti and ASB is high and needs to be addressed. be expanded under Policy SOH 3).  Plan is motivated by greed. Every property built brings income to the council.  The CCC has confirmed there is  Concern about loss of Greenfield and agricultural land. When the oil runs out capacity in Soham primary schools the land will be needed to grow food. to meet growth  Need to address the housing needs of the elderly.  There is not sufficient brownfield  Supports EU practice of selling council owned land in plots for people to build land to meet all development their own homes. needs.  Policy HOU 1 requires schemes of 50+ houses to include some which are adaptable for elderly people  Policy HOU 1 requires schemes of 100+ houses to include 5% self build properties Infra/ K. 1. Poorly thought out 2. Too many houses 3. No infrastructure 4. Plans accepted The draft Vision and Local Plan seeks No change. Gen. Bussingham by public changed without further consultation. to deal with infrastructure requirements

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 330 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

arising from growth, and has been developed following extensive consultation and community engagement, and other technical work. Gen. J. Metcalfe Concern that our unique commons will soon be concreted over. I cannot see how Policies SOH 1, 3 and 11 seek to No change. the developments proposed in the latest Draft Plan will leave the Commons prevent harm to the nearby Commons. unaffected. Gen. Stuart Cooper Soham will always be, to a certain extent, a commuter town. Therefore housing The County Highways Officer has not No change. development should be towards the bypass or have good access to the bypass. raised objections to the overall housing There are traffic flow issues already and to add more dwellings within the town will numbers proposed in Soham or the merely exacerbate the problem. The town centre in Soham is already crowded principles of the proposed allocations - with limited parking, and limited ability of existing businesses to expand. but the allocation policies require Particularly concerned about: developers to demonstrate through a  The scale of traffic likely to be generated by Brook Street allocation and lack of Traffic Impact Assessment that sites direct access to bypass. Also concerned about flood risk on this site. can be safely accessed. A Flood Risk  Eastern Gateway should be predominantly industrial/retail use, thereby Assessment has been carried out on creating jobs, close to the town centre, which will reduce commuting and allow the Brook Street site which transport vehicles access via the by-pass – and not past Weatheralls school. demonstrates that risk can be  The employment area at The Shade should be designated as housing, with adequately mitigated. access to the roundabout and Northfield road. This would support the new School and the proposed supermarket, whilst reducing traffic pressure on the rest of the Town.  The plan to build on the eastern side of the by-pass is totally indefensible. The purpose of the by-pass was to provide a clear barrier between urbanisation and the countryside. The proposed development could be incorporated with the existing by-pass envelope.

I don't believe that the plan for Soham reflects the needs of the local populace. The plan (if implemented in full) will make access and egress from the centre more congested. The plan appears to be developed by bureaucrats and makes no concession to the actual reality of living in Soham. The through road is regularly clogged up, which has negative impacts upon the health and well being of the inhabitants, as well as the environment.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 331 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Stetchworth 3.2.14 A total of 1 person/organisation made comments on the draft Stetchworth Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Stetchworth Parish - - - Stetchworth Parish Council considered the draft Local Support noted. No change. Council Development Plan for Stetchworth at the last parish council meeting. The Council has no objections to the plan for Stetchworth.

Stretham 3.2.15 A total of 6 people/organisations made comments on the draft Stretham Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Phil Rose, Agree Y Y The Stretham and Wilburton Community Land Trust Support noted. No change Foundation East would only support development outside the village development envelope if it meets the criteria of policy GROWTH 6 Community-led development. Mr Petty Agree Y ? In principle agreement to thrust of Village Vision, and also Comments noted. No change highlighting opportunities for low cost housing within settlement envelope. Concern regarding lack of published information regarding the Community Land Trust. Lynn Harkett Agree Y ? Infilling should be pursued rather than greenfield Support noted No change development Randall Butt Agree Y ? Infill development favoured; proposal for new rail station Support noted. Assume this refers to No change supported new railway station in Soham. Peter Oughton Disagree Y Y Unconvinced regarding the choice of land proposed for The draft Local Plan does not No change residential development outside the village settlement propose new allocations on the edge boundary. of Stretham outside the development envelope. A Community Land Trust has been established by the local community in Stretham and Wilburton with the intention of finding a potential development site on the edge of Stretham, to be considered

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 332 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

under Policy GROWTH 6. Ely Group of Internal This area is outside the Littleport and Downham Internal Comments noted. Surface water No change. Drainage Boards Drainage District but in an area that drains into the drainage is captured under Policy (Andrew Newton) Board's surface water receiving system. The Board's GROWTH 3 and Policy ENV8. surface water receiving system has no residual capacity to accept increased rates of surface water run-off in connection with new development proposals. The Board do not support or object to the proposal but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to development of this site to protect lands and properties within the District from increased flood risk. Work must be undertaken at the expense of the developer of the site and maintained in perpetuity by a competent authority. Please not that a consent is required direct from the Board to create any new discharge into or increase the rate of flow in any watercourse or piped system within the District in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning process.

Stuntney 3.2.16 A total of 2 people/organisations made comments on the draft Stuntney Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Peter Dawe Disagree ? ? 1) Moving the Social Club is not supported by the village. Comments noted. The possible No change. The current location is central to the community and relocation of the Social Club was already has adequate parking. identified through consultation as an 2) There needs to be a separation between the playing option. This section represents field and the nature reserve. The current play area is not community aspirations to identify functional or safe. where future monies should be 3) There is little need for traffic calming as the village is focussed over the Plan period. by-passed and any speeding is sorted through peer Additional concerns or ideas should pressure be directed to the Parish Council. 4) There is currently a hard-core road and bridge from Stuntney to the river from the construction of the rail improvement. A path from this could be created. Andrew Newton, The - - - This site is within the Middle Fen and Mere Internal Comments noted. No change. Ely Group of Internal Drainage District. Lack of capacity within Board’s surface Drainage Boards water receiving system to accept additional surface water from development. Developer will need to provide

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 333 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

sufficient surface water accommodation prior to the development of this site to protect land and properties from increased flood risk. This work will need to be undertaken at the expense of the developer and maintained by a competent authority.

Sutton 3.2.17 A total of 22 people/organisations made comments on the draft Sutton Vision.

Policy SUT 1: Housing allocation, land north of The Brook Sound/ Legally Name / Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Organisation & ID Disagree S L Mark Baker, BGG Agree Our clients fully support the proposed allocation, and will The allocation of 50 dwellings is No change. Associates (on make their land available for development in accordance with supported by the Parish Council and behalf of Frear the District Council’s policy. through local community consultation, family) following considerable debate and This location is supported by the community (in the engagement on the pros and cons of consultation) and the Parish Council. The District Councillor, a larger site allocation incorporating Councillor Read, has indicated that he thinks that more than the Hammence’s land. 50 dwellings should go forward. The text to the policy indicates that The Parish Council has confirmed that thereis a needfora the boundary could be subject to burial ground of with an area of approximately 1000m² (0.1 alteration if an applicant can hectares), and 2 senior football pitches (ideally be adjacent to demonstrate this is appropriate and a the existing pitches), The Parish Council has indicated higher quality is delivered. This is a support for a footpath/cycle link from the identified matter which will be dealt with development site to The Brooklands Centre and school. through the Masterplanning and Allocating additional land west of the allocation (owned by the planning application stage, rather Hammence family) would deliver further housing, and help than the Local Plan itself. It should deliver this infrastructure. The District Council’s preferred also not alter the number of dwellings route for a cycle/footpath runs across third party land. The (50) as set out in Policy SUT1. Hamence family have confirmed that their land will also be available for development. The allocation of this site also has the potential not only to eliminate the use of the farm access which currently runs alongside the Brooklands Centre, but also provide an additional car park for school pick-ups.

The District Council has indicated that the boundary of the allocated site could be subject to alteration, if an applicant

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 334 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

can demonstrate through further investigative work that an alternative boundary would be more appropriate and deliver a higher quality scheme. it is therefore proposed that the additional land is also included in the Development Envelope of the Local Plan.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Alison Harker Agree Y Y I agree with the aims of the policy, but consider the boundary The allocation of 50 dwellings is No change. of the identified site should be altered to create a larger supported by the Parish Council and allocation site. This could provide further community facilities, through local community consultation, as identified by the Parish Council & Parishoners - following considerable debate and particularly additional football pitches, a new burial site & engagement on the pros and cons of space for walking. It would ensure that a comprehensive a larger site allocation incorporating scheme could be achieved. Hammence’s land.

Mepal Parish Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Council Caroline Stanger, Agree Y Y This looks like a sensible plan - however it would be good to The allocation of 50 dwellings is No change. Stanger see slightly more land allocated so that the plan could include supported by the Parish Council and Consulting amenities such as playing fields, dog walking etc., and maybe through local community consultation, a wildlife area. following considerable debate and engagement on the pros and cons of a larger site allocation incorporating Hammence’s land. Paul Percival Agree Y Y I agree with Policy SUT 1 and think that it would be a positive Comments noted. The allocation of No change. development for the village of Sutton. The most important 50 dwellings is supported by the aspect is the provision of safer routes to the Primary School, Parish Council and through local reducing the number of children walking along the busy main community consultation, following road. Second is the improvement/ addition of new village considerable debate and engagement amenities. I also think that the number of dwellings and the on the pros and cons of a larger site area to be developed could be increased, with greater allocation incorporating Hammence’s provision for public green space and in keeping with the land. existing village aesthetic. Lucy Baker Agree Y The plan will provide a safer route for children to get to the Comments noted. The allocation of No change. primary school. Feel that maybe the village would benefit 50 dwellings is supported by the more from a bigger allocation of land to allow more Parish Council and through local recreational areas (e.g. a football pitch) and to encourage community consultation, following and support local businesses. This would also be more in- considerable debate and engagement keeping with the villages’ picturesque and environmentally on the pros and cons of a larger site friendly appearance. allocation incorporating Hammence’s land. Chris Tivey, Chris Agree Y Y The draft Sutton Vision and specifically the housing section is Support noted. No change. Tivey Associates 'sound' and 'legally compliant'. The proposed allocation would (on behalf of the make good use of land which has been partially developed in

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 335 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Marshall family) the past, and would form a logical extension to the village which would have good accessibility along with minimal landscape impact. The requirement to provide an Indicative Development Framework or broad concept plan, to be submitted alongside the planning application for the development is supported, along with the need to consider future development beyond the first phase for development up to 2031, which could include wider community benefits. Mark Inskip Agree Y Y Majority of the village in favour of medium scale development Support noted No change. in the next 20 years. Scarcity of housing is forcing up prices and making it difficult for local people to afford. There are limited locations beyond the development envelope. The proposed location has good access with old Mepal Road for road traffic. The proposal to include affordable housing is important. Steven Johnson Agree N Y The village needs expansion and growth. However current Comments noted. The HGV issue is No change. road infrastructure is inadequate to carry the existing traffic being looked at by the CCC and they along the High Street. The real answer is a bypass however I are instigating routing agreements realise that the cost will probably rule this out. Suggest with existing HGV operators, and banning HGV vehicle through traffic between 07:30 to 09:30 legal agreements/conditions relating and 16:30 to 18:30. Alternatively open a new junction to new businesses. between the A141 and Mepal Road. The County Highways Officer has indicated that a new junction off Mepal Road into the A141 is not required to serve the new allocation site. However, as set out in Policy SUT 1, applicants will need to demonstrate through a Transport Assessment that the scheme is suitable in terms of highway, cycling and pedestrian access and that any necessary improvements are put in place. Laurie Fentimen Agree Although I support the intention to allow new housing Policy SUT 1 allows some flexibility No change. development on the northern boundary of the village, I think for site boundary alterations, the area of land set aside is too specifically defined and the providing an applicant can Plan should allow any suitably imaginative development plan demonstrate that a higher quality for the strip of land between the old Mepal Road and the field scheme is delivered. Development in immediately to the north of the Brooklands playing fields to be narrow strips of land (for example, considered. The main criteria should be that the running the whole of the northern development is integral to, and not just bolted on to the length of the village between the village, so that there is benefit to the village over and above Brooklands Centre and Mepal Road) developer financial infrastructure contributions. The proposed would normally bring challenges in

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 336 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

boundary for development land is on the far north east corner terms of design and layout. The of the village, and I can't see how, as currently defined, it indicative boundary in the current could pass the integration test. Plan provides a guideline and should enable a well designed and legible scheme to be proposed. Ian Smith, Smiths Disagree We object as we do not understand how the estimated new The estimated supply of 198 No change. Gore (on behalf of dwelling supply (198 dwellings over the period 2012-2031) dwellings is taken from the Council’s Church can be accommodated within the existing development housing trajectory. It includes 132 Commissioners) envelope. Only one site allocation for 50 dwellings is included dwellings on specific known or in the Plan, and the majority of land within the development committed sites, and only 66 envelope is already developed. If there is to be a supply of dwellings on small windfall sites (over 198 dwellings in Sutton then we believe that it will be 19 years). This rate is considered necessary to define actual site allocations, beyond the reasonable given the size of Sutton. existing development envelope to deliver this. The dwelling number is a broad estimate, and is included in the Sutton Vision for information only. Bob Harker Disagree Y Y I believe a larger area should be allocated for development.. The allocation of 50 dwellings is No change. I am aware that additional football pitches are needed in the supported by the Parish Council and village & land closer to the existing pitches would be an ideal through local community consultation, location. following considerable debate and engagement on the pros and cons of a larger site allocation incorporating the Hammence’s land. David and Disagree ? N There are a number of very large trees and wildlife on the Comments noted. The allocation of No change. Vanessa Osborne site. Views from our house would be affected. It would be 50 dwellings is supported by the better to develop at the other end of Sutton, towards Earith. Parish Council and through local community consultation, following Also concerned that not enough information was given to considerable debate and residents of Sutton, Every house should have been given engagement. leaflets etc in their mail boxes. Mail drops to all households were Also concerned about whether the primary school can cope carried out by the Parish Council in with more children. 2011.

The County Council has indicated some expansion of school places may be required but that this will be possible to facilitate on-site. John Horwood Disagree I disagree with the proposal to develop the land on the Site suitability and deliverability has No change. northern boundary of the village. Concerned about: been investigated as part of the  impact of increased traffic and road safety process of preparing the draft Local  impact on management of storm-water run-off in the Plan. The site appears to be suitable vicinity in principle to accommodate the  presence of Japanese knotweed on the site proposed 50 dwellings. Detailed

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 337 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

 whether there is a need for additional properties in the highways and surface water issues village given recent amount of development will be dealt with at planning  impact on local school – whether there is capacity application stage, as detailed in Policy SUT 1. The County Council Question how this development will benefit the village? What has indicated some expansion of allowance has been made for compensation for loss of value school places may be required but to adjoining properties (blight) What is the proposed use of that this will be possible to facilitate any Section 106 money? on-site.

Concerned that the residents in Tower Road which back onto Policy SUT 1 set out details of the field were not notified of the meeting with the letter drop various benefits/requirements, that took place in Mepal Road. including 30% affordable housing, an on-site play area, public open space, and a new pedestrian/cycle link between The Orchards and Stirling REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Way. Development will also be subject to Community Infrastructure Levy charges, and any other necessary site-specific infrastructure improvements (see Policy GROWTH 3). Blight on properties is not covered.

The Parish Council has confirmed that a leaflet drop took place in Tower Road. Gae Matthews Disagree ? I do not agree that any more houses should be built in Sutton Comments noted. This issue is being No change until the problem of heavy goods vehicles travelling through looked at by the CCC and they are the village 24 hours a day, every day of the week has been instigating routing agreements with resolved. Recent research has shown that this is detrimental existing HGV operators, and legal to the health of residents on the main road, e.g. noise and agreements/conditions relating to vibration causing disturbed sleep and high pollution levels. new businesses. Mark Baker Disagree ? ? I support development in this area but I believe that Sutton Comments noted. The allocation of No change would benefit from a more comprehensive larger scale 50 dwellings is supported by the development in this location. The development could include Parish Council and through local an extension to the football pitches and the provision of open community consultation, following access to countryside together with a new Burial Ground. A considerable debate and engagement new access to the Brooklands Centre via Mepal Road could on the pros and cons of a larger site help to reduce traffic on The Brook near the School which allocation incorporating the would improve road safety. The scale of development north Hammence’s land. of the Brook should be increased to make it more viable for developers and to generate greater community benefits. Councillors have expressed support for new development but the allocation of only 50 houses given the access, infrastructure and CIL costs together with the Social Housing

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 338 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

requirement will affect viability in the current economic climate. I would strongly support the proposal to: 'Explore alternative to the traffic calming island at the entrance to the village' this poses a hazard with traffic frequently backing up to the roundabout and cars trying to pass the island in front of oncoming vehicles. Lionel Smith No view Y ? [no further comments made] Comments noted No change.

Sutton Parish The Parish Council would like to see the text of Policy SUT1 The text explains that the boundary Proposed minor Council amended to read "to guarantee a greater degree of flexibility could be altered provided an modification to the on the boundary", after subject to slight alteration. applicant can demonstrate that this Plan: would be appropriate and that a higher quality scheme would be ‘It should be noted delivered. This provides some that the boundary of potential flexibility – but there is no the site could be absolute guarantee of flexibility as it subject to slight is conditional. alteration (potentially providing some flexibility), if an applicant can demonstrate….’ Chris Drury Over recent years there has been a large increase in housing The consultation results indicated No change. (336 dwellings or 28% increase in the last 12 years). The most support for medium scale village is now a proliferation of houses with little or no growth on the edge of Sutton, 20-50 increase in infrastructure and services. The planners and houses. The proposed allocation is developers are proposing to enlarge the village again, for 50 houses, so broadly accords contrary to the views of residents. Consultation results with this view. The allocation is also favoured a limited development of 20-50 houses on the supported by the Parish Council, as northern boundary over the next 20 years, not an initial 50 elected representatives of the village. with the possibility of more to follow. The housing allocation The housing allocation policy refers to policy suggests this will be only the first phase of theoretical not actual potential future development, with additional phases to follow. There could be phases. In a future review of the several hundred new houses devaluing existing ones and Local Plan it may indeed be possible depriving residents of amenities. The plan is a council that additional housing may be proposal mainly ignoring residents reviews. The Council are investigated in this location. The incentivised due to reward of New Homes Bonus (£400k for policy seeks to ensure that if there 50 houses, or estimated £15 million for the whole district). I are any future phases, the first phase also draw your attention to ECDC Consultation policy Section is appropriately designed and laid out 6 which states our District councillors should support the to allow integration and access with views of residents. At least one of these is actively promoting any later phases. more development.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 339 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Other Comments

Name / Page / Organisation & Summary of response ECDC response Action Policy ID Descr. Mepal Parish The description includes two takeaways - one of these is in fact a popular and Comments are noted. The description No change. Council good local restaurant as well as a take-away, and valued beyond Sutton village is intended to provide some examples of the services available in the village. Key Chris Drury The ‘estimated new dwellings 2012-31’ in the Key Statistics section is a serious stats. understatement. A more realistic level would be 400 or more, given the reference to later phases on land north of The Brook. Gen. Laurie Generally I agree with and welcome the plan for the village, which sets out The draft Plan does not seek to No change. Fentimen priorities in line with the consultations held in the village, and fairly reflects the prevent all infill development, as this views villagers expressed. This gives us a clear framework for future development would be unreasonable. It includes a and at the same time helps protect the village from unsympathetic or developer- generic policy on housing density led change (as opposed to villager-led change). However, am concerned about (Policy HOU 2) which seeks to ensure the intention to continue to allow infill. Significant infill development has put that infill development is of good pressure on village infrastructure, adversely affected the feel of the village and quality, with schemes being judged on reduced the amount of space around and between houses. The new infrastructure a site by site basis (taking account of levy should help, but this still leaves the problem of housing being too dense. issues such as local character and Would like the Plan to include a policy on what type of infill would be allowed [see housing densities in the surrounding also a second concern raised in relation to SUT 1 above] area). Gen. David and Sutton could be a lovely village, but for the large trucks that insist in using it as a Comments noted. The HGV issue is No change. Vanessa short cut. Our roads cannot cope, can you imagine how much more traffic there being looked at by the CCC and they Osborne will be with such a large development? are instigating routing agreements with existing HGV operators, and legal agreements/conditions relating to new businesses. Gen. Paul Percival I think that a greater amount of green land should be retained for public use Comments are noted. The proposed No change. including recreation and dog-walking. allocation will include an element of new public open space, provided through a S.106 agreement. Gen. Mark Inskip Sutton has undergone significant growth over the past decade and services and Comments are noted. Policy No change. facilities have not kept pace. It is important that this is taken into account with any GROWTH 3 in Part 1 of the Plan further developments whether on the edge of the development envelop or as infill. seeks to secure infrastructure and other benefits from development schemes. The Council has an adopted Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule which should ensure monies will be generated for the parish. Gen. Haydn and Pleased that our land to the east of Garden Close/Link Lane was included as one The site off Garden Close was No change. Patricia Gray of the options. Disappointed that only the site east of Brooklands Farm has been considered as one of the options as

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 340 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

selected for development. We think it is a mistake given that housing need is so part of the site appraisal, sustainability pressing. Our site would offer choice, and has a single owner. Good south-facing appraisal and consultation process. location with possibility of eco-friendly housing, and sustainable being only 250 The site scored less well in technical metres from the village centre. The site should be allocated as a natural terms than the proposed allocation progression of the built part of the village. Site is well landscaped along the north of the Brook (related to visual boundaries. We would work with the Parish Council to deliver benefits where impact). The site was the least possible, e.g. open space and community walk. Site would be an attractive place favoured by the local community (with to live. 45% support), in the community questionnaire on development options. Empl. David Adams, Whilst the data centre site is allocated for employment use, the adjoining site to The established business park on the No change. Camro Data the north of the agricultural auction site and west of the biomass station has no edge of Sutton is not ‘allocated’ in the Centre allocation. We are in discussions with a potential end-user who may well require Core Strategy or the Local Plan. If a additional space for advanced energy technologies associated with fuel cells and particular business requires additional possibly storage of surplus green energy. Development of this land for uses space outside the confines of the ancillary to the data centre should not be precluded by the Core Strategy and existing business park, this would be Local Plan. If necessary can the site be allocated for employment use. [see plan considered on its merits against attachment] policies EMP 2 and EMP 3 in Part 1 of the Local Plan. Infra. Cambs County There is more limited expansion of primary school provision required in other Comments are noted. No change. Council village schools most notably………….Sutton.

Infra. Mepal Parish We note the concern that there are believed to be insufficient places at Sutton Comments are noted. The County No change. Council school and would point out that the County Council admissions team at present Council has indicated there will be a permits 'school-hopping' from Mepal to Sutton, whilst at Mepal there is a concern need to provide additional places on- about the viability of the school as a result of fall in school roll site at Sutton school over the Plan period to cater for anticipated demand. Infra. Lionel Smith The footpath between Sutton and Witchford should be given more urgency. New Comments are noted. The scheme is No change. path is only needed from Witcham Toll to Wentworth crossroads (c 1.5 miles not a key local and strategic project, and the c 3 miles the total between the villages). a joint parish working group has been established to facilitate delivery.

Additional comments received from Parish Council since close of consultation (dated 23rd April 2013)

Gen. Sutton Parish Land east of Garden Close is contained and there would be a gain for the village, The District Council has worked No change. Council it should therefore be included in the development envelope as a sustainable site closely with the Parish Council and in the village for future development. the local community over the last 2 years, to identify local priorities and needs, and the best solutions. The Parish Council has consistently resolved to support the results of the community consultation in 2011, which indicated majority support for

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 341 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

about 20-50 houses to be developed on land on the edge of the village, on a site to the north of The Brook. This site also scored well in the Site Appraisal work and the Sustainability Appraisal. The Parish Council’s new position represents a significant change from their previous view. It is also contrary to the results of the community consultation.

Swaffham Bulbeck 3.2.18 A total of 5 people/organisations made comments on the draft Swaffham Bulbeck Vision.

Sound/ Agree/ Legally Disagre Name / Organisation & ID compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action e/No View S L Swaffham Bulbeck Parish Under Infrastructure and community facilities, delete at Agree that this amendment would be Proposed minor Council the pavilion and leave wording as “provide Village Hall”. useful. modification to Infrastructure and community facilities section, second row in the table:

‘Provision of a community/village hall – Provide Village Hall at the pavilion.’ Ely Group of Internal This area is outside the Swaffham Internal Drainage Comments noted. Surface water No change. Drainage Boards District but in an area that drains into the Board's surface drainage is captured under Policy (Andrew Newton) water receiving system. The Board's surface water GROWTH 3 and Policy ENV 8. receiving system has no residual capacity to accept increased rates of surface water run-off in connection with new development proposals. The Board do not support or object to the proposal but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to development of this site to protect lands and properties within the District from increased flood risk. Work must be undertaken at the expense of the developer of the site and maintained in perpetuity by a competent authority. Please not that a consent is required direct from the

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 342 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Board to create any new discharge into or increase the rate of flow in any watercourse or piped system within the District in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning process. Tim Oates Concerns as follows: 1. Development will be focused in No action 1. There is capacity within the three clusters for infill the village, in accordance with development which should preclude development in Policy GROWTH 2. However, the countryside exceptions may come forward in 2. The Primary School is currently at capacity; any new the countryside as an exception, growth should be matched up front by investment in where permitted by other policies services and infrastructure. in the Plan (for example, 3. Any substantial development in the village should be affordable housing and rural assessed against the capacity of the highway network. worker dwellings). 4. The cycle network between Cambridge and Swaffham 2. The County Council has not Bulbeck should be re-assessed ; there is a missing indicated that school capacity is link between the village and the Quy. an issue in Swaffham Bulbeck. 5. Traffic management The B112 particularly near the 3. Planning applications will be school and the junction with the High Street requires assessed on their merits against additional measures to reduce speed and improve Policy COM 7 which relates to safety. highway and access. 4. This is mentioned in the infrastructure table in Section 8.36. 5. Traffic management requirements in this area have not been raised by County Council or Parish Council as an issue. Sian Derbyshire, National There is an opportunity to reflect the overall aims and These projects are included in the No change. Trust objectives of the Wicken Fen Vision ; the access to Infrastructure section in the Vision. strategic green infrastructure should be enhanced by Most routes have yet to be improvements in cycle and footpath networks which determined, so they are difficult to should be shown on the Policy Map/proposals Map. include on the maps at present. Examples cited include :  Proper surfaced cycle links to WF/Lode Way cycle route.  Direct cycle links to Newmarket and to the Lodes Way  New pedestrian/cycle crossing over the River Cam to Waterbeach to provide link to station and fast riverside path into Cambridge City Centre  Improved footpath/cyclepath to Bottisham  Cycle route from Swaffham Bulbeck to Cambridge should be made more direct Steve Kuschel, SJK Disagre Change in settlement boundary from adopted Core A small number of minor alterations No change

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 343 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Planning (on behalf of e strategy in relation to rear of 79 High Street not justified have been proposed to the Mr and Mrs Butler) by virtue of lack of explanation, and criteria for the development envelopes identified in analysis undertaken. the Core Strategy Proposals Map, to iron out anomalies and ensure the lines are drawn around the main built-up areas of each settlement.

Swaffham Prior 3.2.19 A total of 11 people/organisations made comments on the draft Swaffham Prior Vision. .

Policy SWP 1: Housing allocation, land off Rogers Road Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Mike Carrington, Agree N ? The Rogers Road site already has houses on one side, so Support noted. School places are No change. Higher Education this development would not have a major impact. priority 2 on the Infrastructure and Concern regarding capacity to cope with increase in the community facilities table. number of school places required. Christine Carrington Agree N ? The Rogers Road site already has houses on one side, so Support noted. No change. this housing development would not have a major impact on the village. However, has following concerns: School places are priority 2 on the  Increase in the number of school places required and Infrastructure and community whether able to cope with the additional demand facilities table.  Higher density than locality, and more suited to a town location. In a village, should have decent-sized gardens with space to grow fruit and vegetables. The size of allocation has been Should increase the area of the site without calculated using an average density increasing the number of dwellings allowed, or, which is considered would be require provision of additional space (minimum 0.4 appropriate for the character of the hectares) for use as allotments by village residents locality. The policy requires an (perhaps adjacent to the High Street/Lower End element of open space to be provided boundary). on-site. Paul Catling Agree Y ? The development seems sensitive to the existing local See above response. No change. housing and not too dense. A slightly lower house count in 1 hectare with more public open space may be better. Alastair Everitt Agree Y Y I agree, however the original proposal was for "up to 20 Waiting for response from Parish TBC houses" not "approximately”. If it is changed to "up to" I Council to this proposal. am happy to agree. Otherwise I disagree. David Greenfield Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 344 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Alex Gray Disagree ? ? Support need for homes, but this location is too far from Comments noted. The County No change. village centre, on a narrow road which could be Highways Officer has not raised an dangerous with increased traffic. Concern about residents objection to the principle of the of the neighbouring properties. 20 units represents a development. Detailed design and 6.25% increase in unit volume for the village and 74% of access issues will be considered at the total estimated residential development (27) for the application stage. village over the next 19 years (excluding windfall sites). Results of public consultation showed Only 11 have been built in the last 11 years. support for additional small scale growth in the village. Policy SWP 2: Employment allocation, land east of Goodwin Farm, Heath Road Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Paul Catling Agree Y ? This development should be conditional on the field Section 106 agreements can only be No change. behind the development, to the north east, being given to used to secure benefits directly the community as a public space for use as the parish needed as a result of schemes. This thinks fit. does not normally extend to the provision of significant amounts of public open space from employment development. Other sources of funding would need to be secured to deliver this proposal. Alastair Everitt Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change.

David Greenfield Agree Y Y [No further comments made] Support noted. No change.

Mike Carrington, Disagree N N  The land should have a community use (park, nature There is an identified need for No change. Higher Education reserve), or affordable housing. However, if kept as additional employment space in the employment should be limited to B1 and possibly B8, area. Although brownfield sites are but not B2 as this is out of character with rest of preferential, there are limited sites village and immediate area. within the district, therefore some  Site is greenfield and valuable agricultural land. greenfield land will need to be  The Goodwin Farm site fits none of the criteria in the allocated. The site is considered to Locational Strategy (3.3.4). be suitable and deliverable, and  Development may be unviable due to infrastructure relatively close to the village. The needs. estimated jobs numbers are based on  Will need to be a large development to provide 116 average figures and are likely to be jobs (p34 of the Plan) but which will be in deliverable within the site. It is disagreement with the ‘small scale development’ cited acknowledged that not all the jobs will on page 13. be taken by Swaffham Prior residents

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 345 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

 Will not provide jobs for villagers, with 16% expected – workers may come from other to change jobs to work there. In reality workers from villages or elsewhere. outside the village will commute to the site.  If the site was successful it set precedent for further extension. Christine Carrington Disagree N ? As above. See response above. No change.

Mr Paul Christopher Disagree - - Questions need for commercial units as many vacant There is an identified need for No change. Northrop units locally. The site should be kept as agricultural. Also additional employment space in the object due to the visual impact, it would be visible from area. Although brownfield sites are Devils Dyke itself and from the well used footpath from preferential, there are limited sites the corner of Heath Rd/ Mill Hill across and onto Devils within the district, therefore some Dyke. Landscaping would not be able to disguise the greenfield land will need to be building. Also concerned about the employment type and allocated. The site is considered to noise concerns associated. be suitable and deliverable, and relatively close to the village. Landscaping and design are important issues, and are picked up in the second and third bullets of the policy. Design, layout and access details will be considered through the application process. Other Comments

Name / Page / Organisation & Summary of response ECDC response Action Policy ID Gen. Suffolk County Given the relatively small scale of development proposed, the county council has Support noted. No change. Council no comment to make on the Swaffham Prior Vision at this time. Infra. Christine Consideration should be given to helping the village obtain some new facilities The Infrastructure and Community No change. Carrington such as school places, recreation facilities, improved transport, but not at the Facilities section refers to a number of expense of ruining the atmosphere of the village by the addition of a large potential priorities. industrial site. Infra. David Identify some land behind the employment site on Heath Road for village facilities Section 106 agreements can only be No change. Greenfield e.g. Tennis Courts, Bowling Green, Petang Court. used to secure benefits directly needed as a result of schemes. This does not normally extend to the provision of significant amounts of public open space from employment development. Other sources of funding would need to be secured to deliver this proposal. Infra. Sian Improved pedestrian and cycle routes identified as priorities should be identified These potential schemes are No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 346 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Derbyshire, on a relevant Policy Map and an implementation strategy. community aspirations which provide National Trust a focus for any future funding to aid delivery. As they are not certainties it is not proposed to include them on the Policy Map. Infra. David HM Provide housing in areas near facilities. Existing residents reliant on car use, this Comments noted. No change. Philips will be an issue for the affordable units. Young residents priced out of the village, and previous affordable housing occupied by older people from outside the village, suggesting young people want to live near shops, leisure and other facilities. Infra. Andrew This area is outside the Swaffham Internal Drainage District but in an area that Comments noted. No change. Newton, The drains into the Board's surface water receiving system. Lack of capacity within Ely Group of Board’s surface water receiving system to accept additional surface water from Internal development. Developer will need to provide sufficient surface water Drainage accommodation prior to the development of this site to protect land and properties Boards from increased flood risk. This work will need to be undertaken at the expense of the developer and maintained by a competent authority.

Upware 3.2.20 A total of 1 organisation made comments on the draft Upware Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Ely Group of Internal This area is within the Littleport and Downham Internal Comments noted. No change. Drainage Boards Drainage District. As there is no development planned (Andrew Newton) over the life of the plan, the Board has no comment to make from a drainage point of view

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 347 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Wardy Hill 3.2.21 A total of 1 organisation made comments on the draft Wardy Hill Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Ely Group of Internal This area is within the Littleport and Downham Internal Comments noted. No change. Drainage Boards Drainage District. As there is no development planned (Andrew Newton) over the life of the plan, the Board has no comment to make from a drainage point of view

Wentworth 3.2.22 A total of 5 people/organisations made comments on the draft Wentworth Vision.

Policy WEN 1: Housing allocation, land opposite the Old Red Lion, Main Street Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Barry Woodbine Disagree N N The community consultation process was initially based Two stages of consultation were held in No change. on one vote for one household.However, the result did Wentworth – the first seeking views on not satisfy the parish council and they negotiated with the priorities and needs (July 2011), and local authority to hold a new vote with one vote per second seeking views on site options (in person of eligible age. The new consultation results May 2012 - following 80% support for favoured two sites in common ownership. One of the two growth from respondents to the first sites is presently used as a transport or builders yard questionnaire). Neither stages of operating without planning consent (reported to the ECDC consultation were restricted in any way to Enforcement Team). one per household – just one per person.

Concern about the fairness of the voting process. Despite All respondents provided names and prejudicial interests being declared voters were addresses – nearly all of the respondents canvassed personally for the benefit of the two sites now live in the parish. It is estimated there is to be adopted. A total of 116 people responded, but there a total population of about 190 people in are only 50 occupied houses - the vote appears to be the parish. over 100%. The turnout in Wentworth was exceptionally high. Of the individual voting papers 50 are identical and indicate a preference for the plots adopted. and against all others.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 348 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Adam Tuck, PlanSurv Disagree N N On behalf of our clients we disagree and object to Policy The consultation papers are considered No change. Ltd. WEN 1: to have provided sufficient information for  We question the validity of the Village Vision local people to make meaningful questionaire process. The site plan in the responses. questionnaire did not show the new village playground, which has extended the built up area of All respondents provided names and the village. addresses – nearly all of the respondents  The results of the questionnaire seem flawed – 116 live in the parish. It is estimated there is papers were returned but there are only 50 houses in a total population of about 190 people in the village. The return rate compared to other the parish. Respondents were able to parishes is very high. Wentworth sent a questionnaire complete either printed or on-line to all on the electoral roll, rather than each household. questionnaires, so the number of copies We believe a new a fair consultation and delivered to each household is not questionnaire process should be undertaken in the critical. village.  Relying on a Village Vision Questionnaire as the only A significant amount of technical work justification for planning policy is unsound. The Plan is has also underpinned the draft Vision. not positively prepared, and is not based on a The scale of growth proposed is modest strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed and not significantly out of the scale with development and infrastructure requirements. the size and sustainability of the village.  The site has a number of constraints and we is not The sites technical work and the developable or deliverable - especially with regard to Sustainability Appraisal process Highway and protected trees. indicated that the proposed allocation  The proposed allocations only provide for 4 dwellings, sites scored well. rather than the 5 dwellings identified in the consultation results. The estimated dwellings in the The County Council Highways Officer Vision will not come forward when the development has not objected in principle to the envelope is so tightly drawn round the village. proposed allocation. The District Council’s Trees Officer has confirmed REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION that development may be suitable subject to a full trees assessment, as set out in criteria 2 of the policy.

The results of the community questionnaire was majority support for ‘up to 5 dwellings’. Therefore the proposed allocations accord with this – and were supported by the Parish Council as representatives of the community.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 349 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Policy WEN 2: Housing allocation, land east of 1 Main Street Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Barry Woodbine Disagree N N The community consultation process was initially based Two stages of consultation were held in No change. on one vote for one household. However, the result did Wentworth – the first seeking views on not satisfy the parish council and they negotiated with the priorities and needs (July 2011), and local authority to hold a new vote with one vote per second seeking views on site options (in person of eligible age. The new consultation results May 2012 - following 80% support for favoured two sites in common ownership. One of the two growth from respondents to the first sites is presently used as a transport or builders yard questionnaire). Neither stages of operating without planning consent (reported to the ECDC consultation were restricted in any way to Enforcement Team). one per household – just one per person.

Concern about the fairness of the voting process. Despite All respondents provided names and prejudicial interests being declared voters were addresses – nearly all of the respondents canvassed personally for the benefit of the two sites now live in the parish. It is estimated there is to be adopted. A total of 116 people responded, but there a total population of about 190 people in are only 50 occupied houses - the vote appears to be the parish. over 100%. The turnout in Wentworth was exceptionally high. Of the individual voting papers 50 are identical and indicate a preference for the plots adopted. and against all others.

REQUEST TO APPEAT AT EXAMINATION Adam Tuck, PlanSurv Disagree N N We would generally support this proposed allocation, but The consultation papers are considered No change. Ltd. on behalf of our clients we disagree and object to Policy to have provided sufficient information for WEN 2. local people to make meaningful responses.  We question the validity of the Village Vision questionaire process. The site plan in the All respondents provided names and questionnaire did not show the new village addresses – nearly all of the respondents playground, which has extended the built up area of live in the parish. It is estimated there is the village. a total population of about 190 people in  The results of the questionnaire seem flawed – 116 the parish. Respondents were able to papers were returned but there are only 50 houses in complete either printed or on-line the village. The return rate compared to other questionnaires, so the number of copies parishes is very high. Wentworth sent a questionnaire delivered to each household is not to all on the electoral roll, rather than each household. critical. We believe a new a fair consultation and

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 350 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

questionnaire process should be undertaken in the A significant amount of technical work village. has also underpinned the draft Vision.  Relying on a Village Vision Questionnaire as the only The scale of growth proposed is modest justification for planning policy is unsound. The Plan is and not significantly out of the scale with not positively prepared, and is not based on a the size and sustainability of the village. strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed The sites technical work and the development and infrastructure requirements. Sustainability Appraisal process  The site has a number of constraints and we is not indicated that the proposed allocation developable or deliverable - especially with regard to sites scored well. The District Council Highway and protected trees. has weighed up all information in  The proposed allocations only provide for 4 dwellings, developing the draft Vision. rather than the 5 dwellings identified in the consultation results. The estimated dwellings in the The results of the community Vision will not come forward when the development questionnaire was majority support for envelope is so tightly drawn round the village. ‘up to 5 dwellings’. Therefore the proposed allocations accord with this – REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION and were supported by the Parish Council as representatives of the community. Other Comments

Name / Organisation Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID

Ian Smith, Smiths We object to the Village Vision for Wentworth for the reason that we do not The estimated supply of 13 dwellings is No change. Gore (on behalf of the understand how the estimated new dwelling supply (13 dwellings over the period taken from the Council’s housing Church 2012-2031) can be accommodated within the existing Development Envelope. trajectory. It includes 1 dwelling with Commissioners) Wentworth is a small attractive hamlet with protective policy designations. Suggested outstanding planning permission, 4 Amendment: if there is to be a supply of 13 dwellings in Wentworth then we believe dwellings on the allocations, and an that it will be necessary to define further site allocations, beyond the existing estimated 8 on small windfall sites (over Development Envelope to deliver this. 19 years). This rate is considered reasonable. The dwelling number is a broad estimate, and is included in the Wentworth Vision for information only. Ely Group of Internal This area is outside the Littleport and Downham Internal Drainage District but in an Comments noted. Surface water No change. Drainage Boards area that drains into the Board's surface water receiving system. The Board's drainage is picked up under Policy (Andrew Newton) surface water receiving system has no residual capacity to accept increased rates of GROWTH 3 and Policy ENV 8. surface water run-off in connection with new development proposals. The Board do not support or object to the proposal but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to development of this site to protect lands and properties within the District from increased flood risk. Work must be undertaken at the expense of the developer of the site and maintained in perpetuity by a competent authority. Please not that a consent is required direct from the Board to create any

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 351 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

new discharge into or increase the rate of flow in any watercourse or piped system within the District in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning process. Barry Woodbine The Village Vision concept is sound but the voting procedure seems flawed and the See ECDC response to comments made No change. results are therefore unreliable. Particularly in Wentworth where we have a potentially under WEN 1 and WEN 2 above. over 100% turnout compared to 8% more typically in the area.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Adam Tuck, PlanSurv The reliance of the District Council on a village vision questionnaire as the only See ECDC response to comments made No change. Ltd justification for planning policy is unsound. The Council should take on board the under WEN 1 and WEN 2 above. comments made and use its professional judgement as to the best way to achieve the aspirations of the village. It is perverse to list aspirational improvements to services The infrastructure list is intended to and facilities while offering no way in which to deliver these requirements. The two highlight local priorities and needs. At this proposed sites allocated for housing do not form part of the centre and are further stage it is not possible to identify all from the village when compared to other sites. They also have potential issues with sources of funding – but it is likely that protected trees and highway access so are not developable and deliverable. It has some may come from CIL/S.106 receipts been confirmed by the Enforcement Team that an unauthorised change of use has arising from new development. occurred at one of these site and if allocated the owner will be rewarded for a flagrant breach of planning control. The development boundary is so tightly drawn around the village that it will make it difficult to deliver further housing allocations within the settlement boundary. The reliance on unidentified infill plots adding to the housing stock is unsound.

Further residential allocations would provide Community Infrastructure Ley (CIL) payments and New Homes bonuses to the Council, providing funding for infrastructure. Up to 25% of the CIL payments could be passed to the Parish Council to achieve its desired improvements within the village. Development is the only means by which all of the aspirations for the village could hope to receive funding during the plan period and it is therefore short-sighted not to mention unsound to fail to allocate further land in Wentworth to secure this.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION

Westley Waterless 3.2.23 No responses were received on the draft Westley Waterless Village Vision.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 352 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Wicken 3.2.24 A total of 47 people/organisations made comments on the draft Wicken Vision.

Policy WIC 1: Housing allocation, land west of the Crescent Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Mr M K Agree I see no reason to disagree with this Plan, but i would not want to Support noted. No change. Bentick see any further development to the North-West along Stretham Road, to which i would disagree. S M Hall Agree Position of development is in good position for road access , Support noted. No change. access to existing services and is not too large or imposing . Michael Murfitt Agree The five houses here, plus the five at church road will allow Support noted. No change. population growth proportionate to the size of the village, without adding to the problems of lack of public transport and services. Larry Walker Agree [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Susan Wilson Agree ? ? [No further comments made] Support noted. No change.

Ellen Allvares Disagree N N Does not comply with NPPF Wicken is a small village with a number No change. of existing facilities and modest growth is proposed outside the development envelope to meet local needs, as supported by the Parish Council. The site located to the west of the Crescent scored well in the sites technical work, the Sustainability Appraisal and the community consultation. Michael Disagree N N Not area we need - wrong place Use brownfield sites in chapel Please see ECDC response above. No change. Ashton lane Joan Bailey Disagree N N Not at all - wrong place Does not comply with NPPF Please see ECDC response above. No change. Alistair Disagree N N Does not meet needs of Wicken or comply with NPPF Please see ECDC response above. No change. Borrowman Peter Bullman Disagree N N No don't agree as its not in village interest and not compliant. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Jannette Disagree N N Does not comply with policy or needs of Wicken. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Collins Charles Disagree N N Not what village needs - Does not meet policy requirements of Please see ECDC response above. No change. Darnell NPPF. Nigel Davis Disagree N N Promotes urban sprawl - out of village Does not comply with Please see ECDC response above. No change. NPPF Use of brownfield sites first

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 353 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Corin Doran Disagree N N Housing should be located on Hawe's Lane. All the housing in Wicken is a small village and modest No change. Wicken is built along the main road going through the village. growth is proposed outside the development envelope to meet local A shop would be a valuable asset for the village which should be needs, as supported by the Parish secured through a condition on the planning application. Council. The site located to the west of the Crescent scored well in the sites Currently there is inadequate parking provided on north street. technical work, the Sustainability Concerned about providing housing when there is insufficent Appraisal and the community transport links to local villages. consultation.

Provision should be made for social housing not just affordable Improvements to existing public transport housing. services is identified in the list of infrastructure and community facilities in the Wicken Vision. Eugene Disagree N N Not good position. Not compliant with policy. Wicken is a small village and modest No change. Giddon growth is proposed outside the development envelope to meet local needs, as supported by the Parish Council. The site located to the west of the Crescent scored well in the sites technical work, the Sustainability Appraisal and the community consultation.

Sonia Gray Disagree N N We do not need to make the main road any busier. It is becoming Wicken is a small village and modest No change. dangerous. People who need low cost housing need to be near growth is proposed outside the the workplace and public transport. Obviously any green issues development envelope to meet local are being conveniently forgotten by the council. needs, as supported by the Parish Council. The site located to the west of the Crescent scored well in the sites technical work, the Sustainability Appraisal and the community consultation.

The County Council has advised that suitable vehicular access can be provided to the site. Lisa Green Disagree N N No - use land in Chapel Lane. Knock down old buildings and tidy Wicken is a small village and modest No change. up area of brownfield. growth is proposed outside the development envelope to meet local needs, as supported by the Parish Council. The site located to the west of the Crescent scored well in the sites technical work, the Sustainability

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 354 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Appraisal and the community consultation. Dan Disagree N N No does not comply with NPPF policies. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Harrdingham REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Peter Howard Disagree N N Not right location does not meet needs of village. Please see ECDC response above. No change.

Christine Disagree N N Does not meet policy requirement Please see ECDC response above. No change. Howe Dr. Shelia Disagree N N Does not comply with NPPF Please see ECDC response above. No change. Ibrahim Roger Illsley Disagree N N Do not want linear development Use brownfield in Chapel Lane Please see ECDC response above. No change. Sally Illsley Disagree N N Do not develop greenfield sites Please see ECDC response above. No change. Martin Lester Disagree N N Does not comply with NPPF Dont use greenfield and use Please see ECDC response above. No change. brownfield first J Mann Disagree N N Does not meet objective, positively, prepared, justified or Please see ECDC response above. No change. effective needs of NPPF Angela Disagree N N Not compliant with NPPF Please see ECDC response above. No change. Matthew C Pickerell Disagree N N No - does not meet needs of village and does not comply with Please see ECDC response above. No change. NPPF. Steve Pope Disagree N N Does not comply national policy Please see ECDC response above. No change. Jonathan Disagree N N No ribbon development don't use greenfield Use brownfield as Please see ECDC response above. No change. Puller in Chapel Lane Lisa Sarll Disagree N N Does not meet with NPPF policy Please see ECDC response above. No change. Karoline Disagree N N The NPPF states 'encourage the effective use of land by reusing Please see ECDC response above. No change. Wilson land that has been previously developed 9brownfield land) (p6, 17) Land available chapel Lane (between 28 & 38) Emma Disagree N N Wrong place - urban sprawl - not use of brown field site. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Thomas Melvyn Wells Disagree N N Does not comply with NPPF. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Rory Disagree N N Not compliant with NPPF. All out of village - too far Please see ECDC response above. No change. Woodruffe Kelly Disagree N N Does not comply with NPPF Please see ECDC response above. No change. Woodroffe Sue Woodroffe Disagree N N Does not comply with NPPF Please see ECDC response above. No change. Adam Tuck, Disagree N N There are centrally and better located housing sites available The site located to the west of the No change. Plansurv Ltd which do not require direct access on to the A1123. Crescent scored well in the sites (on behalf of technical work, the Sustainability clients) The reliance of the District Council on a village vision Appraisal and the community questionnaire as the only justification for the inclusion of the two consultation. sites proposed for housing development is unsound. The Council should consider the comments made and use its professional

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 355 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

judgement as to how meet the aspirations of the village. The two proposed housing sites are not located within or close to the village centre when compared to other available sites. It is estimated that windfall development will continue to come forward in Wicken The proposed development boundary is so tightly drawn it may and the estimate of 11 dwellings over 19 make it difficult to deliver further housing within the settlement years is considered a reasonable boundary. The reliance on unidentified windfall sites is unsound. assumption.

The settlement boundary should be revised to include the land south of Chapel Lane/west of Drury Lane. The CIL payments received as a result of this development should be focused on improvements identified by the community.

REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Wendy I would like to ask why a small strip of land has been at the side It is agreed that this area of land should Proposed minor Gammon of the development. There is already access to the remaining be included in the housing allocation if it modification to farm land via Lode Lane. is not required to provide access to the Map 8.46 neighbouring farmland and that the (Wicken) to shape of the allocation should be include land amended accordingly to still provide an adjacent to area of approximately 0.2ha. allocation site up to field boundary and remove strip of land from rear of site. Policy WIC 2: Housing allocation, land south of Church Road Mr M K Agree [No further comments] Support noted. No change. Bentick S M Hall Agree Position of development is a very good position for road access. Support noted. No change. Access to infrastructure services good also as all services are in close proximity. proposed development shown not too large or imposing .view of development will blend in well with housing already nearby.development will have lovely outlook towards wicken fen. Michael Murfitt Agree The five houses here, plus the five at church road will allow Support noted. No change. population growth proportionate to the size of the village, without adding to the problems of Larry Walker Agree [No further comments made] Support noted. No change. Susan Wilson Agree ? ? [No further comments made] Support noted. No change.

Brian Avey Disagree N ? Concerned about loss of views, devaluing of property and It is proposed that the development of No change. potential surface water flooding from existing pipe which forms this site would be along the existing part dyke. frontage of Church Road. This should

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 356 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

limit the loss of existing views.

Sonia Gray Disagree N N Concerned that site has access issues, and will make the road The County Council as highways No change. more dangerous. The housing won’t be affordable housing for authority has advised that suitable people on low wages. vehicular access can be provided to the site. Ellen Allvares Disagree N N As WIC1. Wicken is a small village with some No change. modest facilities and modest growth is proposed outside the development envelope to meet local needs, as supported by the Parish Council. The site located to the south of Church Road scored well in the sites technical work, the Sustainability Appraisal and the community consultation. Joan Bailey Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Michael Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Ashton Alistair Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Borrowman Peter Bullman Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Jannette Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Collins Charles Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Darnell Nigel Davis Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Eugene Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Giddon Lisa Green Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Corin Doran Disagree N N Instead of expanding the village along a single road, why not look Please see ECDC response above. No change. at sites thatv are infill within the village.

There is also a need to consider the availability of public transport for young and older people given that only a limited dial a ride service is currently available. Dan Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Harrdingham Peter Howard Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Christine Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Howe Dr. Shelia Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Ibrahim Roger Illsley Disagree N N See WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 357 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Sally Illsley Disagree N N See WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Martin Lester Disagree N N See WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. J Mann Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Angela Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Matthew C Pickerell Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Steve Pope Disagree N N See WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Jonathan Disagree N N See WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Puller Lisa Sarll Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Karoline Disagree N N See (question) 5. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Wilson Emma Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Thomas Melvyn Wells Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Rory Disagree N N As WIC1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Woodruffe Kelly Disagree N N As WIC 1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Woodroffe Sue Woodroffe Disagree N N As WIC 1. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Adam Tuck, Disagree N N There are centrally and better located housing sites available The site south of Church Road scored No change. Plansurv Ltd which do not require direct access on to the A1123. well in the sites technical work, the (on behalf of Sustainability Appraisal and the clients) The proposed development boundary is so tightly drawn it may community consultation. make it difficult to deliver further housing within the settlement boundary. The reliance on unidentified windfall sites is unsound.

The reliance of the District Council on a village vision questionnaire as the only justification for the inclusion of the two It is estimated that windfall development sites proposed for housing development is unsound. will continue to come forward in Wicken and the estimate of 11 dwellings over 19 The settlement boundary should be revised to include the land years is considered a reasonable south of Chapel Lane/west of Drury Lane. The CIL payments assumption. received as a result of this development should be focused on improvements identified by the community.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 358 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Other Comments

Name / Page / Policy Organisation & Summary of response ECDC response Action ID General Michael Murfitt The Wicken Vision is well thought out and should be adopted as it will Support noted. No change. keep the character and special rural advantages of this village. This is particularly important now Wicken Fen, the mill, footpath and cycle paths are bringing many people into the village especially at weekends. Development Peter Day I object to the drawing of the development boundary envelope at the Land is open field rather than built up No change. Envelope bottom of my field in Chapel Lane The East Cambs District Local Plan area – so therefore the draft Vision 1st June 2000 and draft Wicken Vision Plan July 2012 shows the map indicates that the small area in development boundary envelope includes the bottom of my field. the north-west corner of the field (previously included in the development envelope) should be excluded. If the field is developed in the future, this frontage area is likely to provide the main vehicular access point. Housing Ellen Allvares Use brownfield sites in Chapel Lane. Wicken is a small village with some No change. existing facilities and modest growth is proposed outside the development envelope to meet local needs, as supported by the Parish Council. The proposed allocation sites scored well in the sites technical work, the Sustainability Appraisal and the community consultation. Housing Michael Ashton build off main road, use brownfield ground as in chapel lane Please see ECDC response above. No change.

Housing Joan Bailey Use brownfield site. Use land in Chapel Lane 29-38 Please see ECDC response above. No change.

Housing Alistair Use brownfield sites do not allow urban sprawl Use land between 20A- Please see ECDC response above. No change. Borrowman 38 Chapel Lane

Housing Peter Bullman Use brown field site as in Chapel Lane to comply with NPPF. Please see ECDC response above. No change.

Housing Jannette Yes other areas of Wicken are more suitable - ie land in Chapel Lane Please see ECDC response above. No change. Collins Housing Charles Yes use brownfield land in Chapel Lane 28-38 or none. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Darnell Housing Nigel Davis Use land in chapel lane - much more suitable and complies with NPPF Please see ECDC response above. No change.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 359 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Housing Corran Dorran Yes you should use brownfield sites in Chapel Lane first Please see ECDC response above. No change. Housing Eugene Yes you should use brown field sites in Chapel Lane first Please see ECDC response above. No change. Giddon Housing Lisa Green Use land in Chapel Lane. Don't make kids live near main road! Please see ECDC response above. No change. Housing Dan Use brown field sites in Chapel Lane - as your policy states! Please see ECDC response above. No change. Hardingham Housing Christine Howe Yes use brownfield sites in chapel Lane No urban sprawl Please see ECDC response above. No change. Housing Peter Howard Use brownfield sites in Chapel Lane where people can use open Please see ECDC response above. No change. space/recreation ground etc. Housing Dr. Sheila Use brownfield sites in chapel Lane. No urban sprawl Please see ECDC response above. No change. Ibrahim Housing Roger Illsley Yes listern to residents Use brownfield sites as in chapel lane Please see ECDC response above. No change. Housing Sally Illsley Yes allow more infill and use brownfield areas such as Chapel Lane Please see ECDC response above. No change. Housing Martin Lester Use brownfield in Chapel Lane first Please see ECDC response above. No change. Housing J Mann Comply with NPPF Use brownfield sites ie land between 28-38 Chapel Please see ECDC response above. No change. Lane Housing Gary Denley I would think that an alternative Social Housing Site would be better Please see ECDC response above. No change. provided closer to the village centre, The recent Social Housing Site at the junction of Stretham Road & Hawes Lane which i understand is planned to be extended could be sited at land known to be available adjacent to the intersection of Lower Road & Chapel Lane, this site would provide adequate space for 5 social houses and this would closer to the village centre than that previously mentioned. Housing C. Pickerill Use brown field site in Chapel Lane 28-38. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Housing Steve Pope Yes infill in chapel lane Please see ECDC response above. No change. Housing Angela Yes you develop brownfield sites as the national policy Please see ECDC response above. No change. Matthew Housing J Mann Comply with NPPF Use brownfield sites ie land between 28-38 Chapel Please see ECDC response above. No change. Lane Housing Lisa Sarll Yes use brown field sites in Chapel Lane first i.e. land between 28-38 Please see ECDC response above. No change. Chapel Lane. Housing Emma Thomas Use brown field sites in Chapel Lane and avoid urban sprawl. Please see ECDC response above. No change. Housing Melvyn Wells Prevent urban sprawl - don't make people live by noisy main road and Please see ECDC response above. No change. use brown field sites in Chapel Lane. Housing Susan Wilson Think this 'brownfield' proposal should relate to the former 'piggeries' at Please see ECDC response above. No change. 30 chapel Lane not to all the land between 28 and 38 Chapel Lane. Housing Kelly Yes develop brownfield sites near playing fields in chapel lane Please see ECDC response above. No change. Woodroffe Housing Jerry Use brownfield site in Chapel Lane first No urban sprawl Please see ECDC response above. No change. Woodroffe Housing Rory Yes develop where old houses/building are betwwen 28-38 Chapel Lane Please see ECDC response above. No change. Woodroffe

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 360 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Housing Sue Woodroffe Use brownfield sites as in chapel lane Dont develop near main road - Please see ECDC response above. No change. chapel lane is near sport facilities - playing field - children would not have to cross main road etc. Housing Mr & Mrs Roy Additional housing allocation for 2 new dwellings should be included Please see ECDC response above. No change. Wilson between 28 and 38 Chapel Lane.

This would enhance the immediate setting as it is not currently visually attractive.The potential new dwellings would benefit from a quieter location and be located closer to open space and village facilities.

The proposed site is not in a countryside location as it is surrounded by houses, businesses and sport/leisure facilities.

There is an opportunity to widen the footpath following the demolition of the existing houses which would be consistent with the priorities identified in the vision. Housing Susan Wilson Think this 'brownfield' proposal should relate to the former 'piggeries' at Please see ECDC response above. No change. 30 chapel Lane not to all the land between 28 and 38 Chapel Lane. Housing Karoline Looking at the village map, it seems not the obvious to develop the Please see ECDC response above. No change. Wilson village alongside the main road in ribbon style, away from the very few amenities we've got in the village eg pub & recreation ground. Why? Does the council own the land on the main road? Do people prefer to live on the main road or would they prefer to live in a safe & quieter side road? I am not against building on main road but other sites would be a good addition Housing Christine Instead of expanding the village along a single road, why not look at sites Wicken is a small village with some No change. Dorran thatv are infill within the village. A serious consideration has to transport existing facilities and modest growth links in the village. In order for the village to improve and flourish young is proposed outside the development people have to be incouraged to live in Wicken this could be achieved by envelope to meet local needs, as providing affordable social housing , improved facilities such as a shop supported by the Parish Council. The and transport links so that young people and older people can access proposed allocation sites scored well facilities in local villages. We in Wicken and Upware are at a in the sites technical work, the disadvantage from not having any transport links. Older people cannot Sustainability Appraisal and the get to local shops, banks, post office or doctors without a car. A dial a community consultation. ride bus is available at a cost and only on certain days. Young people cannot access local education without having a car. Improvements to existing public transport services is identified in the list of infrastructure and community facilities in the Wicken Vision. Housing Jonathan Should be able to build/Develop all areas WIC1 WIC2 and brownfield Wicken is a small village with some No change. Puller sites in Chapel Lane as more houses are needed. existing facilities and modest growth is proposed outside the development envelope to meet local needs, as supported by the Parish Council. The

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 361 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

proposed allocation sites scored well in the sites technical work, the Sustainability Appraisal and the community consultation.

The scale of proposed development (10 dwellings) at Wicken reflects the outcome of earlier community consultation. Infrastructure/ S M Hall Cycle path to Soham is a very nice idea. Support noted. No change. community facilities Infrastructure/co Adam Tuck, The vision identifies the desire of the community to see improvements The expectation is that the identified No change. mmunity Plansurv Ltd made to local broad band, pedestrian/cycle routes, play areas, the infrastructure and community facility facilities (on behalf of community/Village Hall, improvements to sports pitches and open space. improvements will be funded from a clients) However the vision does not identify how these aspirations will be variety of sources including that delivered or funded. provided by developers. The County Council and Government have also REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION recently provided funding to enable the development of superfast broadband within the County. It is not considered necessary to identify sources of funding for individual projects at this stage as this will require further discussion with other organisations and infrastructure providers including parish councils. Infrastructure/co Larry Walker It is not clear whether the list of priorities is in priority order or simply a list The list of infrastructure/ community No change. mmunity of identified improvements. If simply a priority list, recommend you facilities and the order in which these facilities make that clearer via a parenthetical statement stating not in priority are presented set Wicken Vision is order and possibly making them bullet vs numbered points. If in priority based upon the outcome of earlier order, my household believes that Reducing Speeding in the village community consultation. (especially the lorries who speed through the village creating noise, fumes and an unsafe environment) should be the first priority. Infrastructure/ Andrew Lack of capacity within Board’s surface water receiving system to accept Comments noted. It will be important No change. community Newton, The additional surface water from development. Developer will need to for any developer to address surface facilities Ely Group of provide sufficient surface water accommodation prior to the development water issues, as set out in Policy ENV Internal of this site to protect land and properties from increased flood risk.This 8 in Part 1 of the Plan. Drainage work will need to be undertaken at the expense of the developer and Boards maintained by a competent authority

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 362 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Wilburton 3.2.25 A total of 2 people/organisations made comments on the draft Wilburton Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Phil Rose, Agree Y Y The Stretham & Wilburton Community Land Trust would only support Support noted. No change. Foundation East development outside the village development envelope if it meets the criteria of Policy GROWTH 6 Ely Group of Internal This area is outside the Littleport and Downham Internal Drainage Comments noted. Surface No change. Drainage Boards District but in an area that drains into the Board's surface water water drainage is picked up (Andrew Newton) receiving system. The Board's surface water receiving system has under Policy GROWTH 3 and no residual capacity to accept increased rates of surface water run-off Policy ENV 8. in connection with new development proposals. The Board do not support or object to the proposal but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to development of this site to protect lands and properties within the District from increased flood risk. Work must be undertaken at the expense of the developer of the site and maintained in perpetuity by a competent authority. Please not that a consent is required direct from the Board to create any new discharge into or increase the rate of flow in any watercourse or piped system within the District in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning process.

Witcham 3.2.26 A total of 3 people/organisations made comments on the draft Witcham Vision.

Sound/ Name / Legally Agree/ Organisation & compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action Disagree ID S L Cllr Anna Bailey Witcham Parish Council asked for a Reference to Witcham Parish Proposed minor modification to supporting text to particular sentence along the lines ‘not Council’s views on the Witcham Vision, Housing Section (third support any development outside the development outside of the paragraph): development envelope...’ Witcham development to be added into their Village Vision envelope could be included in ‘Outside the development envelope, housing will which has been excluded from the draft the Witcham Vision. not normally be permitted – unless there are

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 363 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

version which is currently out to exceptional circumstances, such as essential consultation. Please also see response to dwellings for rural workers, or affordable housing. Policy HOU 4: Affordable Housing schemes outside the development This sentence should be included so that housing exception sites. envelope will be assessed against Policy decision makers think more carefully GROWTH 2 and other Local Plan policies as about development outside the appropriate. However it should be noted that development envelope and take the Witcham Parish Council does not support village’s policy into consideration. development coming forward outside the development envelope (as at May 2013).’’ Sue Bell, The Parish Council is deeply concerned Reference to Witcham Parish See Proposed Minor Modification above. Witcham Parish that the additional sentence which it Council’s views on Council previously requested be included under development outside of the the housing section has been omitted Witcham development from the Local Plan. envelope could be included in the Witcham Vision. The Parish Council wants the following sentence to be included: ‘'The Witcham Please also see response to Parish Council does not support any Policy HOU 4: Affordable development outside the development housing exception sites. envelope' to be included in the Local Plan. The Ely Group Lack of capacity within Board’s surface Comments noted. These No change. of Internal water receiving system to accept issues are picked up under Drainage Board additional surface water from Policy GROWTH 3 and Policy (Andrew development. Developer will need to ENV 8. Newton) provide sufficient surface water accommodation prior to the development of this site to protect land and properties from increased flood risk. This work will need to be undertaken at the expense of the developer and maintained by a competent authority.

Witchford 3.2.27 A total of 6 people/organisations made comments on the draft Witchford Vision.

Sound/ Legally Name / Organisation Agree/ compliant Summary of response ECDC response Action & ID Disagree S L Helen Phillips, RPS Disagree N Our client’s site at Witchford is brownfield and has previously Witchford is expected to take some No change. Planning (on behalf of been considered suitable for development (allocated in the modest growth over the Plan period,

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 364 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

Mr K. Wallis) 1988 Witchford Village Local Plan). Circumstances have not through windfall sites – but also through materially changed since this time and therefore the site is the development of a large site which still suitable for development. lies within the current development envelope (and previously owned by the The site has various merits and is suitable development – District Council). It is considered that details provided. Including direct access off Common Road this level of provision is reasonable, and proximity to services and facilities in Witchford. It is and should help towards meeting local therefore requested that the development envelope in this housing needs. The results of location be drawn so that it includes our client’s site, and that consultation with the Parish Council it be allocated for housing to help support local services and and local community indicated low facilities. levels of support for further growth on the edge of the village. Michael Hendry, Disagree N Y Retention of a settlement boundary for Witchford is The District Council is supportive of No change. PlanSurv Ltd (n welcomed, but it should be expanded to include Grey’s of Ely employment development and jobs behalf of Greys of site off Common Road and the units to the rear. This would growth in the district. Policies in the Ely) make the Vision sound, supporting growth within the local Employment chapter allow the economy. and provide the occupiers with greater certainty for expansion of existing firms and creation any future expansion. Site should also be allocated to of new ones in the countryside, to be provide certainty, and would demonstrate the Council’s assessed on a case by case basis. This support for this iconic business, established in 1946. flexibility is important for local businesses, and there is no need to REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION ‘allocate’ existing sites. The Local Plan also seeks to retain existing employment sites and protect their use (as set out in Policy EMP1) – and the exclusion of employment sites from development envelopes can also assist in this regard. Michael Hendry, Disagree N See comments above. See ECDC response above. No change. PlanSurv Ltd (on behalf of DR & AC REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION Grey Trust) Lee Bevans, L. Disagree N N My client owns land at 204 Main Street and to the side and Witchford is expected to take some No change. Bevans Associates rear. It is suitable for development. The site is not open modest growth over the Plan period, Architects (on behalf countryside as it is surrounded on 3 sides by built through windfall sites – but also through of a client) development. Suggest that it would be appropriate to join the the development of a large site which two separate parts of the development envelope and at least lies within the current development include my clients land. The site would help to provide envelope (and previously owned by the affordable housing and other benefits via CIL/S.106, and District Council). It is considered that help support community services. this level of provision is reasonable, and should help towards meeting local Parish Council has not looked closely enough at local housing needs. However, it should be housing needs in coming to their view. I do not believe the noted that the Local Development estimated 61 dwellings is sufficient to meet local demand or Scheme indicates that the Plan is likely

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 365 East Cambridgeshire District Council Draft Local Plan Consultation Summary of Representations

respond to the national shortage of housing. to be reviewed within 2 years – thereby providing a future opportunity to re- REQUEST TO APPEAR AT EXAMINATION consider the Witchford Vision. Ian Smith, Smiths We object to the Village Vision for Witchford for the reason The estimated supply of 61 dwellings is No change. Gore (on behalf of the that we do not understand how the estimated new dwelling taken from the Council’s housing Church supply (61 dwellings over the period 2012-2031) can be trajectory. It includes 22 dwellings on Commissioners) accommodated within the existing settlement boundary. committed/large potential sites, 16 While there may be some opportunities for small scale infill dwellings likely to come forward on a development we cannot see that there is capacity for 61 potential rural exception site, and an dwellings. estimated 23 on small windfall sites (over 19 years). This rate is considered reasonable given the size of the village. The dwelling number is a broad estimate, and is included in the Witchford Vision for information only. Ely Group of Internal This area is outside the Littleport and Downham Internal Comments noted. Surface water No change. Drainage Boards Drainage District but in an area that drains into the Board's drainage is picked up under Policy (Andrew Newton) surface water receiving system. The Board's surface water GROWTH 3 and Policy ENV 8. receiving system has no residual capacity to accept increased rates of surface water run-off in connection with new development proposals. The Board do not suppor or object to the proposal but require that the necessary surface water accommodation is put in place prior to development of this site to protect lands and properties within the District from increased flood risk. Work must be undertaken at the expense of the developer of the site and maintained in perpetuity by a competent authority. Please not that a consent is required direct from the Board to create any new discharge into or increase the rate of flow in any watercourse or piped system within the District in addition to any consent that may be obtained through the planning process.

Woodditton and Saxon Street 3.2.28 No responses were received on the draft Woodditton and Saxon Street Village Vision.

Agenda Item 9 – Appendix 1 – page 366