South Cambridgeshire Local Plan
Results of Consultation on the Proposed Submission Local Plan
Summary of representations and key issues
Published by South Cambridgeshire District Council
© Published March 2014
RESULTS OF CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSED SUBMISSION LOCAL PLAN
CONTENTS
1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Paragraph 1.1 – 1.2 ( Background to the plan, the evidence base and the consultation undertaken to prepare it) 2 Paragraphs 1.9 – 1.12 ( What the plan does and how it is prepared) 3 What happens next (Paragraph 1.15) 4 Paragraph 1.17 What comprises the Development Plan for South Cambridgeshire 5 Chapter 2: Spatial Strategy 5 Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.11: Introductory paragraphs 5 Paragraphs 2.12 and 2.13: Duty to Cooperate 6 Paragraphs 2.14 to 2.17: Joint Spatial Approach to Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire 7 Paragraphs 2.18 to 2.19: The Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire 8 Comparing the Development Strategy to 2031 with the Structure Plan (paragraphs 2.20 and 2.23) 8 S/1 Vision (and paragraphs 2.24 and 2.25) 9 S/2 Objectives of the Local Plan (and paragraph 2.26) 11 S/3 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development (and paragraph 2.27) 12 S/4: Cambridge Green Belt (and paragraphs 2.28 to 2.33) 15 S/5 Provision of New Jobs and Homes (and paragraphs 2.34 to 2.41) 19 S/6 The Development Strategy to 2031(and paragraphs 2.42 to 2.46 and Figure 1 Key Diagram for South Cambridgeshire and Figure 2 Key Diagram for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire) 22 S/7 Development Frameworks (and paragraphs 2.48 to 2.49) 25 S/8 Rural Centres (and paragraphs 2.51 to 2.54) 26 S/9 Minor Rural Centres (and paragraphs 2.55 to 2.57) 28 S/10 Group Villages (and paragraph 2.58) 29 S/11 Infill Villages (and paragraph 2.59) 31 S/12 Phasing, Delivery and Monitoring (and paragraphs 2.60 to 2.67 and Figure 3 Housing Trajectory) 32 Paragraphs 2.68 to 2.70 Monitoring and Figure 4 Monitoring Indicators 33 Chapter 3: Strategic Sites 33 Paragraphs 3.1 – 3.3: Introductory Paragraphs 33 SS/1 Orchard Park (paragraph 3.5) 34 SS/2 North West Cambridge - Land between Huntingdon Road and Histon Road (paragraphs 3.14, 3.16, 3.18, and 3.19) 36 SS/3 Cambridge East (paragraph 3.25) 37 SS/4 Cambridge Northern Fringe East and land surrounding the proposed
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Contents Page i
Cambridge Science Park Station (paragraphs 3.30 and 3.31) 39 Figure 5: Illustration of Major Development Areas at West Cambridge, NIAB, North West Cambridge and Orchard Park 39 SS/5 Waterbeach New Town (paragraphs 3.34, 3.35, 3.36, 3.37 and 3.39) 43 SS/6 New Village at Bourn Airfield 46 SS/7: Northstowe Extension (paragraph 3.49) 47 SS/8: Cambourne West (paragraphs 3.51, 3.55, 3.56, 3.60) 51 Chapter 4: Climate Change 51 Paragraphs 4.1 – 4.5: Introductory Paragraphs 51 CC/1 Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change (and paragraphs 4.6 - 4.12) 52 CC/2 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation (and paragraphs 4.13 – 4.15) 54 CC/3 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy in New Developments (and paragraphs 4.16 – 4.17) 56 CC/4 Sustainable Design and Construction (and paragraphs 4.18 – 4.21) 57 CC/5 Sustainable Show Homes (and paragraphs 4.22 – 4.23) 58 CC/6 Construction Methods (and paragraphs 4.24 – 4.26) 59 CC/7 Water Quality (and Paragraphs 4.27 to 4.30) 59 CC/8 Sustainable Drainage Systems (and Paragraphs 4.31 to 4.33) 60 CC/9 Managing Flood Risk (and Paragraphs 4.34 to 4.37) 63 Chapter 5: Delivering High Quality Places 63 HQ/1 Design Principles (and paragraphs 5.1 – 5.9) 64 HQ/2 Public Art and New Development (and paragraphs 5.10 - 5.13) 65 Chapter 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment 65 Key Facts ( and paragraphs 6.1- 6.4) 65 NH/1: Conservation Area and Green Separation at Longstanton (and paragraph 6.5) 66 NH/2 Protecting and enhancing Landscape Character (and paragraphs 6.6 - 6.11) 66 NH/3 Protecting Agricultural Land (and paragraphs 6.12 - 6.14) 67 NH/4 Biodiversity (and paragraphs 6.15 - 6.18) 68 NH/5 Sites of Biodiversity or Geological Importance (and paragraphs 6.19 – 6.26) 68 NH/6 Green Infrastructure (and paragraphs 6.27 - 6.31) 70 NH/7 Ancient Woodlands and Veteran Trees (and paragraph 6.32 – 6.33) 70 NH/8 Mitigating the Impact of Development in and adjoining the Green Belt (and paragraph 6.34 – 6.35 ) 71 NH/9 Redevelopment of Previously Developed Sites and Infilling in the Green Belt (and paragraph 6.36) 72 NH/10 Recreation in the Green Belt ( and paragraphs 6.37 – 6.38) 73 NH/11 Protected Village Amenity Areas 74 NH/12 Local Green Space 79 NH/13 Important Countryside Frontage 81 NH/14 Heritage Assets (and paragraphs 6.43 – 6.58) 83 NH/15 Heritage Assets and Adapting to Climate Change (and paragraphs 6.59 – 6.63) 85 Chapter 7: High Quality Homes 85 H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages (and paragraphs 7.5 and
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page ii Contents 7.6) (Excluding allocations H/1a to H/1h) 87 Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages Site reference H/1a Sawston, Dales Manor Business Park 90 Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages Site H1/b – Sawston, land north of Babraham Road (in Babraham Parish) 93 Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages Site H1/c – Sawston, land south of Babraham Road (part in Babraham Parish) 97 Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages Site H1/d – Histon & Impington, land north of Impington Lane 98 Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages Site H1/e – Melbourn, land off New Road and rear of Victoria Way 99 Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages Site H1/f – Gamlingay, Green End Industrial Estate 100 Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages Site H1/g – Willingham, land east of Rockmill End 101 Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages Site H1/h – Comberton, land at Bennell Farm (in Toft Parish) 102 H/2 Bayer CropScience Site, Hauxton 103 H/3 Papworth Everard West Central 103 H/4 Fen Drayton Former Land Settlement Association Estate 103 H/5 South of A1307, Linton 104 H/6 Residential Moorings 104 H/7 Housing Density 105 H/8 Housing Mix (paragraphs 7.26, 7.28 and 7.29) 106 H/9 Affordable Housing 107 H/10 Rural Exception Site Affordable Housing (paragraphs 7.36, 7.39) 108 H/11 Residential Space Standards for Market Housing (Figure 10: Residential Space Standards) 109 H/12 Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside 109 H/13 Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside 109 H/14 Countryside Dwellings of Exceptional Quality 110 H/15 Development of Residential Gardens 110 H/16 Re-use of Buildings in the Countryside for Residential Use 111 H/17: Working at Home 111 H/18 Dwellings to Support a Rural-based Enterprise 111 H/19 Provision for Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople (table of needs, paragraphs 7.61, 7.62 and 7.65) 112 H/20 Gypsy and Traveller Provision at New Communities (paragraphs 7.66, 7.67, 7.68, 7.69) 113 H/21 Proposals for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Sites on Unallocated Land Outside Development Frameworks (paragraphs 7.70 to 7.77) 114 H/22 Design of Gypsy and Traveller Sites, and Travelling Showpeople Sites (paragraphs 7.78.7.86, 7.87) 115 Chapter 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy 115 Paragraphs 8.1 to 8.11
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Contents Page iii
115 E/1 New Employment Provision near Cambridge – Cambridge Science Park (and paragraphs 8.12 to 8.14) 116 E/2 Fulbourn Road East (Fulbourn) (and paragraph 8.15 to 8.16) 117 E/3 Allocations for Class B1 Employment Uses (and paragraph 8.17) 117 E/4 Allocations for Class B1, B2 and B8 Employment Uses 117 E/5 Papworth Hospital (and paragraphs 8.18 to 8.22) 118 E/6 Imperial War Museum at Duxford (and paragraphs 8.23 to 8.24) 118 E/7 Fulbourn and Ida Darwin Hospitals (and paragraphs 8.25 to 8.36) 119 E/8 Mixed-use development in Histon & Impington Station Area (and paragraphs 8.37 to 8.43) 120 E/9 Promotion of Clusters (and paragraphs 8.44 to 8.48) 121 Local Development Order 121 E/10 Shared Social Spaces in Employment Areas (and paragraphs 8.49 to 8.50) 121 E/11 Large Scale Warehousing and Distribution Centres (and paragraph 8.51) 122 E/12 New Employment Development in Villages (and paragraph 8.52) 122 E/13 New Employment Development on the Edges of Villages (and paragraph 8.53) 123 E/14 Loss of Employment Land to Non Employment Uses (and paragraphs 8.54 and 8.55) 123 E/15 Established Employment Areas (and paragraphs 8.56 to 8.58) 124 E/16 Expansion of Existing Businesses in the Countryside (and paragraphs 8.59 to 8.60) 124 E/17 Conversion or Replacement of Rural Buildings for Employment (and paragraph 8.61) 125 E/18 Farm Diversification (and paragraphs 8.62 and 8.63) 125 E/19: Tourist Facilities and Visitor Attractions (and paragraphs 8.64 and 8.65) 126 E/20 Tourist Accommodation (and paragraph 8.66) 126 E/21 Retail Hierarchy (and paragraphs 8.67 to 8.70) 126 E/22 Applications for New Retail Development (and paragraphs 8.71 to 8.74) 127 E/23 Retailing in the Countryside (and paragraph 8.75) 129 Chapter 9: Promoting Successful Communities 129 Key facts and paragraph 9.1 – 9.3 129 SC/1 Allocation for Open Space (and paragraph 9.4 – 9.5) 132 SC/2 Health Impact Assessment (and paragraphs 9.6 – 9.8) 132 SC/3 Protection of Village Services and Facilities (and paragraph 9.9) 133 SC/4 Meeting Community Needs ( and paragraph 9.10 – 9.15) excludes paragraphs relating to sub-regional facilities including Community Stadium 135 Paragraph 9.16- 9.18 Consideration of Sub-regional facilities including Community Stadium and Sawston Stadium. 137 SC/5 Hospice Provision (and paragraph 9.19) 137 SC/6 Indoor Community Facilities (and paragraphs 9.20 – 9.22) 138 SC/7 Outdoor Play Space, Informal Open Space and New Developments (and paragraphs 9.23 – 9.30 including Figure 11) 139 SC/8 Open Space Standards (and paragraph 9.31 – 9.33) 139 SC/9 Protection of Existing Recreation Areas, Allotments and Community Orchards (and paragraph 9.34 – 9.37)
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page iv Contents 140 SC/10 Lighting Proposals (and paragraph 9.38 – 9.43) 141 SC/11 Noise Pollution (and paragraphs 9.44 – 9.53) 141 SC/12 Contaminated Land (and paragraphs 9.54 – 9.56) 142 SC/13 Air Quality (and paragraphs 9.57 - 9.62) 143 SC/14 Hazardous Installations (and paragraphs 9.63 -9.65 ) 143 SC/15 Odour and other fugitive emissions to air (and paragraphs 9.66 -9.69) 145 Chapter 10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure 145 Paragraphs 10.1 - 10.8 145 TI/1 Chesterton Rail Station and Interchange 145 TI/2 Planning for Sustainable Travel 147 TI/3 Parking Provision (paragraphs 10.23-10.25 and Figure 12) 148 TI/4 Rail Freight and Interchanges 148 TI/5 Aviation-Related Development Proposals 149 TI/6 Cambridge Airport Public Safety Zone 150 TI/7 Lord’s Bridge Radio Telescope 150 TI/8 Infrastructure and New Developments (and paragraph 10.36) 151 Paragraphs 10.45 & 10.46 Waste Infrastructure 152 TI/9 Education facilities 152 TI/10 Broadband 155 Appendix A Supporting Studies and Evidence Base & Appendix C – Glossary
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Contents Page v
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page vi Contents Chapter 1: Introduction
Paragraphs 1.1 – 1.2 Introductory paragraphs: The background to the plan, the evidence base and the consultation undertaken to prepare it
Proposed Total: 15 Submission Support: 5 Representations Object: 10 Received Main Issues Support Guilden Morden and Haslingfield Parish Councils support for the plan. Comments from previous consultations have been taken into account. Suffolk County Council supports the plan and seeks on-going co-operation to ensure that the A14 and A1307 remain safe and support growth throughout the region. Linton Parish Council comments that the SHLAA procedure was thorough and well argued.
Object
Consultation After Issues & Options 1 the Council announced that Bourn Airfield would not be pursued as a development site but would be consulted on purely for a stadium. Bourn Airfield was reintroduced into the Local Plan at the Proposed Submission stage without further consultation. This is undemocratic, unsound and possibly illegal. Changes made to documentation during consultation - led to confusion and brings into question whole process. Hastily prepared to meet government housing targets over-riding local views. Is there any evidence of changes made as a result of the first consultation? The consultation has little meaning as much of the plans is already a reality. Complete fullness and transparency should be maintained throughout this consultation period and during the period of presentation of the plan to the Inspector. Lack of liaison with transport planners, proposals to toll the A14 will increase traffic using the A428. The following definition must be made clear to the public in the new consultation period and before the plan is submitted
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
1: Introduction Page 1
to the Inspector: o The availability of previous minutes. o Newly emerging aspects of appendages to plan. o The 5 year land supply plan. o The meetings preceding this plan.
Evidence SHLAA and economic estimates are flawed.
Sites & Strategy Object to scale of development and lack of capacity of services and infrastructure. Method of selecting sites simply relies on developers putting forward ones they have options on and not providing homes where needed. Council failed to properly investigate suitability of other sites, in particular to South of Cambridge that would have been more sustainable and nearer the need. Council needs to address waste issues, and protect the countryside.
Decisions Council did not put final plan to committee, only portfolio holders decided, other councillors were issued with fait accompli that did not accord with views expressed in workshops that were not even open to public scrutiny.
Format The Wildlife Trust comments that the policies map contains too much information – separate into a number of themed proposals maps.
What the plan does and how it is prepared: (Paragraphs 1.9 – 1.12)
Proposed Total: 2 Submission Support: 2 Representations Object: 0 Received Main Issues Support The Wildlife Trust supports commitment to protect and enhance the natural environment. Oakington & Westwick Parish Council supports the Local Plan taking forward Parish Council proposals which do not conflict with the strategy.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 2 1: Introduction
What happens next (Paragraph 1.15)
Proposed Total: 16 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 16 Received Main Issues Object
Consultation Process The Council isn’t listening. Advance notice of proposals should have been posted to objector’s address. Exhibitions not held at times convenient for all, e.g. rail commuters. Poor availability of evidence documents.
Making representations Problems with the online consultation system. Difficulties logging into the online system – paper representation sent instead. Form is the same structure you used for previous consultations and was complained about at the time. Form is excessively long and complicated to convey simple messages. Questions are biased to receive the response you wish for self- justification. Form is clearly designed to discourage members of the public from submitting views different from your own. Consultation fails to conform to the "plain English" policy adopted by all local government organisations. Any comment from a member of the public has to be legally justified for their representation to be registered. Not qualified to comment whether the Local Plan has been lawfully prepared. Structure of your consultation prevents the free expression of views in that it expects comments paragraph by paragraph rather than by overall topic. No opportunity to respond to the plan as a whole in a single place. Authors of all representations will be made public, which is unreasonable in itself, and a threatening message in red is displayed each time a comment is made.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
1: Introduction Page 3
Paragraph 1.17 What comprises the Development Plan for South Cambridgeshire
Proposed Total: 1 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 1 Received Main Issues Object Cambridgeshire County Council seeks correction to references the date of adoption of its Minerals and Waste plans.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 4 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Spatial Strategy
Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.11: Introductory paragraphs
Proposed Total: 8 Submission Support: 2 Representations Object: 6 Received Main Issues Support Support for strategy.
Object Paragraph 2.8 indicates phase 1 of Northstowe has planning permission, but the S106 has yet to be signed so this is misleading. Enforce collaboration between South Cambs and Cambridge and actively work to save green belt areas. In the plan a completely unrealistic estimate of employment opportunities has been made. The vast majority of people who might live on Bourn Airfield site would be commuting into Cambridge NOT being employed locally. Evidence base on employment is flawed, need for new employment land on edge of Cambridge (Cambridge South).
Paragraphs 2.12 and 2.13: Duty to Cooperate
Proposed Total: 13 Submission Support: 1 Representations Object: 12 Received Main Issues Support North Hertfordshire District Council – No strategic issues requiring detailed discussion.
Object Central Bedfordshire Council – Raise potential unmet housing need in the area and the possible role for South Cambridgeshire in accommodating some of that need. Currently intend to meet Gypsy and Traveller need within district, but if cannot would seek to work collaboratively with adjoining districts. Hertfordshire County Council - Concerned that dialogue regarding transport issues has not taken place and therefore remains concerned about the potential implications of the Local Plan on the Hertfordshire transportation network. Bourn Parish Council - SCDC did not consult strategically
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
2: Spatial Strategy Page 5 with all relevant local authorities. Views of local people have been ignored. Papworth Saint Agnes Parish Meeting – Important to work with Huntingdonshire District Council, and other parts of subregion, particularly on transport measures. Memorandum of Understanding seeks to export Cambridge housing need to Peterborough, which is unsustainable. Not clear how the 2500 extra dwellings can be retrofitted into Peterborough’s plan. Unrealistic that they will deliver sufficient housing. Cooperation has not resulted in an effective joint strategy. South Cambs has used different employment forecasts from Cambridge City, which impacts significantly on the plan. Cambridge and South Cambs did not cooperate fully, as South Cambs have not explored all brownfield development opportunities. No evidence of cooperation on the A14 plans. SHMA shows no evidence of cooperation with cooperation with Bedford, Hertfordshire or Essex. Important to work with surrounding areas when assessing needs.
Paragraphs 2.14 to 2.17: Joint Spatial Approach to Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire
Proposed Total: 10 Submission Support: 1 Representations Object: 9 Received Main Issues Support Support policies which protect existing village frameworks.
Object There has not been joined up planning. Cambridge city sprawl is being exacerbated by the intention to build on Green Belt sites. There are other options e.g. Barrington Cement Works. Green Belt development should be the last resort. No reason given why edge of Cambridge is considered most sustainable. Development at West Cambourne and Bourne Airfield is completely unsustainable. Green Belt should not be the determinant of planning strategy. Cooperation should have lead to the most sustainable strategy. Does not address imbalance of homes and jobs in Cambridge. Transport strategy has been led by planning strategy rather than the other way round.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 6 2: Spatial Strategy A Sustainability Assessment of Harbourne (North of Cambourne) in comparison with Bourn Airfield has not been carried out, the SEA is therefore flawed.
Paragraphs 2.18 to 2.19: The Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire
Proposed Total: 17 Submission Support: 3 Representations Object: 14 Received Main Issues Support Cambridgeshire County Council - The development strategy set out in the Local Plans, with growth primarily focused on Cambridge, Waterbeach Barracks, West Cambourne and Bourn Airfield leads to more sustainable transport patterns overall than options with more dispersed growth across South Cambridgeshire. Highways Agency - The evidence reviewed to date gives some level of comfort and it is recognised that a lot of work has been undertaken to consider local and strategic transport impacts, as well as identify potential schemes that could address these impacts. Noted that there is currently a significant funding shortfall.
Object English Heritage – Transport infrastructure could be damaging to the historic environment. Status of the transport plan should be clarified. Should make commitment to consider impact on historic environment, and seek enhancement. Harlton Parish Council – Inadequate links in the plan to the transport plan. Transport strategy only published with the submission plan. Decision to build homes was made without a strategy in place. Only assesses the scope to mitigate transport implications of plan content. Does not assess scope to deliver good transport. Green Belt development exacerbates road problems in Cambridge. Edge of Cambridge sites have better transport options than Bourn Airfield, and result in better modal share of cycling and walking. Need more investment in Cycle lanes. Large funding gap for transport measures proposed. Evidence base in respect of highway and traffic impact is incomplete. No transport modelling of concentrating
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
2: Spatial Strategy Page 7 development on edge of Cambridge. Decisions taken in advance of testing the impacts of the strategy. Strategy fails to take account of existing transport infrastructure e.g. at Trumpington. No evidence to demonstrate Bourn Airfield is more sustainable than Cambourne North proposal.
Comparing the Development Strategy to 2031 with the Structure Plan (Paragraphs 2.20 and 2.23)
Proposed Total: 5 Submission Support: 2 Representations Object: 3 Received Main Issues Support Steady increase in homes in built up areas welcomed.
Object Not clear how much development is in Green Belt, or on Previously Developed Land. Tables illustrating comparison with structure plan double count the same urban extensions.
Policy S/1: Vision (and Paragraphs 2.24 and 2.25)
Proposed Total: 12 Submission Support: 7 Representations Object: 5 Received Main Issues Support North Hertfordshire District Council - overarching vision of your plan seems to be well considered. Environment Agency – Support vision of a green environment Natural England – Generally welcome this section. Important to balance demands of development with the quality of existing environment.
Object ‘continue to be the best place to live, work and study’ is a subjective statement. Growth can never be sustainable given planet of finite resources. Should not be trying to get more people to live here. Development strategy west of Cambridge conflicts with the vision. Plan will not provide sufficient support for high tech industries. Vision should refer to meeting the need for
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 8 2: Spatial Strategy development for continued economic and social success of district.
Policy S/2: Objectives of the Local Plan (and Paragraph 2.26)
Proposed Total: 116 Submission Support: 65 Representations Object: 51 Received Main Issues Support Environment Agency – Support objectives, particularly b. Natural England – Welcome policies which seek to ensure that development will protect and enhance the natural environment Sound objectives which will benefit current and future residents. New developments must take into account the community that is already in place.
Object Cambridgeshire County Council – Should reference meeting infrastructure needs of existing communities as well as new developments. Bourn Parish Council - SCDC has been inconsistent in its response to consultation feedback and has failed to capture local aspirations in the draft Local Plan. Fails to deliver the localism agenda. Objectives should highlight role of previously developed sites. Objectives not met by Bourn Airfield.
Objective A Support Supports South Cambs’ strengths.
Object Should reference making land available for these industries.
Objective B Support Wildlife Trust – support Built and natural heritage should be protected.
Object English Heritage – should reference the historic Environment. Protecting the Green Belt should have its own objective.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
2: Spatial Strategy Page 9 Local Plan does not protect the Green Belt. Should emphasise that development should enhance the character of the area. West Cambourne and Bourn airfield will not achieve this objective. Encouragement should be given to developing previously developed land.
Objective C Support Need affordable housing. Sustainability is the key word.
Object Will not be met as insufficient development is planned in villages. It unnecessarily constrains development in sustainable villages. Fails to consider inter-dependency between villages. Will not deliver sufficient sites in sustainable locations i.e. the edge of Cambridge. West Cambourne and Bourn airfield will not achieve this objective. Should refer to meeting identified housing requirements.
Objective D Support Support objective to deliver high quality. Object Should support the delivery of renewable energy Seek more variety of homes, more parking, larger gardens
Objective E Support Cambridgeshire County Council - the location of new development in relation to services and facilities is important in ensuring jobs and key services are available to all. Important. New development should not be built if it places a strain on facilities.
Object Cambridgeshire County Council – include libraries in list of facilities. RSPB – add word 'appropriate' before local open space and green infrastructure, accompanied by an explanation in the supporting text that open and green space should be appropriately planned to avoid indirect recreational disturbance impacts to sites of importance for nature
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 10 2: Spatial Strategy 9conservation. Should refer to existing development as well as new development. Should refer to pubs. Facilities in Cambourne are full.
Objective F Support An important consideration.
Object Add horse riding. Dispersal strategy of the plan will not meet this objective. Bourn Airfield and Cambourne have no public transport provision. Focus development where there are the best transport links. Employment sites in Cambourne have been removed.
Policy S/3: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development (and Paragraph 2.27)
Proposed Total: 30 Submission Support: 22 Representations Object: 8 Received Main Issues Support Support for sustainable development.
Object Bourn Parish Council - agrees that future development should focus on re-use of previously developed land in sustainable locations, where land is not of high environmental value, but needs to be clearer when brownfield site is predominantly farm land. Policy could be used as a lever for inappropriate development. Should clarify only applies when proposals conform to local plan and its objectives. Does not fully reflect NPPF paragraph 12, that applications for planning permission that conflict with an up-to-date plan should be refused. Policy adds additional caveats to NPPF paragraph 14 which should be deleted. It refers to "material considerations indicate otherwise" - not part of NPPF test. Two tests in NPPF will be "[taken] into account", suggesting importance will be downplayed. Policy should also include a commitment to approve planning applications without delay, so as to be consistent with proposed policy for the Cambridge Local Plan.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
2: Spatial Strategy Page 11 Development should always be sustainable. The wrong sites have been chosen in the plan.
Policy S/4: Cambridge Green Belt (and Paragraphs 2.28 to 2.33)
Proposed Total: 220 Submission Support: 70 Representations Object: 150 Received Main Issues Support Natural England – Welcome this policy. English Heritage - supports the commitment to ensuring that the setting and special character of Cambridge is protected. Harlton PC, Barton PC, Fulbourn PC – support for continuation of protection of the Green Belt. Fen Ditton PC – Green Belt in and around village should remain. Haslingfield PC - Should be no further encroachment into Green Belt to west of Hauxton Road on either side of M11. Oakington and Westwick PC – Green Belt land should not be used for development. Green belt land needs to be protected, important for character of the City and the economy. Should be no development in the Green Belt around Fen Ditton. Should be protected around Fulbourn. Support the retention in the Green Belt of the small parcel of land in Home End, Fulbourn. Development should only be in exceptional circumstances. Support conclusion that community stadium does not provide this exception at Trumpington Meadows. Support for the extension of the Green Belt between Waterbeach village and the New Town site.
Object Great Shelford PC – pleased that no sites identified around village, but policy should be strengthened to provide greater protection. Wildlife Trust – Object to lack of emphasis on enhancement of the Green Belt. Policy needs to be elaborated on to present a more positive context. Save the Cambridge Green Belt - No further development in the Green Belt. Petition of 2,242 signatures requests that both South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City Councils withdraw all sites in Green Belt proposed in the Plans. . Exceptional circumstances to review the Green Belt do not
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 12 2: Spatial Strategy exist because alternative sites are available. Plan will cause urban sprawl, merging villages with Cambridge. Make use of Brownfield before using Green Belt. Council has not searched for all available sites before proposing Green Belt development. The use of criteria based on quality or value against which to assess sites is not supported by the NPPF. No clear and compelling case presented as to why the Impington site has been selected for development. Further development between Huntingdon and Histon Roads will compromise separation to Girton. Use poor greenbelt between NIAB and the A14 to a much greater extent that proposed The purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt should be changed to accord with those in the NPPF: Choose the best sites to build new developments regardless of the green belt. Green Belt has been incorrectly treated as an absolute constraint. Insufficient evidence that impact on sustainability has been considered when reviewing the Green Belt. No Green Belt review carried out for the rural area. Review is needed if sustainability objectives are to be met, and critical supporting infrastructure to the city is to be delivered. Green Belt boundary in the plan will not offer permanence due to future development needs. A proper safeguarding assessment has not been undertaken. Safeguarded land should be available for development, and the airport is not. Cambridge Airport should be returned to the Green Belt. Can be reassessed if becomes available in the future. WATERBEACH – Objection to Proposed extension to Green Belt north of Bannold Road. Land does not contribute to Green Belt purposes. Barracks are already linked to village by built development. No mention of Green Belt at Issues and options, which identified sites with development potential.
Edge of Cambridge Green Belt strategic objection sites: CAMBRIDGE SOUTH – Development could take place without significant harm to the purpose of including land in the Green Belt. Hauxton Road, the M11 and the River Cam corridor would provide boundaries that will endure and be permanent. CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST – Review green belt to facilitate development.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
2: Spatial Strategy Page 13 LAND NORTH OF BARTON ROAD – Land previously released on edge of Cambridge equally sensitive in landscape terms. Remove from Green Belt and allocate for development. LAND TO SOUTH OF BARTON ROAD – Land previously released on edge of Cambridge equally sensitive in landscape terms. Remove from Green Belt and safeguard for development after 2031. LAND WEST OF HAUXTON ROAD, TRUMPINGTON - should be released from the Green Belt, and along with land at the Abbey Stadium, Newmarket Road (in Cambridge City Council’s area) be allocated to meet the need for new homes and sports facilities. Needed to deliver critical infrastructure identified in supporting studies. FEN DITTON - Land should be released from Green Belt to accommodate development.
Other Green Belt objection sites: BABRAHAM RESEARCH CAMPUS - capacity to deliver new specialist research and development floorspace at Babraham. Land should be removed from Green Belt. GIRTON – Girton College should be released from the Green Belt. GIRTON - South side of Huntingdon Rd – area no longer performs green belt functions (also seeking change to Development Framework). GIRTON - Land at Howes Close/Whitehouse Lane - should be released from the Green Belt and allocated to meet Anglia Ruskin's need for student residential accommodation. Can be development without significant impact on approach to City. GREAT ABINGTON - Former A11/A505 junction area – should be reviewed to correct historic anomaly. GREAT SHELFORD – Scotsdales – Does not warrant Green Belt status (also seeking change to Development Framework). HARSTON - Land at Royston Road – Green Belt does not follow natural boundaries. HARSTON - Harston south west area - bounded by River Rhee, Haslingfield Road / Church Street and Mill Road, infilling will not impact on Green Belt principles (also seeking change to Development Framework). HARSTON – North of Haslingfield Road – builders yard should be removed from Green Belt (also seeking change to Development Framework). HARSTON - Button End – existing development forms part of the village (also seeking change to Development Framework).
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 14 2: Spatial Strategy HORNINGSEA - Notcutts Garden Centre site – Does not warrant Green Belt status (also seeking change to Development Framework). LITTLE ABINGTON - land beside old A11 – Land does not perform Green Belt purposes. MILTON - Land East of A14 Milton Interchange - site does not significantly meet the key functions of the Green Belt. WHITTLESFORD - Wren Park – remove boundary anomaly. WHITTLESFORD – Syngenta – Remove employment area from Green Belt, and include as Established Employment Area.
Proposals also seeking Housing Allocation at policy H/1: FULBOURN - Land at Court Meadows House off Balsham Road (SHLAA 213) FULBOURN land off Home End (SHLAA 214) – circumstances have changed since site was designated as Green Belt. GREAT SHELFORD - Land south of Great Shelford Caravan and Camping Club, Cambridge Road (SHLAA 188) – Disagree with the Councils assessment. GREAT SHELFORD - Land east of Hinton Way, north of Mingle Lane (SHLAA 207) – Disagree with the Councils assessment. GREAT SHELFORD - Land off Cambridge Road (SHLAA 005). Studies have shown area could be removed from Green Belt. HARSTON - Land to the rear of 98 - 102 High Street (SHLAA 266) – Site not visible from the wider landscape. HISTON - Buxhall Farm (SHLAA 113) – Needed to accommodate development, SHLAA suggested site was not constrained. HISTON - Land to the West of 113 Cottenham Road (SHLAA 306) – development would not have adverse impact. HISTON - Boundary change north of Impington Lane (Policy H/1 D) – Councils alteration is illogical as it does not follow physical features. Should allocate a larger area.
Policy S/5: Provision of New Jobs and Homes (and Paragraphs 2.34 to 2.41)
Proposed Total: 85 Submission Support: 11 Representations Object: 74 Received Main Issues Support Cambridge City Council, Fenland District Council,
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
2: Spatial Strategy Page 15 St Edmundsbury Borough Council - welcome commitment to deliver 22,000 additional jobs and 19,000 new homes in the plan period, which is in line with the apportionment of homes across Cambridgeshire as agreed in the May 2013 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Memorandum of Co-operation. We desperately need more homes to increase supply and keep housing affordable. 19,000 homes is a MINIMUM. Support planning for the objectively assessed need.
Object Haslingfield Parish Council – Concerned that targets are overly large and based on previous growth rates. Petition of 2,242 signatures entitled Save the Cambridge Green Belt states that plans are based on out of date growth forecasts. Targets based on modelling are unreliable. Replace with a more flexible market-led approach that is attuned to local supply and demand. Over estimates jobs growth, and therefore housing need. Too much development for the area. Pressure on infrastructure. Targets should be based on meeting local needs, rather than focusing on provision of jobs which will bring even more people to the area. Should build more housing in other areas of the UK. There has been no sub-district analysis of where needs are based. Sites identified in the plan exceed the need identified, and make assumptions about need beyond 2031 that might prove to be totally inappropriate. Should not assume SHMA assessment should be the target. Lower levels of growth also have benefits. Should be clear how much affordable housing will be delivered. Not clear how much housing will be for older people.
Targets should be increased to bring forward new settlements more quickly. Target based on past trends of under-delivery. Considerable immediate need for affordable housing based on historic under-delivery. Has not used latest census data or data on migration. Fall in household size has been underestimated.
Housing need should be minimum of 21,500 to meet in full objectively assessed needs and affordable housing. o Existing target is a reduction compared to adopted target.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 16 2: Spatial Strategy o Approach agreed in Memorandum of Cooperation has not sought to tackle affordable housing needs of has ignored the findings of the SHMA. o The housing target will need to be increased above this level because there would be a shortfall of 7,300 dwellings arising from the Cambridge City Draft Local Plan 2014. o Does not meet NPPF requirements to boost supply of housing. o Has not used most up to date census information. o Has not taken account of market signals. o Occupancy rates not consistent with other authorities. o Age structure not properly addressed. o Ignored historic undersupply. o No account taken of student housing.
Housing needs should be minimum of 24,500: o Lack of AH exacerbated by backlog from 2004 Local Plan and Core Strategy. o Affordability ratio has risen significantly since 2001. Will not boost housing supply as required by NPPF. o Flaws in methodology for demographic projections. Larger household size than national average. o Affordable housing need is 62% of proposed housing requirement which is highly unlikely to meet AH needs in full. o Aging population not adequately addressed. o Fails to take account of market signals and strength of demand. o Appropriate use of SHMA questioned – updating chapters one at a time means no up to date and comprehensive conclusion that draws on full extent of SHMA taking all chapters together, including all homes being published before affordable housing needs so that objectively assessed needs not informed by up to date AH need. o Not adequately aligned with jobs requirements and likely to result in increased commuting from outside the district and could constrain growth n the local economy. o City Council not providing sufficient housing to meet its OAN and this will have implications for South Cambs housing strategy
Need for 19,100 dwellings in plan period for Cambridge, and 25,300 in South Cambridgeshire. o Would deliver the step change in development.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
2: Spatial Strategy Page 17 o Support growth potential in local economy.
Need to consider higher growth targets: o Does not make every effort or respond positively to wider opportunities for growth as required by NPPF. o Is 25% lower job creation than in 1991-2011. Should plan to meet the high growth scenario which would require higher housing growth. o City and South Cambs are together planning for 33,000 homes to support 44,000 jobs. Likely to lead to increased commuting, predominantly by car so increasing carbon emissions. o Projection methodology flawed based on projections of past trends that sought to restrict housing growth close to Cambridge and house prices have risen so that so called need is not a reflection of the real needs of the Cambridge area but simply a reflection of the restraint policies that put constraints above housing needs, contrary to the NPPF. Points to flaw in CCC’s population forecasting by being based on a given planned dwelling stock not housing need. Based on under delivery (shortfall of 4,087 from 2001-2011). o Affordable housing need of almost 12,000 leaves 7,000 to meet market needs which is unlikely to be sufficient to sustain economic performance and would be likely to drive prices higher and force more people into housing need
Housing target should be increased to 20,600 because of: o Acute affordability and high migration economic forecast. o South Cambs is the logical location for the 2000 shortfall from East Cambs and the target should therefore be 22,600. o Delivery of some of the sites proposed in Cambridge is uncertain.
Insufficient land allocated for employment. An additional 112,700 sq m of employment floor space on 31 ha of land is needed. This represents an additional 2,700 jobs. Employment land target will also fail to meet the specific need for high-tech manufacturing development.
The policy states that 'development will meet' the specified target, and paragraph 2.36 states that 'the number of jobs is a forecast and not a target to be met at all costs'. This inconsistency needs to be resolved.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 18 2: Spatial Strategy
Para 2.37 seems to indicate the tone for the strategy in which the housing figures of 19,000 are the upper limit of delivery, rather than a target which can be exceeded if there is a need. Should not be revised down.
Policy S/6: The Development Strategy to 2031 (and Paragraphs 2.42 to 2.46 and Figure 1 Key Diagram for South Cambridgeshire and Figure 2 Key Diagram for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire)
Proposed Total: 362 Submission Support: 230 Representations Object: 132 Received Main Issues Support Cambridge City Council - broadly supportive of the spatial strategy Cambridgeshire County Council - supports the employment related allocations on the edge of Cambridge and the new settlement proposals North Hertfordshire District Council – support as majority of development located away from south of district. Barrington Parish Council – Support for rejection of land at Barrington Quarry. Ickleton Parish Council, Harlton Parish Council, Barton Parish Council, Whittlesford Parish Council, Papworth Parish Council – Support development strategy. Elsworth Parish Council – Support rejection of North Cambourne proposal. Oakington and Westwick Parish Council – Support focus on new settlements. Support for retention of the development sequence. Support decision to rule out further large scale developments in the Green Belt, which would be harmful to Cambridge. New housing on edge of Cambridge is essential for public transport and cycling. Support housing in a few new settlements rather than many rural locations. Smaller villages do not have infrastructure to serve growth. New settlements offer opportunity to deliver sustainable infrastructure. Bourn airfield is an underused brownfield site. Waterbeach is well placed for further development. Support rejection of site north of A428 Cambourne (156 representations) Support rejection of Hanley Grange.
Object
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
2: Spatial Strategy Page 19 Barrington Parish Council – Plan does not support sustainability. Should cap scale of development at villages, do more to protect services and improve transport to villages. Bourn Parish Council - Fundamental problem with development strategy, it fails to align employment areas with housing areas. Has not considered potential of sustainable villages, so they can improve their local services. SHLAA took a passive role. Cambourne Parish Council, Caldecote Parish Council – Bourn Airfield and Cambourne West are unviable. Great Abington Parish Council – Unhappy at the focus on new communities, leaves Abingtons with no growth. Great Shelford Parish Council – Putting edge of Cambridge at the top of development sequence could add to pressure for Green Belt development. Horningsea Parish Council – Indirect impact from Waterbeach new town, including from traffic. Madingley Parish Council – A1303 already over capacity. Oakington and Westwick Parish Council – Policy should state brownfield land first. Teversham Parish Council - opposes the decision to carry forward the Cambridge East Area Action Plan and safeguard airport. Environment Agency – general support but need to fully resolve issues regarding wastewater treatment at Cambourne west. Wildlife Trust - further formal assessment of the Waterbeach New Town site is required to prove that this scale of development is achievable while still being able to retain significant areas for biodiversity. The Key Diagram has omitted to show some important ecological networks. Middle Level Commissioners – Concerned at extra flows to Uttons Drove waste water treatment works.
Question the need for the level of development. Will lead to urban sprawl with Cambridge merging with surrounding villages. Large scale of development already planned at Northstowe. Policy should include requirement to prioritise previously developed land. Sites identified until 2050, beyond the remit of the plan.
Remove Bourn Airfield / west Cambourne: o Insufficient road capacity on A428 corridor. Madingley Road upgrade inadequate. o Consider new guided busway.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 20 2: Spatial Strategy o Traffic in Cambourne and surrounding villages. o Impact on villages in A1198 corridor. o The area is overdeveloped / spread development elsewhere. o No funding available for infrastructure. o Expensive public transport. o Small housing developments in the countryside instead o Develop on edge of Cambridge instead. o People moved to Cambourne to be in a village. o Urban sprawl and loss of village character. o Lack of local employment. Employment land in employment allocated for housing. o A strip of new Green Belt is required to separate Bourn Airfield from Cambourne. o Bourn Airfield will end up as a satellite to Cambourne, reliant on its services. o Failed to consider development near southern employment areas. o SCDC has not sought to proactively identify and help bring forward any potentially more suitable and sustainable sites. Remove Waterbeach: o Transport impacts, particularly on A10. o Flood Risk o focus development on the barracks site and complete earlier in the plan period. Bourn Airfield should not be held back unfairly and 5 years later than Cambourne West. Waterbeach new town should be moved forward in the trajectory. Cumulative delivery impact as all three new settlements are north of Cambridge. Policy should differentiate between new town and new villages, as new villages only as sustainable as Rural Centres. Over reliance on a few large sites will lead to under delivery, particularly due to level of infrastructure required.
Insufficient regard has been given to the potential for further development on the edge of Cambridge due to greater weight being given to the protection of the Green Belt than wider sustainability considerations, in particular transport related. Should continue Structure Plan development sequence. Strategy reverts back to dispersal. Maintaining Cambridge as a compact city is unjustified as Cambridge has an important role in the UK economy.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
2: Spatial Strategy Page 21
Petition of 2,242 signatures calling for withdrawal of sites in the Green Belt. Edge of Cambridge Green Belt should be last resort rather than top of sequence. Exceptional circumstances for Green Belt review has not been demonstrated. Green Belt sites should be developed last, if they are needed at all.
Should have considered role of market towns around for meeting housing needs.
Should be more development at villages to meet local housing needs and utilise and support existing infrastructure. Villages should be allowed to choose to have additional growth. Planning no development will harm group and infill villages, making them homes for only richer people. Scale of restrictions on village development not flexible to allow development opportunities on Previously Developed Land to be taken. Should support growth of villages along the Guided Busway. Policy should state that building in villages will only happen if demand for new homes cannot be met through development on edge of Cambridge and new settlement sites.
Non- Edge of Cambridge proposals for new / alternative strategic sites: NORTHSTOWE - Land north and east of Northstowe. (SHLAA Site 274) LAND NORTH OF CAMBOURNE, Land north of A428, Cambourne (SHLAA Sites 194 & 265) LAND AT CAMBOURNE WEST (extend closer to Caxton Gibbet)
(Proposals for Strategic development on edge of Cambridge listed under S/4).
Policy S/7: Development Frameworks (and Paragraphs 2.48 to 2.49)
Proposed Total: 131 Submission Support: 55 (including 4 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 76 (including 4 from PC) Received
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 22 2: Spatial Strategy Main Issues Support The Wildlife Trust – Pleased recognition of need to protect and enhance features of local ecological importance. Bassingbourn PC – Support boundaries and rejection of 7 SHLAA sites. Bourn PC & – Fowlmere PC – Support. Papworth Everard PC – Strongly support retention to control and limit expansion of Minor Rural Centres and smaller villages. Barrington PC – Development on land at Barrington Quarry (Cemex proposal) would not be compatible with local character. Comberton PC – Support change (PC3) - white land outside Green Belt - logical regardless whether Bennell Farm is allocated. Fulbourn PC – Support Fulbourn development framework. (16) Little Gransden PC – Strongly support rejection of expansion. Unlikely to provide social housing. Infrastructure unsuitable. Vital to keep development cohesive and sustainable - protects communities (avoids isolation) & village / countryside character. Controls development whilst not restricting local growth. Small villages tend not to have infrastructure for large developments. Brownfield sites should not be considered just because they are brownfield – take account of effect on villages. Criterion 1a - Developments must be small enough to integrate into village community and effective provision of local services. Criterion 1c – Strongly agree – doctors, schools, roads. Criterion 2 – Vital to prevent ‘planning creep’. If no need to locate in countryside, should be in urban location for access and infrastructure as much as preservation. ‘Other uses’ vague.
Object Anglian Water – Include reference to drainage infrastructure. Cambridgeshire County Council – Support, but could impact being able to respond to demand for school places. Suggest change wording to permit key community infrastructure outside. Bourn PC – Strongly favour maintaining to ensure settlements don’t coalesce / lose character. Define “previously developed”. Great Abington PC – Approach leaves smaller villages with few development opportunities. Local need cannot be met on exception sites - allow minor amendments to meet needs. Ickleton PC – Rare occasions where flexibility would be welcome if proposal clearly backed by the parish council. Whaddon PC – Want to review boundaries to address future housing requirements without producing a Neighbourhood Plan. Approach taken is unduly restrictive. Not consistent with principle of support for sustainable development in NPPF. Some parishes would like frameworks changed where it would meet identified needs, of appropriate size and has local support. Should require brownfield first in accordance with NPPF.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
2: Spatial Strategy Page 23 Criterion 2 – At odds with NPPF & Policy H/10. Appropriate to develop outside for local housing need / more appropriate use for site. Can deliver / sustain new / improved services.
Objections proposing amendments to framework boundaries at: Barrington – Land west of Orwell Road Bassingbourn – Land north of Elbourn Way Caldecote - Land to the rear of 18-28 Highfields Road Caldecote – Mobile Home Park Comberton - Birdlines Manor Farm, South Street Cottenham - Land at the Junction, Long Drove and Beach Rd Croxton - Properties fronting Abbotsley Road and A428 Dry Drayton – Longwood Duxford - Rear of 8 Greenacres Eltisley - Caxton End Fowlmere - Land west of High Street Fowlmere - Land at Triangle Farm Fulbourn - Balsham Road and Home End Fulbourn - 36 Apthorpe Street Gamlingay – Land at Potton Road Girton - Southern side of Huntingdon Road Graveley – Toseland Road Great Abington - Land east of Great Abington & Land at Pampisford Road Great Shelford - Land south of Great Shelford Caravan and Camping Club, Cambridge Road Great Shelford - Land off Mingle Lane, Great Shelford Great Shelford - Scotsdales Garden Centre Guilden Morden - Land south of 33 Dubbs Knoll Road Hardwick - Land at Rectory Farm Harston - Land to the rear of 98 - 102 High Street Harston - North of Haslingfield Road Harston – Button End Harston – various amendments Histon and Impington - Land west of 113 Cottenham Road, Histon Histon and Impington – Land north of Impington Lane, Impington Horningsea - Garden Centre, High Street Ickleton – Land to rear of Old Vicarage, Butcher’s Hill Linton - Land adjacent to Paynes Meadow Litlington - Land at Longview, 1 Manor Farm Barns, Crockhall Lane Little Gransden - 84 Main Road Little Gransden - Land to rear of 4 Primrose Hill Little Gransden - Land at The Drift Little Gransden - South of Main Road (PC5)
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 24 2: Spatial Strategy Little Gransden - Bounding 6 Primrose Hill, (PC4) Longstanton - Melrose House Meldreth - Bury Farm, North End Meldreth - Land r/o 79 High Street Orwell - Volac International Pampisford - Land East of High Street Pampisford - London Road Papworth Everard - Land at The Ridgeway Sawston - Land to the rear of 41 Mill Lane Toft - Buildings adjacent to Meridian Court Waterbeach - Bannold Road Waterbeach - Land off Bannold Road / Bannold Drove Waterbeach - Land off Gibson Close Whittlesford - Ryecroft Paddock
Policy S/8: Rural Centres (and Paragraphs 2.51 to 2.54)
Proposed Total: 23 Submission Representations Cambourne: Support: 2 Object: 0 Received Cottenham: Support: 3 Object: 0 Great Shelford and Stapleford: Support: 1 Object: 0 Histon and Impington: Support: 2 Object: 2 Sawston: Support: 1 Object: 0
Other Issues: Support: 4 Object: 8 Main Issues Support Bourn Parish Council / Gamlingay Parish Council – Supports inclusion of these villages. Elsworth Parish Council - - Support existing approach to hierarchy development limits. Sawston - provides many key facilities making it an ideal village for building essential and long overdue housing. Cambourne – Support recognition Cambourne is a sustainable settlement. Cottenham – Local facilities employment, transport, large vibrant village with capacity for further expansion. Great Shelford – appropriately recognised as rural centre. Histon and Impington – Meets criteria and is correctly identified.
Object Anglian Water – Reference to infrastructure should include drainage infrastructure. Histon and Impington Parish Council - Policy should make clear that retail and commercial businesses serve a wider community than settlement itself. Should encourage small business premises. Developments should not be
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
2: Spatial Strategy Page 25 encouraged which will relocate employers away from rural centres. Cottenham, Great Shelford, Histon and Impington – too few sites in Rural Centres to meet housing needs. Should allocate additional sites. H/1 favours sites at Minor Rural Centres. Histon and Impington – Infrastructure cannot sustain additional development. Add to policy that delivery of infrastructure should be demonstrated in detail with the planning application.
Policy S/9: Minor Rural Centres (and Paragraphs 2.55 to 2.57)
Proposed Total: 298 Submission Representations Bar Hill: Support: 1 Object: 0 Received Bassingbourn: Support: 0 Object: 2 Comberton: Support: 1 Object: 21 Fulbourn: Support: 31 Object: 3 Gamlingay: Support: 2 Object: 1 Girton: Support: 0 Object: 8 (plus petition of 22 signatures) Melbourn: Support: 201 Object: 3 Papworth Everard: Support: 1 Object: 0 Waterbeach: Support: 0 Object: 1 Willingham: Support: 1 Object: 0
Other issues: Support 11 Object 10 Main Issues Support Bourn Parish Council – agree with selection of Minor Rural Centres Elsworth Parish Council - Support existing approach to hierarchy development limits. Fulbourn Parish Council – Support status as Minor Rural Centre. Gamlingay Parish Council – Support status as Minor Rural Centre. Papworth Everard Parish Council – Support status as Minor Rural Centre. Bar Hill – support for identification as a Rural Centre. Comberton – ideal for development. Fulbourn – Support for classification as Minor Rural Centre. Reflects availability of facilities. Melbourn – Support for Minor Rural Centre Status. Willingham – appropriately placed recognising services and facilities.
Object Bassingbourn cum Kneesworth Parish Council - The
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 26 2: Spatial Strategy assessment is heavily weighted towards villages having a Village College, in part because of the facilities provided for the wider community. Unlike other village colleges, Bassingbourn Village College provides only very limited facilities for the wider community. Surrounding villages look to Royston not Bassingbourn as their centre. Other factors do not provide an alternative justification. Comberton Parish Council - Comberton lacks comparable infrastructure (current/potential) to support a Minor Rural Centre classification but it does as a 'better served Group Village'. Reclassification is superfluous since no practical sites to support further development within village framework. Majority of residents support no significant changes. Girton Parish Council – Object to Minor Rural Centre status. Full-time Post Office now part-time. School at capacity. Infrastructure not available to support growth. Comberton – Does not compare favourably with Minor Rural Centres. Lacks infrastructure. Village College is in Toft. No mains gas. No A road. No Sunday buses, Drainage issues. One small shop. More people travelling to find work. Development would harm rural character. Development larger than 8 dwellings unsustainable. No practical sites. Better described as a Better Served Group Village. Should focus development on large brownfield sites. Fulbourn- object to downgrading of village. Has a good range of services and facilities. It is one of the largest and most sustainable villages in the South Cambridgeshire District. Good access to employment and education. There is no strategy to make the villages more sustainable. Sites rejected without consideration of affordable housing needs of village. Gamlingay – Fulfils criteria to be a Rural Centre. Girton – Object to minor rural centre status – does not perform a wider role as a service centre. GP not full time. Cashpoint is at garage. Not comparable with other villages. No scope for larger windfall development. Melbourn – objection to Minor Rural Centre Status. Waterbeach - should be reclassified as Rural Centre. sustainable settlement which is capable of accommodating new residential development.
Other Issues: Fulbourn – Object to further development in Fulbourn. Bassingbourn, Fulbourn, Gamlingay, Linton, Papworth Everard, Waterbeach – Too few sites allocated, not planning growth beyond existing commitments, will not
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
2: Spatial Strategy Page 27 meet affordable housing needs of villages. Should allow development adjoining frameworks, as they are tightly drawn development is currently unlikely. Thresholds are arbitrary. Should be based on ability to accommodate the individual development on its merits. Should not be specific limits on scale. Should support other issues e.g. accommodation for the elderly. Figures should be referred to as an indicative guide rather than a limit. Additional criteria should be added that larger developments are proposed Parish Councils should have to agree.
Policy S/10: Group Villages (and Paragraph 2.58)
Proposed Total: 73 Submission Representations Barrington: Support: 13 Object: 0 Received Duxford: Support: 1 Object: 1 Fen Ditton: Support: 0 Object: 1 Fowlmere: Support: 1 Object: 0 Foxton: Support: 1 Object: 0 Great Abington: Support: 0 Object: 1 Hardwick: Support: 0 Object: 2 Highfields Caldecote: Support: 0 Object: 1 Longstanton: Support: 0 Object: 1 Meldreth: Support: 1 Object: 0 Orwell: Support: 1 Object: 0 Over: Support: 0 Object: 2 Whittlesford: Support: 0 Object: 1
Other Issues: Support: 34 Object: 11 Main Issues Support Bourn Parish Council – agree with classification of Group villages. Elsworth Parish Council – Support maintaining numerical limits. Fowlmere Parish Council – Support policy. Small scale development will benefit villages, appropriate to this scale of community. Will protect character of small villages. Support recognition of slightly larger developments on brownfield sites.
Object Great Abington Parish Council – Does not allow growth that the community wants. We have excellent services. Exception sites should not be the only way to facilitate
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 28 2: Spatial Strategy development in Group villages like the Abingtons. (the Parish Council have proposed specific development sites, which are addressed in the Housing chapter) Duxford – Scores the same as a number of Minor Rural Centres. Access to employment and rail services. Little prospect of tackling affordable housing need if remains as Group village. Fen Ditton – Should be a Rural Centre. Close to the City. There is a lack of development at villages. Hardwick – Has existing facilities, and housing growth would provide additional facilities. Longstanton – fails to take into account recent development, the guided bus, and Northstowe. Over – Excellent range of services, short distance from the guided bus. Whittlesford – Restrictions mean affordable hosing need not being met. Good transport infrastructure. Village should be allowed to develop further.
Policy criteria: Barrington Parish Council – Support scale restriction, but object to lack of a cap on number of developments. Plan should specifically prevent housing development on Barrington Cement Works. Should be more flexibility in policies for villages. Barrington, Caldecote – Potential sites rejected. No assessment of capacity of villages to accommodate development. Will not meet affordable housing needs of village. Fails to ensure village needs will be met. Will cause village decline. Does not reflect presumption in favour of sustainable development. Could prevent efficient use of brownfield land. Placing an arbitrary limit on the permitted size of development is unnecessary and restrictive. Sites should be considered on their merits. Should allow development adjoining development frameworks where justified and without adverse impacts. Scale should only be an indicative guide. Direct conflict with NPPF, which acknowledges settlements in rural area often rely on each other for services and therefore do not individually contain a full range. Should recognise sustainable group villages like Fowlmere, and remove or increase development limits.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
2: Spatial Strategy Page 29 Policy S/11: Infill Villages (and Paragraph 2.59)
Proposed Total: 24 Submission Representations Babraham: Support: 1 Object: 0 Received Graveley: Support: 0 Object: 3 Heathfield: Support: 1 Object: 0 Ickleton: Support: 2 Object: 0 Kneesworth: Support: 1 Object: 2 Pampisford: Support: 0 Object: 1 Papworth St.Agnes: Support: 1 Object: 0 Wimpole: Support: 1 Object: 0
Other Issues: Support: 9 Object: 2 Main Issues Support Bassingbourn cum Kneesworth Parish Council – agree with infill status for Kneesworth. Bourn Parish Council – agree with characterisation of Infill villages. Elsworth Parish Council – Support maintaining numerical limits. Ickleton Parish Council – agree with infill status for Ickleton. Madingley Parish Council – Notes no proposed changes for the Parish. Papworth Saint Agnes Parish Meeting – agree with status of Papworth St.Agnes. Support for the Infill village policy.
Object Graveley Parish Council – Small scale development proposed, which warrants an exception to policy (the Parish Council have proposed specific development sites, which are addressed in the Housing chapter). Kneesworth – should be joined with Bassingbourn. Uses all Bassingbourn’s facilities. More sustainable than other infill villages. Would allow further development along the Causeway. Placing an arbitrary limit on the permitted size of development may be unnecessarily restrictive. Development framework boundaries around villages should be amended and the size of schemes reviewed so that housing and affordable housing needs in the Infill Villages can be met. Flexibility is lost in paragraph 2.59 which seems to suggest that development exceeding 8 dwellings will not be permitted. This is too prescriptive, inconsistent with Policy S/11 and unjustified.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 30 2: Spatial Strategy
Policy S/12: Phasing, Delivery and Monitoring (and Paragraphs 2.60 to 2.67 and Figure 3 Housing Trajectory)
Proposed Total: 64 Submission Support: 4 Representations Object: 60 Received Main Issues Support Natural England - Monitoring indicators to assess the effectiveness of Plan policies are welcomed. Support the need to delay Waterbeach to avoid adverse impact on delivery of Northstowe.
Object Homes and Communities Agency - supports the phasing of new settlements (e.g. Bourn Airfield and Waterbeach Barracks) as set out in Policy S/12. Is important to ensure the timely delivery of new settlements and the continuous supply of housing. Is also essential to the successful delivery and establishment of each new settlement. Policy should be amended to encourage and support the early delivery of Northstowe as the first priority as each new settlement must be afforded the time to properly establish itself as a place where people choose to live. Delivery of new settlements in parallel with each other would have the potential to overwhelm the housing market and could compromise the delivery of future phases of individual new settlements. Move forward trajectory of Waterbeach 1 year would mean no Green Belt development required. Move Waterbeach forward therefore no need for Bourn Airfield new village. Plan identifies far more housing than the identified need. Increase build rate of new settlements quicker to help deliver critical mass. Bourn Airfield should not be held back unfairly and 5 years later than Cambourne West. Waterbeach should be allowed to come forward 5 years earlier. Policy should prioritise delivery of Northstowe. Assumptions regarding delivery of new settlements are overoptimistic due to infrastructure requirements. Northstowe trajectory is over optimistic, and anticipated delivery rate is too high. Over reliance on a few large sites has contributed to shortfall. Proposed development strategy repeats this. No positive planning to rely on windfalls. Uncertain that
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
2: Spatial Strategy Page 31 supply will continue. Only based on most recent five year period. SCDC now seeks to control development on garden land. Contribution of windfalls could be higher than anticipated. If windfalls were counted as the City Council has done, there would be an over supply, and no need to allocate greenbelt sites like Impington Lane. South Cambs has a persistent record of under delivery. Economic downturn is no justification. Land supply buffer should be 20% rather than 5%. Need to allocate more sites of a variety of scales in a variety of locations. Action to bring forward previously developed land should be part of strategy, not a response to shortfalls. Trajectory shows not enough housing until 2021. Boost needed now.
Monitoring( Paragraphs 2.68 to 2.70 and Figure 4 Monitoring Indicators)
Proposed Total: 4 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 4 Received Main Issues Object English Heritage - include an indicator to monitor success in protecting, and where possible, enhancing the historic environment. Natural England - M20 should also consider changes in the condition of biodiversity sites. RSPB - monitoring the effects of the Plan on internationally designated sites should seek to confirm that the amount affected by development (directly or indirectly) is nil. Plan should seek independent assessment of large schemes to review their quality
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 32 2: Spatial Strategy Chapter 3: Strategic Sites
Paragraphs 3.1 – 3.3: Introductory Paragraphs
Proposed Total: 9 Submission Support: 3 Representations Object: 6 Received Main Issues Support Cambridgeshire County Council – Co-location of services is best / most cost-effective way to deliver community services - in community hubs in conjunction with other public and voluntary sector partners, whilst providing space for residents for meetings / activities. Importance of Rights of Way for health and well being of residents, informal recreation. Support rejection of North of Cambourne SHLAA sites 194 & 265.
Object Cambridgeshire County Council – Given the size of the proposed developments, reference should be made to Minerals and Waste Core Strategy policies that relate to recycling of construction materials and waste minimisation. Barratt & North West Cambridge Consortium – Bullet 2 should read “1,200 homes”. Request review of Green Belt to meet objectively assessed needs and deliver sustainable development – promoting North and South of Barton Road. Reference to Bourn Airfield should be deleted and reference to a new village north of Cambourne added. Object to these sites as not enough analysis of advantages and disadvantages, loss of Green Belt and lack of plans for public transport between Cambridge and other towns.
Policy SS/1 Orchard Park (paragraph 3.5)
Proposed Total: 12 Submission Support: 8 Representations Object: 4 Received Main Issues Support Cambridge City Council – Support section 3 concerning assessments of noise and air quality.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 33 Natural England – Support strategic sites policies - references to environmental and ecological issues. Support the provision of ecological features and open space in the development.
Object Cambridge City Council – Support the ongoing development of Orchard Park, but consider that the final sentence of paragraph 3.5 should not refer to a landmark building as this is often used to denote a building of significant height. English Heritage – Part 2c) and paragraph 3.5 refer to gateway features and a landmark building. The scale form and massing of such a building must be appropriate. The Local Centre should include a public house.
Policy SS/2: Land between Huntingdon Road and Histon Road (paragraphs 3.14, 3.16, 3.18, and 3.19)
Proposed Total: 38 Submission Support: 15 Representations Object: 23 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Received Main Issues Support Anglian Water – Capacity in the Water Recycling Centre, but some localised enhancement to network may be required to receive Foul Water. Natural England – Support strategic sites policies - references to environmental and ecological issues. The Wildlife Trust – Supports production of Countryside Enhancement Strategy which protects and provides ecological features. Must also consider connections to wider network. Support provision of opportunities for enhanced nature conservation and quiet enjoyment of natural environment. Welcome reduction in capacity of Darwin Green 2 to deliver more favourable environment at lower density and residential only on Darwin Green 3. Green fringe must be maintained. Support improved countryside access and informal recreation space. Management strategies should be applied to initial provision of facilities as well as long-term maintenance. Masterplan should be developed before piecemeal development granted. Support Darwin Green 3 delivering reduced densities. Bullet 11 – If Green Belt land released, must include comprehensive landscape enhancement scheme. Inter-connectivity of green areas for walking, links to amenities,
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 34 3: Strategic Sites leisure, and retention of „pocket parks‟ and trees. Support using green separation for walking, cycling, leisure, sports, play, „fit trails‟ for adults of variable abilities, bird watching and flood attenuation ponds, linked transport routes.
Object Anglian Water – Bullet 12 – for clarity, amend sub-title to „drainage‟ as it is not limited to surface water. Barratt and North West Cambridge Consortium (site promoters) – Support policy and allocation subject to changes to allocate a larger site including some commercial uses. Policy should allocate 1,200 homes in South Cambridgeshire. Cambridge City Council – Bullet 2b/para. 3.16 – Should refer to a design code rather than design guides/design codes. Important to be consistent with design code for NIAB1 – should be site-wide rather than separate, as implied. Bullet 5/para 3.18 – Refers to provision of off-site services and facilities within NIAB1 - needs further consideration as limited space in local centre and revenue funding implications for City Council. Bullet 13 – Support but concerned about air quality and noise on quality of life close to A14 – should be fully investigated / resolved. Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Object as Green Belt and not demonstrated „exceptional circumstances‟ for release. Defence Infrastructure Organisation – Falls within statutory height safeguarding zone around Cambridge Airport. Histon and Impington PC – Vulnerable to flooding and drainage issues – must not put village at risk. Use noise barriers that do not cause unacceptable noise levels / reflection. Eastern access too close to Arbury Road junction. Traffic predictions too low. Swavesey and District Bridleways Association – Horse rider needs should be included. Support that all „necessary‟ services and facilities will be provided by development but needs defining more precisely. Include statement that will consider provision across whole site and work in conjunction with Cambridge City Council. Bullet 5 - include public house. Develop more of the Green Belt here – poor quality and more sustainable for commuting by cycle etc. Takes pressure off rural hubs. Green Belt performs important function preventing City merging with surrounding villages – development compromises. Take into account cumulative development.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 35
Policy SS/3: Cambridge East (paragraph 3.25)
Proposed Total: 22 Submission Support: 9 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 13 (including 1 from PC) Received Main Issues Support Anglian Water - Capacity in the Water Recycling Centre, but some localised enhancement to network may be required to receive Foul Water. Cambridge City Council – Support the approach taken in policy SS/3 which complements the equivalent policy in the City Local Plan. Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Support safeguarding for future development. Teversham Green Corridor should be retained as Green Belt. Park and Ride should relocate east of Airport Way. If Park and Ride unsuitable for residential – possible site for stadium for CUFC. Cambridgeshire County Council – Likely to require measures to mitigate transport impacts – explore in detail through Transport Assessment. Marshall of Cambridge (site promoter) – Intend to bring forward North of Newmarket Road in plan period. Support safeguarding of remainder of site for longer-term. Figure 7 should show longer-term proposal to relocate Park and Ride. Natural England – Support strategic sites policies - references to environmental and ecological issues. Oakington and Westwick PC – Support policy.
Object Defence Infrastructure Organisation – Falls within statutory height safeguarding zone around Cambridge Airport. Ely Group of Internal Drainage Boards – Site outside IDB area but must be consulted (with Environment Agency) on surface water disposal proposals. Highways Agency – Policy should be amended to include requirement for assessment of A14 junctions 34 & 35 in Transport Assessment, to safeguard strategic road network. Oakington and Westwick PC – New policy needed to guide development of Land North of Newmarket Road. Teversham PC – Green Belt too narrow to perform functions - if Area Action Plan carried forward, should reduce size of SS/3(1) to provide larger gap with Teversham and remove southern section. Building up to Airport Way would have devastating impact on openness, character, urban sprawl.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 36 3: Strategic Sites Gazelle Way/Yarrow Way should be limit of development. Traffic noise from Airport Way greater than airport – measures needed to alleviate. Object to safeguarding land – not available for residential and uncertain availability in long-term - cannot be relied upon. No mention of community facilities - include public house. Land north of Newmarket Road: o Taken out of Green Belt on proviso airport relocated – should be put back as condition not met. o Roads cannot cope with extra traffic. Risk to pedestrian safety with rat running. o Infrastructure cannot cope – schools, nurseries. o Valuable agricultural land – actively farmed, should be protected. o Proximity to airport – previously rejected. Safety risk - adjacent to fire testing area. Land north of Cherry Hinton: o Valuable agricultural land. o Roads round Cherry Hinton cannot cope with more traffic. Regular congestion. o Too near Teversham, increasing risk of coalescence. o Too near airport – potentially hazardous area.
Policy SS/4: Cambridge Northern Fringe East and land surrounding the proposed Cambridge Science Park Station (paragraphs 3.30 and 3.31)
Proposed Total: 21 Submission Support: 8 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 13 (Including 1 from PC) Received Main Issues Support Anglian Water – Investment plan includes upgrades to water recycling centre by 2015 – provides capacity for growth to 2031. Should land become available, restrict uses to compatible, less sensitive development and not residential. Will advise on, but not fund, feasibility of works to reduce odour. Cambridge City Council – Working together to produce complementary policies. Welcome continued joint working on production of an Area Action Plan (AAP). As landowner, support. Working closely with other landowners / stakeholders on AAP – important to bring forward development in phased manner to meet demand, enhance new station area and ensure appropriate infrastructure is in place.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 37 Cambridgeshire County Council – Preparation of an Area Action Plan, in partnership, welcomed. Existing and proposed waste management and transport activities are essential infrastructure vital to sustainable development. Oakington and Westwick PC- Support policy SS/4. Support focus on high quality mixed-use employment-led development – appropriate given strategic location and function of site. Good fit with Waterbeach proposals in terms of balance of employment uses, availability of rail and bus- based public transport and additional labour new town offers. New station and interchange will provide strategic infrastructure to facilitate growth. Logical to maximise employment in the area. Small scale residential development in Fen Ditton could be linked through high quality public transport, cycleways to new station, and employment area.
Object Brookgate (site promoter) – Not consistent with NPPF or flexible to allow for changes in market conditions. No regard to necessary infrastructure or viability. Preparation of an AAP unnecessary and would slow delivery - agreed masterplan can guide development. Need a co-ordinated approach between City and SCDC. Seek inclusion of residential land uses. Cambridge Past, Present and Future - Crucial development for future of Cambridge – must be employment-led and could create major new business district. Option for proposed CUFC community stadium. Masterplan urgently needed. Eastern boundary should be extended across railway line to the river. Cambridgeshire County Council – Para 3.30 – last sentence should be deleted as ambiguous, it is not clear if it is suggesting any waste management or transport proposals need to be compatible with existing uses, or those yet to be proposed through Area Action Plan (AAP). Para 3.31 - proposals associated with aggregates railheads and ancillary uses cannot be made through AAP – must be addressed through County Council's Minerals and Waste Plan. Defence Infrastructure Organisation – Land for B1, B2 and B8 uses falls within statutory height safeguarding zone. Highways Agency – Appropriate to prepare Area Action Plan – include reference to involving Highways Agency to ensure safe and efficient operation of A14 safeguarded. Lafarge Tarmac - Minerals and waste related operations, rail sidings and land around station should be safeguarded to ensure current operations not impacted by proposals. Para 3.31 infers production of noise and dust from existing operations will be considered in terms of their long-term viability – viable operating area should be safeguarded.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 38 3: Strategic Sites Milton PC – Expect to be consulted on changes to A10/A14 junction - oppose loss of any recreation space. Infrastructure must be in place for any new development. The Wildlife Trust – Omits mention of biodiversity, ecology and/or green infrastructure. Planning application for station identified site‟s importance for biodiversity. Mitigation, compensation and enhancement needed. Masterplan urgently needed with flexibility to overcome problem of odour from waste treatment works. Extend Area Action Plan boundary - include land east of Milton interchange to help secure strategic highway improvements which may be needed to access site. No evidence site will be delivered given history of non-delivery resulting from viability issues relating to relocation of waste water treatment works, odour issues, number of landowners and relocation of existing uses. Complex brownfield site.
Figure 5: Illustration of Major Development Areas at West Cambridge, NIAB, North West Cambridge and Orchard Park
Proposed Total: 1 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 1 Received Main Issues Object Barratt and North West Cambridge Consortium – Amend „NIAB‟ to „Darwin Green‟; Darwin Green Primary School should be notated with yellow star; northern boundary should be amended to reflect proposed allocation; red line around City area of major change should be completed.
Policy SS/5 Waterbeach New Town (paragraphs 3.34, 3.35, 3.36, 3.37 and 3.39)
Proposed Total: 473 Submission Support: 42 Representations Object: 431 Received Main Issues Support The Farmland Museum and Denny Abbey – The Abbey and Museum provide an ideal place for community activities and events. RLW Estates / Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) (promoters) – Support the designation of Waterbeach New Town. This is consistent with the Cambridge focussed spatial
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 39 strategy and will enable housing delivery through the plan period and beyond. The project has significant sustainability advantages being partly PDL, located close to Cambridge, not in the Green Belt and with excellent opportunities for public and other non-car transport accessibility. The New Town proposal has significant advantages over the other options consulted on including the small new town, and the barracks only options. Development would provide a secure long-term future for the MOD landholding to secure new homes and jobs. Cambridge Past, Present and Future - Support as a way of preserving the Cambridge Green Belt subject to dualling of the A10 with a bus lane to south, new railway station with good services to Cambridge and Science Park and a dedicated cycle route. Cambridgeshire County Council – Support subject to mitigation of transport impacts requiring some or all of the following : *A relocated Waterbeach station to serve the village and the new town, with platforms (capable of taking 12-carriage trains or 10- carriage InterCity Express trains. *A busway link from the station and town centre to north Cambridge including a fully segregated crossing of the A14 Trunk Road. *A Park & Ride site on the A10 to intercept traffic from the north of Waterbeach, served by the new busway link to Cambridge. *Direct, segregated high quality pedestrian and cycle links to north Cambridge including to Cambridge Science Park, to Milton, Cottenham, Histon and Impington, Landbeach, Horningsea, Fen Ditton, Chittering, Stretham and the Cambridge Research Park. *Additional capacity for general traffic between the northernmost access to the new town and the Milton Interchange of the A10 with the A14 Trunk Road. *Additional capacity at the Milton Interchange for movements between the A10 and A14, and the A14 and the A10. *Delivery or funding of any measures required to mitigate the traffic impact of the new town on Horningsea, Fen Ditton, Milton and Landbeach. *A Smarter Choices package including residential, school and workplace travel planning. Natural England - Support references to environmental issues in the policy. Oakington and Westwick PC – support. A large setting for Denny Abbey and Farmland Museum must be protected. Community facilities should be provided on a multi-use basis and be funded by the developer. The Bannold Road „gap‟ must be protected as Green Belt. The Station must be easily accessible for village residents without needing a trip on the A10 as must the facilities and services of the new town.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 40 3: Strategic Sites
Object A high number of largely identical representations have been submitted as part of a local campaign opposed to the new town giving the following reasons: Objections concerning the railway station. Moving the railway station is unnecessary and a mistake. It is too far away to walk, and will generate extra traffic in the village and on the A10. Any new station needs good road access, car parking and lighting. Build a second station and keep the existing one open. Objections concerning the A10 and A14. Local roads are already inadequate and congested. It is not possible to widen them or provide bus lanes. Alternative routes would be harmful to the environment of Landbeach. Traffic on the roads already results in noise and pollution to Milton, these impacts need to be mitigated. Will worsen air quality. Traffic will increase in Waterbeach, need to avoid creating a rat run through the village. Objections concerning viability. The development will not be able to fund all the required infrastructure and remain viable. Objections concerning flood risk. Avoid building below the 5m contour. Will increase water runoff. Objections concerning employment. Inadequate provision for local employment. Will be a commuter town for Cambridge and London. Objections concerning impacts on the existing village. The new town will dominate the existing village, the proposed separation measures will not work and are at risk of housing development. Landscape impacts. Biodiversity impacts. Local shops will close. Loss of agricultural land.
Other objections: RLW Estates and DIO (promoters) – Setting study shows development boundary can be slightly larger without harm to Denny Abbey. Increase capacity to 9,000 to 10,000 homes. Allow earlier start and 3,500 in plan period Milton PC – Will oppose any loss of local recreation space to improve the A10 and the A10/A14 junction. The Farmland Museum and Denny Abbey - The policy needs to mention the Farmland Museum and recognise that access to some areas may need to be restricted. The old causeway track from the village to the Abbey should be used to
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 41 allow access by bicycle and on foot. A better road access to the Abbey and Museum is required and a new and bigger car park. The Wildlife Trust – Too large a scale of development to commit to before formal assessment of whether it can be accommodated without harm to ecology and biodiversity. The National Trust - Policy should refer to the need to maximise the aims of the strategic green infrastructure allocation of the Wicken Vision. This should be explored in the AAP in consultation with the National Trust and other stakeholders. Cambridgeshire County Council – Plan should ensure proper use of any excavated sand and gravel. Criteria h) should refer to a library. Secondary school capacity must be able to accommodate pupils from the existing village. Policy should refer to early years and post-16 provision. Operation of existing waste facility in area must not be compromised. Environment Agency – Support allocation and phasing. However a flood risk assessment is needed of residual risks if flood defences on the River Cam fail. If defences are relied on the development should contribute to their upkeep. English Heritage – The setting and significance of Denny Abbey must not be harmed. Any impacts on significance must be mitigated. A setting study is required. Policy must require archaeological evaluation of the site. Under p) add reference to WW2 structures. Landbeach PC – Concerns about viability, transport, Denny Abbey, agricultural land, contamination, landscape impacts, village impacts, station and flooding. Anglian Water – Policy should refer to a foul drainage strategy. Ely Group of IDB – A robust strategy for disposal of surface water is required. Objections supporting a smaller scale of development. Rather than a large development allow a smaller scale of development on the barracks over the next few years to help support local shops and services that have suffered since the barracks closed. Develop the brownfield land first. Objections concerning the adequacy of public transport. Public transport will not be able to cope so people will continue to use cars. Development will also impact Landbeach and Milton. No mention of needs of horse riders. No mention of River Cam and need to provide good links to it for benefit of the new town residents. Objections concerning impact on Denny Abbey.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 42 3: Strategic Sites Barracks and airfield are contaminated and should not be allocated until level of contamination and costs/timescale of mitigation are understood. Needs extra land outside of site boundary. Site should be developed more quickly. Site should not have been identified for development ahead of sites on the edge of Cambridge.
Policy SS/6: New village at Bourn Airfield
Proposed Total: 1839 Submission Support: 22 Representations Object: 1817 Received Main Issues Support Swavesey PC – Support statements regarding foul drainage and sewage disposal. Increased flood risk to Swavesey must be avoided. Cambridgeshire County Council – Support subject to significant measures to mitigate transport impacts. Cambridge Past Present and Future – Support subject to landscaping and public transport improvements. Natural England - Support references to environmental issues in the policy. The Taylor Family and Countryside Properties (the promoters) – The site is deliverable and viable, as demonstrated by their concept masterplan. Bourn Airfield will not give rise to any significant landscape and visual impacts and will enhance landscape character, restoring lost landscape features. Brownfield land, will bring infrastructure improvements, better public transport, much needed housing, and better services and facilities.
Object StopBAD - Planning applications have been previously considered and rejected - grounds are still valid. Insufficient local employment. Major employment centres are located in Cambridge and to north and south. Limited transport links. Site is too small to accommodate 3,500 houses at density compatible with Council policies. Bourn Airfield together with West Cambourne would create a urban swathe of development stretching nearly 5 miles along A428. Preparation of the Local Plan deviated from Government good practice for SHLAA. Plan has not given sufficient weight to NPPF sustainability
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 43 requirements.
A high number of largely identical representations have been submitted as part of a local campaign opposed to the new village giving the following reasons: o Plan will effectively create a town by stealth by coalescing villages together- new town will stretch from West Cambourne to Hardwick. o Bourn Airfield and West Cambourne developments will create new traffic that local infrastructure can't support. o Plan proposes too many houses in small space, which will inevitability compromise aspects such as community facilities and separation from existing settlements, and result in higher densities. o Plan is unsustainable- lack of local employment opportunities and sustainable transport links. o Consultation carried out by the Council was flawed. The opinions of local people have not been listened to, and the plans presented were misleading/ incorrect.
North Hertfordshire District Council – Could have traffic impacts at Royston from commuters using the train station. The Wildlife Trust - Point m. should read "Provide a high degree of connectivity to existing corridors and ecological networks." Cambridgeshire County Council – A Household Waste Recycling Centre is needed in the BA/Cambourne area. Reference to library provision needed. Policy references to secondary education are positive, but it is critical that there is sufficient flexibility within the planning of this to ensure that the new school compliments existing secondary school provision in the local area. Policy should refer to all phases of education provision. Environment Agency – Allocation mostly justified, but a surface water attenuation strategy is needed. Anglian Water - Policy should refer to a foul drainage strategy. English Heritage - English Heritage has no objection in principle to this proposal. However, we would wish to see provision made for archaeological evaluation. Parish Council objections from Bourn, Caldecote, Cambourne, Caxton, Elsworth, Hardwick, Toft, Madingley, Kingston – Concerns regarding traffic, flooding, impacts on surrounding villages and rural character, creation of ribbon development, pressure on services, too close to Cambourne to provide a viable centre, relies on delivery of infrastructure and past experience has shown it Is not always delivered, significant costs may make it unviable, relies on west
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 44 3: Strategic Sites Cambourne to support and enable development, not enough space to deliver housing and openspace, flawed consultation, poor access to railway at St Neots, no reference made to site governance, better alternatives have not been explored. Barton PC – Support all housing proposals. Better link to the M11 required. Great and Little Eversden PC – Should not be considered until Northstowe fully developed. The Taylor Family and Countryside properties (Promoters) – An AAP is not needed, a Supplementary Planning Document would be sufficient. No Major Development Area should be defined by the Local Plan. A north west access using the Broadway can be achieved with careful design. Gestamp–Tallent (Owner of part of employment area on site) - Support inclusion of site as employment allocation; enable redevelopment to modern standards. Should not be restricted to B1 uses; approach in keeping with policy E/12, which provides for B1, B2 and B8 uses in scale with location. Recognise role in providing employment for new village and integration with new village and associated green separation proposals can be considered through Area Action Plan process. Site also has shorter term role in providing employment opportunities to meet district requirements and support local economy generally and can be developed successfully independently. Development of site should not be delayed or phased to follow proposed phasing of the Major Development Area. MCA Developments (Cambourne developer) – No vehicular access including for public transport possible from Cambourne to the Broadway and Bourn Airfield. Unsustainable and not viable. Ribbon development, landscape impacts. Martin Grant Homes and Harcourt Developments – Development north of the A428 (Harbourne) should be preferred. Road improvements required as well as public transport improvements. Public transport proposals inadequate. New rail link required or guided bus link. Air quality impacts. Growth at St Neots also affects the route to Cambridge. A428 to St Neots is already inadequate and at capacity. Too far to cycle to Cambridge. Rat running through villages. Impossible to put a bus lane in on the A1303 due to houses and the American Cemetery. Include a bus link pass just to the north of Caldecote to serve that village better. Objections concerning flood risk. Bourn WWTW should not be expanded.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 45 Objections concerning landscape impacts. Village separation will not be effective. Impact on the Broadway. Loss of biodiversity and nature. Objections concerning impacts on surrounding villages Destruction of archaeology Inadequate provision for schools and other services. Must include a new supermarket. Will impact on Cambourne Put the development at Northstowe, Waterbeach, Hanley Grange, on edge of Cambridge, at Six Mile Bottom, at existing villages. Too much development in Cambourne area over last 15 years. Develop the airfield for employment use. Loss of agricultural land Add references to making provision for horse riders to the policy at sections m, v and w Loss of an airfield and associated use. Historic airfield. Petition with 99 signatures. Noisy industry on site will reduce residential area and capacity A north west access must affect the Broadway P&R site will reduce housing capacity No provision of affordable housing for local people Site has been considered for development in the past and rejected.
Policy SS/7: Northstowe Extension (paragraph 3.49)
Proposed Total: 12 Submission Support: 4 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 7 Received Main Issues Support Anglian Water - Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades required to serve proposed growth. Gallagher Estates (site promoter) – Contribution to growth reaffirmed through SHLAA and SA. Endorsed Northstowe Development Framework Document refreshes masterplan and includes extension - comprehensive approach to planning and delivery. Oakington and Westwick PC – Support policy SS/7.
Object Ely Group of Internal Drainage Boards – Must continue discussions with IDB and Environment Agency through Technical Liaison Group to cover any extension. English Heritage – Need for archaeological evaluation should
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 46 3: Strategic Sites be identified in policy or text. Homes and Communities Agency (site promoter) – Change 9,500 to 10,000 homes for consistency with Northstowe Area Action Plan. The Northstowe Development Framework Masterplan and Core Strategy - refers to “up to 10,000” dwellings. Identified as reserve land in Area Action Plan. Delays with delivery mean not required in plan period - no need to allocate within Local Plan. Remain longer-term strategic reserve site. Site should not have been identified ahead of suitable sites on edge of Cambridge which can promote sustainable patterns of development and transport consistent with NPPF. 3,500 houses should be added to Northstowe to the north of the guided busway, so infrastructure costs can be aggregated in one location and maximized to create a more sustainable and viable development. Whole Northstowe plan should be rescinded as the local area, including travel infrastructure, cannot sustain excessive growth. Damage to countryside and destroying ecology.
Policy SS/8: Cambourne West (paragraphs 3.51, 3.55, 3.56, 3.60)
Proposed Total: 566 Submission Support: 18 Representations Object: 548 Received Main Issues Support Cambridgeshire County Council - Development at Bourn Airfield and Cambourne West is likely to require significant measures to be provided in mitigation of their transport impacts. Natural England - Support references to environmental issues in the policy. Anglian Water - Section 14. It is recommended the following is added: 'A foul drainage strategy should be prepared in liaison with statutory sewerage undertaker'. Swavesey PC - Support statements regarding foul drainage and sewage disposal. Increased flood risk to Swavesey must be avoided. Papworth Everard PC – Support section c) of the policy. To include a cycle and pedestrian bridge over the A428. Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Support subject to preparation of a masterplan demonstrating integration with rest of Cambourne, the Business Park and the Village College. A landscape enhancement plan is required.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 47 Cycle and pedestrian links are essential. The A1198 junction must be improved before development as it is a major barrier to cyclists and delays car journeys. Landscaped soil bunds to control traffic noise are a prerequisite and must be planned in advance.
Object MCA Developments Ltd (Site promoter) – Support principle. but site should extend to Caxton Gibbet for 2,200 homes with extensive green corridors and open space. Object to inclusion of the Business Park in Cambourne West. It is not under control of MCA which would constrain delivery, but could be developed independently, delete paragraph 6. Object to employment requirements as not based on evidence of need. Object to transport requirements in section 11 as inflexible and unjustified and implying that they are the sole responsibility of the Cambourne West promoters. Development Securities (Business Park owner) – Support allocation but object to policy requiring that residential development only comes forward after the employment development is secured in Cambourne West as this is unnecessary and unreasonable. Land south of the access road should be allowed to come forward quickly. Concerns about using the Business Park road as a main access to Cambourne West. Cambridgeshire County Council - A HWRC is needed in the BA/Cambourne area. North Hertfordshire District Council – Could have traffic impacts at Royston from commuters using the train station. The Wildlife Trust – Include policy text: "Provide a high degree of connectivity to existing corridors and ecological networks." Objections from Parish Councils, Cambourne, Caxton, Caldecote, Bourn, Elsworth – Transport impacts including rat running through villages, inadequate infrastructure, relies on BA to enable required transport infrastructure, poor public transport, distant from railway stations, impact on Cambourne, ribbon development and village coalescence, loss of rural character, unsustainable location far from jobs, better alternatives exist that have not been tested, loss of Business Park (should be retained in its current location even if site remains in the plan), broken promises. No reference to governance even though land is within Caxton. Need for youth provision. Inadequate open space. Environment Agency - Needs phasing with waste water infrastructure and policy to reflect this - need to be sure that it is deliverable within Water Framework Directive limits. Need
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 48 3: Strategic Sites surface water strategy. English Heritage – The need for archaeological evaluation of site should be included in the policy.
A high number of largely identical representations have been submitted as part of a local campaign opposed to the site giving the following reasons: o Plan will effectively create a town by stealth by coalescing villages together- new town will stretch from West Cambourne to Hardwick. o Bourn Airfield and West Cambourne developments will create new traffic that local infrastructure can't support. o Plan proposes too many houses in small space, which will inevitability compromise aspects such as community facilities and separation from existing settlements. o Plan is unsustainable- lack of local employment opportunities and sustainable transport links. o Consultation carried out by the Council was flawed. The opinions of local people have not been listened to, and the plans presented were misleading/ incorrect. Objections concerning impacts on traffic and local roads and congestion. Road to St Neots will not be able to cope. Roundabout at the junction of the A1198 and the A428 inadequate. Inadequate public transport. 4,000 homes planned at St Neots. Swansley Wood Farm indents the boundary of the allocation. Site owner objects and requests that the farm should be included in the development boundary for residential. Objections concerning the Business Park. Keep employment together in one location. Loss of land for employment. Objections that the location is unsustainable. Poor access to jobs. Inadequate retail provision. Poor access to railway stations. Objections that the infrastructure and services and facilities in Cambourne will not cope. That Cambourne will become a town. That development will be too dense and so compromise delivery of community facilities. Cannot be integrated into the rest of the village properly. Departs from original concept. Impact on landscape and setting. Impact on surrounding villages. Site is located within Caxton Parish. Any east–west rail link from Bedford to Cambridge must service Cambourne and Bourn Airfield with one or more new stations Policy should include provision for bridleways in points 6, 11c
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 49 and 11i. Consider alternatives such as Hanley Grange, Six Mile Bottom, Northstowe, on the edge of Cambridge, in the villages. Will increase flood risk to local villages. Will not be viable, relies on Bourn Airfield for transport improvements. Loss of agricultural land.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 50 3: Strategic Sites Chapter 4: Climate Change
Paragraphs 4.1 – 4.5: Introductory Paragraphs
Proposed Total: 4 Submission Support: 1 Representations Object: 3 Received Main Issues Support Agree with paragraph 4.1.
Object The science quoted in this section is out of date and can be shown to be mostly if not entirely invalid. Actions by the UK will not have a measurable effect on slowing climate change. Gamlingay Community Turbine - Paragraph 4.4 should mention community renewable energy projects as a means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Policy CC/1: Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change (and paragraphs 4.6 – 4.12)
Proposed Total: 17 Submission Support: 12 Representations Object: 5 Received Main Issues Support Natural England – welcomes chapter and policies requiring development to demonstrate and embed principles of climate change and adaptation. RES Group (UK and Ireland) – supportive of overall aims. Oakington & Westwick Parish Council – support paragraph 4.12. Essential if we are to slow climate change down and survive in future. Without strict measures we will be ill prepared for changes to our climate. Crucial aspect of building sustainable developments. New developments should absolutely be part of the solution, not contributing to the problem. Should help promote low energy housing and developments sympathetic to surrounding environment. Design and transport policies are vitally important. All South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
4: Climate Change Page 51
development must be linked to existing settlements by paths, cycleways, buses etc. not just roads.
Object Home Builders Federation – unnecessary because developers are required to meet Building Regulations. This is not a planning matter. Environment Agency – support but needs more information on adaptation. Update plan’s assumptions with summary effects of climate change and include these in the justification. Support requirement for Sustainability Statements but need for clarification of requirements to be included. Prepare an SPD for Sustainable Design and Construction. Requirements for zero emissions by 2016 for residential and 2019 for commercial should be incorporated into Policy CC/4.
Policy CC/2: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation (and paragraphs 4.13 – 4.15)
Proposed Total: 21 Submission Support: 6 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 15 (including 1 from PC) Received Main Issues Support Natural England – welcomes chapter and policies encouraging renewable and low carbon energy development. English Heritage – supports protection given to heritage assets and their settings. Oakington and Westwick PC – support bullet point 2. Good effort as leaves door open to application for two or more wind turbines less than 2km from dwellings. Any modification to make planning approval more restrictive should be resisted. Proof for a shorter separation distance must be stringent.
Object Cambridge Past, Present and Future – policy too weak in relation to community consultation. Propose change to (d) to read: “Developers have consulted effectively with the local community and can demonstrate that they have responded positively by amending the proposed development appropriately.” Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of University of Cambridge – should allow renewable and low carbon generation as an off-site (allowable) solution with direct connection to associated development or community projects.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 52 4: Climate Change Amend policy to: “b. The development can be connected efficiently to existing national energy infrastructure, or by direct connection to associated development or community project, or for onsite needs.” Defence Infrastructure Organisation – concerns over implementation of biomass, solar heating, photovoltaic cells and wind turbines due to potential impacts on air traffic operations. Understand requirement to implement carbon neutral facilities to tackle climate change, therefore MOD wish to be consulted during the planning consultation process. Engena Limited, Gamlingay Community Turbine, RES Group (UK and Ireland) and Gamlingay Environmental Action Group – no scientific or justifiable basis to implement arbitrary 2km separation distance. Contradicts NPPF. Planning Practice Guidance for renewable and low carbon energy (July 2013) rules out local government policies setting separation distances of this sort. Likely to prevent developments - would significantly constrain potential land available. Environmental Impact Assessments establish whether significant effects are likely and if so, acceptable. RES Group (UK and Ireland) – decisions on decommissioning need to be made at end of project life having regard to circumstances at the time. Home Builders Federation – policy too prescriptive, not consistent with proposed changes in Building Regulations and definition of Allowable Solutions. Delete 1(b). Bourn PC – in favour of renewable energy generation as long as it does not lead to cumulative adverse impact on landscape. Add a criteria on the loss of high quality agricultural land. The policy is too weak and does not give adequate protection to local communities from inappropriately sited developments. New wind farms should only be approved when the actual energy supply justifies the disruption and impact on local communities and the landscape. Amend policy and add an additional criteria: “Planning permission … will be approved only when the development: a. can demonstrate that the actual amount of energy provided, as opposed to the theoretical maximum supply, justifies the impact of the development on local communities and on the landscape; …” Policy should be technology agnostic. Important not to be prescriptive, but ensure flexibility that enables greater use of allowable solutions to ensure that robust and secure energy generation is available to residents. Amend policy to seek detailed assessment of development proposals on a scheme by scheme basis, with decisions undertaken based upon the feasibility and viability of each development meeting nationally South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
4: Climate Change Page 53
adopted standards – and not extended local standards. Not robust enough – default should be approval of renewable energy generation both large and small scale unless a very strong case can be made against it. ‘Provision’ should include full cost allowance for decommissioning. Amend policy to: “c. Provision is made in the business plan that supports the proposed development for the full cost of decommissioning once the operation has ceased with the removal of all facilities and the restoration of the site, including a clear statement as to how the funds for the decommissioning are to be set aside during the productive life of the facility.” Wind turbines are extremely inefficient and expensive ways of generating energy – completely unnecessary whilst creating audible and visual nightmare. Refuse all planning permissions for wind turbines.
Policy CC/3: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy in New Developments (and paragraphs 4.16 – 4.17)
Proposed Total: 20 Submission Support: 3 (including 2 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 17 (including 4 from PC) Received Main Issues Support Natural England - welcomes chapter and policies encouraging renewable and low carbon energy development. Oakington and Westwick PC – support bullet point 3.
Object Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of University of Cambridge – not consistent with Cambridge Local Plan which proposes change away from Merton-style policy to minimum standards. University supports in principle City’s change in approach. Policy should be amended to be consistent with City. Defence Infrastructure Organisation - concerns over implementation of biomass, solar heating, photovoltaic cells and wind turbines due to potential impacts on air traffic operations. Understand requirement to implement carbon neutral facilities to tackle climate change, therefore MOD wish to be consulted during the planning consultation process. Home Builders Federation – inconsistent with national policy and planned changes to Building Regulations. How developers meet these is a matter for them to decide. Delete policy.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 54 4: Climate Change Bourn PC – in favour of renewable energy generation becoming integral part of all new developments – scale should be decided on site by site basis rather than a specific policy. Should include criteria concerning standards of insulation. Caldecote and Cambourne PCs – in light of NPPF, reduction in carbon emissions should be set at 20%. Oakington and Westwick PC – larger scale development should have zero carbon standard (Code for Sustainable Homes Level 5). Requirement to reduce emissions by 10% compared to Building Regulations is unworkable and not viable. To achieve only through on-site technologies is too restrictive. Policy inconsistent with energy hierarchy. Amend policy to delete reference to 10% reduction, and replace with reference to 'energy hierarchy' that also includes fabric efficiency and allowable solutions to ensure compatibility with evolving national policy. Also amend bullet point 3 to allow use of a range of technologies including on-site generation, subject to technical and economic viability. Inconsistent with requirements in Northstowe AAP and DFD. Clarity is required in Council’s intentions on whether policies in Local Plan will supersede those in older policies in AAP and DFD. Approach is out of step with Government policy. Should be for industry to determine how best to comply with Building Regulations. Site wide solutions only work in city centres or metropolitan areas. Policy is an unreasonable burden on development that is not justified by national policy. Housing Standards Review states that Government considers that the progressive strengthening of Building Regulations means it is no longer appropriate for local plan policies to specify additional standards for how much of the energy use of new homes should come from onsite renewables. Need for flexibility is paramount as technology is moving rapidly and not all development will be able to achieve 10% having regard to site circumstances and financial viability. Amend bullet point 1 of policy to: "Proposals … will be required wherever possible to reduce carbon emissions (over the requirements set by Building Regulations) by a minimum of 10% through the use of on-site renewable energy technology, unless evidence is presented to demonstrate in any individual case that this is not feasible." Appreciate that it is preferential for renewable energy technologies to be accommodated on site, however policy
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
4: Climate Change Page 55
does not allow for offsite solutions that may be more appropriate in some cases. Need more flexibility in policy. Add an additional sentence to end of bullet point 1: “Where an on- site solution is not considered feasible an off-site solution may be considered more appropriate.”
Policy CC/4: Sustainable Design and Construction (and paragraphs 4.18 – 4.21)
Proposed Total: 13 Submission Support: 2 Representations Object: 11 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Received Main Issues Support Natural England - welcomes chapter and policies requiring development to promote and ensure sustainable construction. Needs careful monitoring.
Object Cambridge Past, Present and Future – should include clear immediate commitment to Level 5 in compliance with changes to Building Regulations. Amend policy to: “All new developments will accord with the changes to the Building Regulations with all new residential developments meeting CfSH Level 5 by 2016 and all new non-residential developments meeting CfSH Level 5 by 2019.” Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of University of Cambridge – not consistent with Cambridge Local Plan which proposes policy linked to minimum standards for sustainable construction, carbon reduction and water efficiency. University supports in principle City’s change in approach. Policy should be amended to be consistent with City. Environment Agency – support policy, but minor updating needed on water stress status. Amend first sentence of 4.20 to: "The Cambridge Water company is in an area of water stress as designated by the Environment Agency." Home Builders Federation – as policy exceeds Building Regulations it is necessary for Council to assess cost to ensure does not jeopardise viability. Once forthcoming changes to Building Regulations are factored in viability becomes more precarious. Consider the case for a policy specifying Code 4 not been proven and unnecessary in light of planned changes to Building Regulations. Oakington and Westwick PC – all new residential developments must achieve Level 5 or better water efficiency. New policy on water neutrality. Area designated as water
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 56 4: Climate Change stressed and lowest rainfall in country. Must ensure that no more water is abstracted, treated and delivered for business and/or domestic use than before the new dwellings were built. In ensuring development is as sustainable as possible, the Council should look to introduce a fixed percentage of ‘passiv’ design housing. Would like ‘exemplar’ schemes in each major development with at least 10% ‘passiv’ design. Control of building sustainability should be restricted to national standards at time of application / decision making. Higher levels of water minimisation could be achieved through an Allowable Solutions or water neutral concept, where existing homes in the neighbourhood could be upgraded to help mitigate the impact of the new development. Designated area of water stress – the need for appropriate and sufficient water supplies has not been given sufficient emphasis in the past and it is an issue of wider significance than within South Cambs alone.
Policy CC/5: Sustainable Show Homes (and paragraphs 4.22 – 4.23)
Proposed Total: 10 Submission Support: 4 Representations Object: 6 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Received Main Issues Support Natural England – welcomes chapter and policies requiring development to promote and ensure sustainable construction. Vital if people are to be encouraged to include Green Options when they buy a house. Will require agents to be well trained and fully informed.
Object Home Builders Federation – cost implication has not been assessed. Ambiguous how might be applied. Unlikely to be feasible and safe to provide all these in one dwelling. How developers choose to achieve carbon reduction targets is matter for them. Unclear how bullet point 3 would be enforced. Oakington and Westwick PC – all developments over 15 dwellings should provide sustainable show home with costs displayed. No policy basis, no justified need and policy will have no material effect in reducing climate change. Measures to secure sustainably designed homes should be secured through Code for Sustainable Homes or successor standards. Delete policy.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
4: Climate Change Page 57
Building Regulations approach is sufficient. Special show homes not required and not viable. Other approaches including marketing materials and a virtual green home can be used. Favour the use of Allowable Solutions to provide greater sustainability benefits – a local Allowable Solutions SPD should be produced. Customers wanting to go beyond national standards have other ways forward. Unreasonable to build a sustainable show home, however reasonable for show home to include details of options to purchasers. o Amend bullet point 1 of policy to: “On developments where a show home is being provided, this should include demonstrating environmentally sustainable alternatives beyond those provided to achieve the standard agreed for the development.” o Amend bullet point 2 of policy to: “The sustainable alternatives can be purchased when a dwelling is bought off-plan and full details of the options must be made available in the show home and positively marketed. Purchasers should be clear on where alternatives are available, why it is more sustainable, and the cost of including the alternative.”
Policy CC/6: Construction Methods (and paragraphs 4.24 – 4.26)
Proposed Total: 6 Submission Support: 3 Representations Object: 3 Received Main Issues Support Cambridge Past, Present and Future – support policy. Environment Agency – support need for CEMP given that construction is a major potential source of pollution in watercourses. Natural England – welcomes chapter and policies requiring development to promote and ensure sustainable construction.
Object Cambridge City Council – City Local Plan makes reference to the need to comply with County Council's RECAP Waste Management Design Guide. To ensure consistent approach to waste management across sub-region, appropriate to make reference to it in this policy. Unduly prescriptive and inflexible. The requirement that all applications should submit supporting documents in relation to
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 58 4: Climate Change construction matters including a CEMP is unnecessary, unjustified and not proportionate to the scale and nature of proposals. The requirement will not be relevant to all planning applications and impacts and issues will vary. Policy should be amended to include threshold for provision of information. Amend policy to: “Applications for developments of 10 or more dwellings or non-residential developments of 1,000 m2 or more must submit supporting documents ...”.
Policy CC/7: Water Quality (and Paragraphs 4.27 to 4.30)
Proposed Total: 8 Submission Support: 3 Representations Object: 5 Received Main Issues Support Natural England – welcome policy which seeks to enhance water quality. RSPB – support the objective to protect water quality.
Object Environment Agency – support the water quality and river renaturalisation policy. To ensure that the development management process progresses smoothly, we suggest some flexibility in CC/7 such that only major development proposals should comply with all aspects of CC/7. Cambourne and Caldecote PCs – a policy should be included in relation to inspection and signing off of drainage systems to mitigate against combining foul and surface water drains. There is a historical failure to address water issues. Responsibilities must be agreed with all developers and water authorities BEFORE development. The policy should include a commitment by the Council to improve the 'ecological status' of the rivers in the South Cambs area.
Policy CC/8: Sustainable Drainage Systems (and Paragraphs 4.31 to 4.33)
Proposed Total: 9 Submission Support: 4 Representations Object: 5 Received Main Issues Support
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
4: Climate Change Page 59
Environment Agency – strongly support policy. Natural England – support policy which promotes multifunctional SuDS. RSPB – SuDS can provide habitat for biodiversity and can have important local and cumulative benefits for the wider water environment.
Object English Heritage – include a reference in the supporting text to the need to evaluate the potential impact on archaeological remains. Homes and Communities Agency – further supporting text should be included to confirm the arrangements for future management of SuDS for large scale new settlements and urban extensions. In this regard the HCA consider it sensible for the Council to undertake responsibility for management and maintenance of SuDS. Cambourne and Caldecote PCs – a policy should be included in relation to inspection and signing off of drainage systems to mitigate against combining foul and surface water drains. Consider creative use of balancing lakes e.g. watersports. There is a historical failure to address water issues. Responsibilities must be agreed with all developers and water authorities BEFORE development.
Policy CC/9: Managing Flood Risk (and Paragraphs 4.34 to 4.37)
Proposed Total: 32 Submission Support: 6 Representations Object: 26 Received Main Issues Support Natural England – welcomes policy regarding managing flood risk. Cottenham Parish Council – support elements of the policy.
Object Environment Agency – support the thrust of the policy. There are some small but critically significant gaps with respect to setting out the need for development to be safe, and how this might be achieved for a range of flood risks. A Flood and Water Management Supplementary Planning Document would be a helpful way to clarify role of different stakeholders, and complement policies with more complex guidance. Anglian Water – pleased to see the inclusion of the drainage
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 60 4: Climate Change hierarchy in dealing with surface water. Text should clarify that re-development sites (brownfield) are required to take the same approach to surface water drainage as new undeveloped (greenfield) sites. Middle Level Commissioners – care needs to be taken in respect of floor levels to consider impact on surface water flow routes. Board will require an FRA in a range of circumstances set out in national guidance. Ely Group of Internal Drainage Boards – Internal Drainage Boards should be included in list of responsible bodies in paragraph 4.37. Bourn and Cambourne PCs – does not apply sufficiently stringent criteria to guard against flood risk to settlements downstream of any proposed new development. New settlements should include mitigation (e.g. via balancing lakes) against a 1-in-250 rather than a 1-in-100 year event. A policy should be included in relation to inspection and signing off of drainage systems to mitigate against combining foul and surface water drains. Cottenham PC – SFRA should be updated to reflect latest guidance. Paragraph 4.35: refers to the EA and its maps and available web-site. The policy would be better served if it were to include the specifics of flood zones 1, 2 and 3 as detailed in national policy documents. There should be specific reference to individual internal drainage boards to be consulted. In part 1a, proposed floor levels should be based on flood levels, not on existing site infrastructure and roads. In part 1c, the text as currently drafted would have the effect of seeking to restrict the surface water run off rates for new developments on all sites, including brownfield sites, to below the equivalent greenfield run off rates for an undeveloped site. This is not appropriate and may well not be feasible. There is a historical failure to address water issues. Responsibilities must be agreed with all developers and water authorities BEFORE development.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
4: Climate Change Page 61
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 62 4: Climate Change Chapter 5: Delivering High Quality Places
Policy HQ/1: Design Principles (and paragraphs 5.1 – 5.9)
Proposed Total: 33 Submission Support: 17 (including 2 from Parish Councils (PC) Representations Object: 16 (including 2 from PC) Received Main Issues Support Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Support this policy. Fulbourn PC – Support as protects intrinsic character of the village and surrounding countryside. Great Abington PC – Fully support. Completely in harmony with our ambitions for developments in Great Abington. Natural England – Pleased includes reference to high quality landscaping and public spaces with various functions. Every new development must make the site and its environment, as well as the surrounding area, better to live in. Proposals will help create good quality new developments. New developments should be attractive and traditional to be in keeping with rural village settings.
Object Cambridgeshire County Council - Strengthen to ensure needs of ageing population addressed by future development and provide for supported living and other facilities to meet adult social care needs. Suggest Building for Life standards. Caldecote & Cambourne PCs – Should include reference to the requirement for Lifetime Homes in Criterion k. English Heritage – Welcome policy subject to minor change to criteria 1b and 1e, and paragraph 5.6 to strengthen policy in relation to heritage assets and improve clarity. Swavesey and District Bridleways Association and 6 others - Criterion f - add horse riding. Much concern with conserving. Should be greater acceptance of new ways of doing things. Criteria c, d and e contradict. Policy needs more emphasis on the positive contribution high quality design can have on vibrant communities. Sad to see how badly made new developments around Cambridge are. Not in keeping / unattractive.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
5: Delivering High Quality Places Page 63
Policy HQ/2: Public Art and New Development (paragraphs 5.10 - 5.13)
Proposed Total: 11 Submission Support: 6 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 5 (including 2 from PC) Received Main Issues Support Fulbourn PC – Support policy - led to major public art projects being incorporated into developments – e.g. The Swifts. Think about public art in widest form, not just installations and street art – e.g. funding a workshop, project or performance. Community must be seen in widest sense not just council and school. Vital that it is ‘owned’ by the community. Use should be made of design competitions and allow local people to choose from wide variety of types and styles.
Object Caldecote & Cambourne PCs – Policy should foster local artists in conjunction with community and where possible be integrated into buildings, landscape or street furniture. Essential to strengthen community buy in and ‘ownership’. Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Agree in principle as highly desirable, but should allow pooling of funds from small developments to deliver fewer more significant pieces. Criterion 3 – Unsure if this just relates to art as in sculptures and material installations.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 64 5: Delivering High Quality Places Chapter 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment
Key Facts ( and paragraphs 6.1- 6.4)
Proposed Total: 3 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 3 Received Main Issues Object The Wildlife Trust – include mention of ecological networks, County Wildlife Sites and SSSIs. Improve consistency across document in referring to target areas in Green Infrastructure Strategy. Suggest additional wording to key facts. Great Ouse AONB Working Group – Welcome objectives of chapter 6 and should mention ‘The Great Ouse Valley’ in plan and its key values identified. Urge the Council to support recognition and inclusion of proposed Great Ouse AONB within Strategic Green Infrastructure of Local Plan. Evidence submitted to put forward case for AONB and suggested wording.
Policy NH/1: Conservation Area and Green Separation at Longstanton (and paragraph 6.5)
Proposed Total: 11 Submission Support: 1 Representations Object: 10 Received Main Issues Support Natural England - General support for all policies in the environment chapter.
Objection English Heritage – Historic importance of this land and remnants of early ridge and furrow. Policy refers to playing fields being potentially acceptable. Disagree – will damage archaeological remains when land levelled. Need to clarify that they are not appropriate. Swavesey & District Bridleways Association – Green separation should include bridleways – valuable to community. Supported by number of individuals. Separation important – should be designated as green belt.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 65 Request from owners that Melrose House and associated land to be excluded from policy.
Policy NH/2: Protecting and Enhancing Landscape Character (and paragraphs 6.6 - 6.11)
Proposed Total: 6 Submission Support: 4 (including 3 from Parish Councils (PC)) Representations Object: 2 (including 1 from PC ) Received Main Issues Support Elsworth PC – Character and distinctiveness of rural landscape in South Cambs important. New development must reflect and enhance character. Need to protect existing assets. Fulbourn PC – Policy protects intrinsic character of village and surroundings. Gamlingay PC – Bedfordshire Greensand Ridge has particular impact on parish – specific character very noticeable. Natural England – General support for all policies in environment chapter.
Objection Cambridge Past Present and Future – Object to National Character Area assessments as too broad brush. Local authority should commission an up-to-date local Landscape Character assessment to replace current one dated 2003. Policy should specifically refer to historic landscape character. Great Shelford PC – East Anglian Chalk local landscape character but waterways significant within parish – Hobson’s Brook. Would like to see policy for waterways.
Policy NH/3: Protecting Agricultural Land (and paragraphs 6.12 - 6.14)
Proposed Total: 22 Submission Support: 19 (including 3 from Parish Councils (PC)) Representations Object: 3 (including 1 from PC) Received Main Issues Support Cambridge Past Present and Future - Recognise importance of using good quality agricultural land for food production rather than for development. Elsworth PC – Essential for national food security. Should be
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 66 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment robustly protected. Fulbourn PC – Protects intrinsic quality of village and surrounding area. Ickleton PC – Support policy. Natural England – General support for all policies in environment chapter. General support for policy.
Object Bourn PC – Support policy but concerned that not following NPPF guidance because insufficient weight to economic value of agricultural land. Small areas of grade 2 and 3a farmland are uneconomic and areas below 2 hectares should be exempt from policy. Introduce lower threshold limit of 2 hectares. to policy Should never allocate high grade farmland for development.
Policy NH/4: Biodiversity (and paragraphs 6.15 - 6.18)
Proposed Total: 12 Submission Support: 7 (including 2 from Parish Council) Representations Object: 5 (including 1 from PC) Received Main Issues Support Environment Agency – Support policy – wholly compatible with requirements of EU Water Framework Directive. Elsworth PC – Support and agree Biodiversity SPD should be updated. Fulbourn PC – Fully support. Natural England – General support for all policies in environment chapter. The Wildlife Trust – Support – pleased to see recognition of national guidance, specific mention of brownfield sites.
Object Cambridge Past Present and Future – Policy too weak. Suggest amending wording of policy to strengthen. Replace ‘clearly’ with ‘demonstrably and significantly’ so similar to wording in Policy NH/5. Dry Drayton PC – Request recognition of Dry Drayton’s biodiversity survey in policy. The Wildlife Trust – Support but suggest mention is made of the importance of wider ecological networks that need to be
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 67 considered when planning the green infrastructure – will help species adapt to climate change. Policy should not just protect protected species etc but also the ‘ordinary’ non-threatened biodiversity. Development should be refused where negative impact on biodiversity.
Policy NH/5: Sites of Biodiversity or Geological Importance (and paragraphs 6.19 – 6.26)
Proposed Total: 9 Submission Support: 6 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 3 Received Main Issues Support Cambridge Past Present and Future – Support policy. Cambridgeshire County Council – Support policy. Elsworth PC – Support policy and should update Biodiversity SPD. Environment Agency – Support policy – compatible with requirements of EU Water Framework Directive. Natural England – General support for policies in environment chapter.
Object Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) – Support but recommend wording at 2a makes a clearer distinction between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites, as set out in paragraph of 113 of NPPF. The Wildlife Trust – Need to clarify wording in 2e since remaining features would not need to be recreated! No development should be granted that impacts biodiversity therefore delete ‘not normally be permitted.’
Policy NH/6: Green Infrastructure (and paragraphs 6.27 - 6.31)
Proposed Total: 73 Submission Support:6 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 67 (including 2 from PCs) Received Main Issues Support Cambridgeshire County Council – Support policy.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 68 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Gamlingay PC – Support targets identified in Strategy relating to West Cambridgeshire Woodlands. Natural England – General support for all policies in environment chapter. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) – Support policy and Green Infrastructure Strategy. The Wildlife Trust – Support policy. Excellent partnership of different organisations. Strategy should not be allowed to languish.
Object Cambourne and Caldecote PCs – Support policy but should include proposals for woodland creation to enhance countryside and help mitigate greenhouse emissions. Cambridge Past Present and Future – Support policy but would like more specific reference to role of River Cam and its corridor in Green Infrastructure Policy. Need for specific Cam Corridor enhancement guidance as SPD or specific policy for River Cam and corridor in plan. Great Ouse AONB Working Group – Should include whole of Great Ouse Valley which will be important area for quiet enjoyment in County in future. Shelford and District Bridleways Group; Swavesey and District Bridleways Association; Sawston Riding School; Brampton Bridleway Group - Introduce an additional paragraph to Policy NH/6 which secures access for horse riders, pedestrians and cycles. Rights of way should be for all non motorised users. Need to update Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy to comply with NPPF which encourages providing opportunities for all to access open space – includes horse riders. The National Trust – Lack of joined up thinking between Green Infrastructure and how people arrive at these sites via sustainable transport promoted in Policy TI/2. Wimpole Cycle route should be mentioned in paragraph 6.31 to enable it to be taken forward as scheme in Local Transport Plan. The Wildlife Trust – Map should show locations of key ecological networks (Gog Magogs Countryside Area and West Cambridgeshire Hundreds) and target areas from Strategy mentioned in paragraph 6.31.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 69
Policy NH/7: Ancient Woodlands and Veteran Trees ( and paragraph 6.32 – 6.33)
Proposed Total: 7 Submission Support: 3 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 4 (including 2 from PC) Received Main Issues Support Cambridgeshire County Council – Support policy. Elsworth PC – Support. Natural England – General support for policies in environment chapter.
Object Cambourne and Caldecote PCs – Support policy but should include proposals contributing to woodland creation to mitigate effects of loss of ancient woodlands or veteran trees. Cambridge Past Present and Future – Support policy but object to weak wording – replace clearly with demonstrably and significantly as in Policy NH/5. Great Ouse AONB Working Group – Request to include floodplain / carr woodland as an additional category of woodland to be protected in the policy as they are rare and need to be conserved.
Policy NH/8: Mitigating the Impact of Development in and adjoining the Green Belt (and paragraph 6.34 – 6.35 )
Proposed Total: 10 Submission Support: 3 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 7 (including 1 from PC) Received Main Issues Support Fulbourn PC – Support policy Natural England – General support for policies in environment chapter
Object Cambridge Past Present and Future – Object on basis that development in green belt is inappropriate unless can demonstrate exceptional circumstances according to NPPF. Cambridgeshire County Council – Propose change of wording to strengthen policy.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 70 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Great Shelford PC – Landscaping could be used as excuse to permit development in green belt. Policy should include wording stating development is inappropriate unless exceptional circumstances. No exceptional circumstances to warrant encroachment on Green Belt. If exceptional circumstances proven then exceptional landscape enhancement must form part of development – area equal in size to area released from Green Belt must be added within same geographical zone. Any development will conflict with wording of policy.
Policy NH/9: Redevelopment of Previously Developed Sites and Infilling in the Green Belt (and paragraph 6.36)
Proposed Total: 8 Submission Support: 4 (including 1 Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 4 Received Main Issues Support Fulbourn PC - Support Natural England – General support for policies in environment chapter. Support for second part of policy as complies with NPPF.
Object Cambridge Past Present and Future + other – NPPF (paragraph 89) allows ‘limited infilling in villages and limited affordable housing for local community needs…’ but no definition of ‘limited’. Policy should specify limit on number of homes that can be built. Suggest five homes as a maximum? Brownfield land to be used first. Detailed wording suggested for change to policy. Girton College – seek amendments to policy and supporting text - o Policy to recognise special nature of site as established development site within Green Belt where development brief will be prepared. o Criteria in part 1 of policy go beyond NPPF - should be removed. o Amendment to paragraph 6.36 to comply with NPPF – The NPPF (para 89 last bullet point) refers to the 'partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites'
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 71 whereas paragraph 6.36 only refers to 'complete redevelopment'. o Remove phrase in 6.36 ‘to rural character’ of Green Belt as not consistent with NPPF.
Policy NH/10: Recreation in the Green Belt ( and paragraphs 6.37 – 6.38)
Proposed Total: 7 Submission Support: 4 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 3 Received Main Issues Support Fulbourn PC – Support policy for providing sport and recreation in villages within Green Belt such as Fulbourn. Natural England – Support general policies in environment chapter. Trumpington Residents Association – Support increased access to green belt but concerned at development of sports pitches. Green Belt is an asset for benefit of local community – should allow for improved public access. Council should promote schemes such as those promoted in Quarter to Six Quadrant document. Green Infrastructure Strategy provides framework to implement.
Object Grosvenor Development and Anglian Ruskin University – NPPF para 81 states local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance beneficial use of Green Belt – opportunities to provide access to outdoor sports and recreation. NPPF identifies outdoor sport as appropriate green belt use. Suggest change of wording to paragraph 6.38 to say plan will seek to positively bring forward land in green belt for outdoor sport. Cambridgeshire County Council – Support intention of policy but has sought provision of school playing fields outside development footprints including in Green Belt as means of supporting overall development viability. Will need balance in application of this policy. Should allow for scope to expand schools to provide additional education provision as required.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 72 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment
Policy NH/11:Protected Village Amenity Areas
Proposed Total: 12 Submission Support: 7 (including 3 from Parish Councils (PC)) Representations Object: 5 Received Main Issues Support Bourn PC – Support retention as allows protection of areas that would not qualify for Local Green Space. Fowlmere and Fulbourn PCs – Support policy. Natural England – general support all policies within environment chapter.
Objection Cambridgeshire County Council – Need to allow greater flexibility in policy to allow schools to be able to provide new buildings on existing playing fields. Should allow re-provision of open space as integral part of overall development. Objection to having both PVAA and LGS designations within plan - two similar designations. If PVAAs are to remain in plan should review each designated site to reflect changed circumstances. Residents should have more say in which green spaces to protect – parish councils should consult local community and forward to district council.
Representations relating to village sites (Note: same 2 sites registered against Policy NH/12: Local Green Space.) Great Shelford Land south of 26 Church St and Rectory Farm Jesus College objecting to designation as PVAA. Area covered by range of designations which offer protection and prevent inappropriate development. PVAA not required. Little Abington Meadow surrounded by residential development and Bancroft Farm Committee for Abington Housing object to former farm site being protected as green space. Adjacent meadow is rightly designated but this site is brownfield land with no public access, derelict farm buildings - does not meet criteria for PVAA.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 73
Policy NH/12: Local Green Space
Proposed Total: 424 Submission Support: 395 (Including 2 from Parish Councils (PC)) Representations Object: 29 (including 5 from PC) Received Main Issues Representations on general issues on Local Green Space. Support Environment Agency – Consider LGS can also be used to help provide resilience to climate change through making and protecting spaces that can flood with minimal effect compared to occupied property. Cambs Surface Water Management Plan sets out known hot spots. EA specifically supports LGS in Bar Hill; Bassingbourn; Bourn; Cottenham; Elsworth; Great and Little Abington; Ickleton; Orwell; Papworth. Fowlmere PC – Support protection given by LGS Fulbourn PC – Support for policy General support for policy from 215 respondents. Natural England – General support for all policies in environment chapter.
Object Bourn PC – support policy but should clarify in policy what changes of land use would be permitted after area has been designated LGS. Cambridgeshire County Council –Current policy would prevent overall redevelopment of school provision across a school site with new buildings being provided on existing playing fields and re-provision of playing fields in place of existing buildings. Policy should allow for re-provision of green space as integral part of overall development proposals as means of promoting flexible school place planning. General objections to policy from 8 respondents Residents should have more say in which green spaces to protect – parish councils should consult local community and forward to district council. Insufficient consultation on current proposed sites.
Representations on LGSs included in the Proposed Submission Local Plan
Bassingbourn Bassingbourn PC - Support all sites in village.
The Rouses
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 74 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Support LGS from 71 respondents. Open access including informal paths leading to Ford Wood, Willmott playing field and South End. Setting for listed buildings. Undisturbed meadow area. Rich in wildlife. Development of site would harm character and appearance of historic part of village. Surviving relic of village's manorial / field system. Site of Rowses manor house, recorded as vacant 1589. Valuable village amenity – used by many for informal recreation / meeting place / dog walkers. Green space near centre of village. Additional recreational land needed by Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth.
Duxford End of Mangers Lane Objection to designation by individuals - should remove designation of PVAA as no longer meets criteria. Replace with more flexible and responsive community use allocation / designation (for allotments / orchard / affordable housing) to serve local community and village.
Greenacres Support for LGS from 9 respondents. Village already short of green areas. Popular safe play area in cul-de-sac – can be viewed by parents. Alternative play area requires crossing busy road, blind junction. Valued by local residents – LGS preserves open, pleasing aspect to area – character noted recently by planning inspector. Venue for annual street BBQ – helps bring community together.
Fulbourn Fulbourn PC – support LGS policy as it protects intrinsic character of village and surrounding countryside.
Field between Cox’s Drove, Cow Lane and railway line + area adjacent to Horse Pond. Support designation from Fulbourn Forum for Community Action and 24 individuals. Haven for local wildlife. Important green space for village. Field enhances setting and appearance of this part of village – brings countryside into heart of village. Contributes to retaining rural character. As village has expanded in recent years important to preserve character and ambience of village.
Objection that site does not meet criteria for LGS by Castlefield International Ltd. No public access / private land – therefore any public activity on land represents trespass. Need for sixth
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 75 criteria for assessing sites – whether they are deliverable as LGS – this site is not. Not put forward by Parish Council even though they made comprehensive represents to S Cambs therefore not worthy of designation. If site to be secured as long term green space would need support of PC. Priority in South Cambs is for housing land, sustainable site for allocation - complies with NPPF. Remove designation.
Victorian Garden associated with Old Pumping Station. Support designation from Fulbourn Forum for community action and 16 individuals. Area valued by local community – has both historic and recreational value. Landscape value – where springs emerge in village. Countryside penetrating into village, contributes to rural village character.
Land between Townley Hall fronting Home End New site proposed by individual - Should be designated as LGS – need to preserve character of village.
Gamlingay Lupin Field Support for LGS designation from Gamlingay PC and 54 individuals – preserves openness, beauty, tranquillity and richness of wildlife for residents on west side of village. Valued by local community. Should not be developed. Focal point of village especially when lupins flower in summer. Limited opportunity and access to open space on this part of village. Suggest part of Merton Field should be fenced off as play area. Field marks boundary between edge of settlement and Hamlet of Dennis Green – natural boundary.
An objection to LGS from Merton College as site does not meet criteria for designation as LGS. Council misguided in designating it as LGS. NPPF states blanket designation of open countryside adjacent to settlements is not appropriate + Landowner does not believe they have been properly consulted – plan fails legal compliance. No public right of access. Limited historic or wildlife value. Reaction from community to planning application on site. Designation barrier to future development.
Great Abington General support for all LGS in village.
Magna Close central grassed area
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 76 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Support for LGS.
Great and Little Chishill PC Bull Meadow and playing fields north of Hall Lane Support for this site being LGS from Great and Little Chishill PC.
Great Shelford Land south of 26 Church St and Rectory Farm. Objection to this site being LGS from Jesus College. Area covered by range of designations which offer protection to site – prevent inappropriate development. Does not need additional designation as LGS. Landscape and Townscape assessment of criteria carried out and site does not them - no significant landscape features – only number of mature trees.
Harston General support for all LGS in village.
Recreation Ground and orchard Support for inclusion by Harston PC and three individuals but boundary of LGS does not include football pitches and does include privately owned farmland – needs revising.
Hauxton General support for all LGS in village.
Hinxton General support for all LGS in village.
Ickleton Village Green and Drivers Meadow Support from Ickleton PC and Ickleton Society for these sites being LGS.
Back Lane Objection from Ickleton Society for this site being rejected as LGS. Not just access to recreation ground but enjoyed in its own right for tranquillity. Enhances character of village and therefore should be designated as LGS.
Little Abington Scout campsite, Church Lane Support from Little Abington PC and others. Recognises importance of site.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 77
Bowling Green Support for LGS designation.
Meadow surrounded by residential development and Bancroft Farm Bancroft Farm, Church Lane (SHLAA site 28) - Objection from both Great and Little Abington PCs and Committee for Abington Housing. Wrong designation of brownfield land and LGS should only apply to meadow. Old derelict farmyard previously not designated for protection. Reclassification would enable sensitive development within conservation area.
Little Shelford General support for all LGS in village.
Melbourn Greengages Rise play area Support from 2 respondents for this LGS. Used as area for informal recreation. Recent planning application to develop area dismissed at appeal as open space covered by plan policy protecting existing recreational areas.
Newton General support for all LGS in village.
Orwell Chapel Orchard by Methodist Church Request from Orwell PC to amend boundary as LGS extends over farmland / private land. Landowner of this land erroneously included in LGS has objected to designation – request for amendment of boundary.
Over Land to rear of The Lanes Objection to LGS by individual as does not meet criteria for designation. Site bounded by 2m high fence. Limited views / overgrown private land. No public access. No more tranquil than other nearby areas in village. No uncommon wildlife.
Station Road/ Turn Lane Objection to LGS from individual. Must be demonstrably special. Afforded more weight as summited by Parish Council. Rejected by inspector in 2006 – little changed. PC not justified why site special. Site fails assessment. Long term protection
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 78 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment important but not at expense of potential future growth of village and development that could result in better management of site.
Pampisford General support for all LGS in village.
Papworth Everard Papworth Everard PC strongly supports policy and its application to village. Valued by parishioners. Village characterised by housing separated by relatively large green spaces.
New site Papworth Everard PC request that consideration be given to designating wider landscape stripes within housing development in NW of village – valued by local community – well used.
Sawston General support for all LGS in village.
Stapleford General support for all LGS in village.
Policy NH/13: Important Countryside Frontages
Proposed Total: 30 Submission Support: 24 Representations Object: 6 (including 3 from Parish Councils (PC)) Received Main Issues Support General support for policy.
Representations on village frontages Fowlmere Objection from individual to remove frontage from B1368 London Road / High Street along east boundary of SHLAA site 107. Does not meet tests for ICF. Designation outside conservation area and is not PVAA – land not considered to have any specific importance to setting of village.
Foxton
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 79 Fowlmere PC – suggest new frontage south of Foxton primary school – behind southern boundary of recreation area and school.
Fulbourn Home End Support for frontage adjacent to the Fulbourn Centre (between Townley Hall and the Scout Hut) - from 17 respondents. Penetration of countryside into Home End – helps retain strong rural village character in Conservation Area – lost if developed.
Objection to frontage – not justified in this location. No assessment in draft plan that policy is appropriate and whether specific sites should be included within policy. Suitable location for development to meet objectively assessed development needs.
Great and Little Abington General support for frontages.
Great and Little Chishill Great and Little Chishill PC – Five new frontages suggested: 1. B1069 leading from Barley Road, past windmill - this sweeps up to built-up area. 2. May Street - this sweeps up to built-up area. 3. New Road - this sweeps up to built-up area. 4. Heydon Road - provides an important rural break from Heydon Village. 5. Hall - this sweeps up to built-up area.
Great and Little Shelford General support for frontages.
Guilden Morden Frontage to land south of 33 Dubbs Knoll Road Objection from landowners to frontage. Objection to frontage as unsound, not compliant with NPPF. Land not previously designated – is bordered either side, opposite and to NE by existing housing. Countryside to west not visible through mature hedge and trees. Development of land for affordable housing would not significantly alter character of land – greater benefit to village.
Harston General support for frontages.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 80 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment
Hauxton General support for frontages.
Heydon Heydon PC – suggesting an additional frontage – vista from Fowlmere Road looking up the avenue to Heydon.
Hinxton General support for frontages.
Newton General support for frontages.
Pampisford General support for frontages.
Sawston General support for frontages.
Stapleford General support for frontages.
Policy NH/14: Heritage Assets (and paragraphs 6.43 – 6.58)
Proposed Total: 6 Submission Support: 1 Representations Object: 5 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Received Main Issues Support Cambridgeshire County Council – Support as accords with NPPF. Gamlingay PC – Support policy.
Object Bourn PC - Polices Map does not show extent of boundary of Conservation area in village. Cambridge Past Present and Future - Support policy but would like to see strengthening of wording relating to ‘non- designated assets’ in policy so developers are clear policy not just referring to designated assets. Cambridgeshire County Council - Suggest change of wording to paragraph 6.56 and 6.57 to explain the County’s
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 81 role with heritage assets and their Historic Environment Records. English Heritage – Strong support for policy but suggest some changes: o NPPF paragraph 126 states local planning authorities should set out positive strategy for historic environment in local plan. Recognise that plan policies refer to historic environment. Generic policy for historic environment provides opportunity to provide distinctive, positive framework and address issues relevant to overview. Consider how plan is underpinned in a positive strategy for historic environment – could be done in form of supporting SPD – include conservation area appraisals and management plans. o Need to consider how joint work with Cambridge City can be consolidated and updated e.g. Cambridge Green Belt Study (LDA 2002) significant evidence base used in plan – parts no longer applicable. Inner Green Belt boundary – recent detailed work could be assimilated into this study. o Suggest extending scope of policy to consider future maintenance of assets and ones at risk. . o Amend para 6.48, mentioning the use of traditional materials on vernacular buildings. o Re-word the last two sentences para 6.49 for clarity. o Replace ‘historic asset’ with ‘heritage asset’ in paragraph 6.57. IWM Duxford - Support policy. Finding viable uses is included in policy – will require careful consideration and control. Support adoption and use of Heritage Partnership Agreements where appropriate (set out in Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013) – suggest amending paragraph 6.52. Policy does not clearly differentiate between designated and non-designated assets. Uses term ‘undesignated’ - contrary to NPPF. Confusing to group all assets in one policy. Implies same weight afforded to all elements – no mention of proportionality therefore at odds with NPPF. Definition of ‘heritage asset’ too restrictive. Council should encourage local communities through their Parish Councils to identify and list all heritage assets within parish that are of significance to that community. This register should then inform conservation area appraisal, if such actually exists, and the planning process - as set out in the 2011 Localism Act. Suggests adding 3rd clause to policy.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 82 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment
Policy NH/15: Heritage Assets and Adapting to Climate Change (and paragraphs 6.59 – 6.63)
Proposed Total: 9 Submission Support: 1 Representations Object: 8 Received Main Issues Support General support.
Object Cambridge Past Present and Future - Support policy but object to weak wording in bullet 2 which talks only about ‘adequate’ safeguarding. Should refer to heritage character. Suggest amending policy to read: 'effectively safeguards heritage significance and character...' English Heritage – Suggest re-wording part 2 of policy to reflect approach of NPPF more closely: ‘Proposals for energy efficient and renewable energy measures for historic buildings will be supported where they are individually tailored to the historic building and are developed with the benefit of a full understanding of the historic and architectural significance of the building such that the proposals will not result in harm to heritage significance'. Policy welcomed but section 2 is too broad. Suggest adding following words: '...will be permitted, provided the proposal does not impact on, or detract from, the heritage value of the historic building.' Do not consider policy usefully addresses how balance heritage significance and environmental adaption. Need for clearer guidance. Need for clarity on how to reach a balance in paras 6.61 - 6.62. Wording in part 1 of policy weak - ‘encourage and support’ should be replaced with ‘destruction of these buildings will not be permitted’. Need for stricter definition of what allowable re-use is. Suggest that where possible should be a community asset. Should specify priorities.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 83
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 84 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Chapter 7 High Quality Homes
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages (and paragraphs 7.5 and 7.6) (Excluding allocations H/1a to H/1h)
This covers general points in policy H/1 and new or alternative sites proposed in representations. To look at the representations on housing allocations included in the Local Plan see the separate tables that follow for each allocated site. Proposed Total: 381 Submission Support: 266 Representations Object: 115 Received Main Issues Support
Natural England - welcome specific reference to landscape, biodiversity and GI protection and enhancement requirements for relevant developments. Bassingbourn cum Kneesworth Parish Council support rejection of Bassingbourn SHLAA Sites 059, 066, 078, 085, 219, 220, 291 and Land north of High Street Bassingbourn (SHLAA Site 324) Fen Ditton Parish Council - Support for rejection of Land between 12 and 28 Horningsea Road, Fen Ditton (SC254) 3 Support for rejection (including Histon and Impington Parish Council, Oakington and Westwick Parish Council): Land at Buxhall Farm Histon (SHLAA site 133) Madingley Parish Council – Note no development proposed in the Parish. Stapleford Parish Council – Support rejection of SHLAA sites in Stapleford. Shepreth Parish Council – Support rejection of Barrington Cemex site Oakington Parish Council Supports rejection of sites in Great Shelford (SHLAA site 5), Cottenham (SHLAA sites 3, 129, 260), Gamlingay (SHLAA sites 93 and 171), Girton SHLAA site 143, Bassingbourn (SHLAA sites 78 and 219), Comberton SHLAA site 110, and Waterbeach (SHLAA sites 1 and 202). 7 general supports for Policy H/1. 7 supports for no sites being allocated at Fulbourn 2 Support for development at Sawston to help local residents stay in the village. 1 Support for rejection of Barrington Quarry site. Support for rejection of Sawston, Babraham, Hinxton, Great Shelford & Stapleford – SHLAA Sites. 213 Supports for Rejection, and 6 object to rejection of Land to East of New Road Melbourn (SHLAA site 320) and South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 85
Orchard and Land at East Farm Melbourn (SHLAA site 331) 1 Support for rejection of The Rouses Bassingbourn (SHLAA site 078) 1 Support for rejection of Next to Walnut Tree Close, North End Bassingbourn (SHLAA site 85) 1 Support for rejection of Land north of A428, Cambourne (SHLAA Sites 194 & 265) Petition Signed By 22 People support rejection of land at Cockerton Road Girton (SHLAA site 143) 5 Supports for rejection of Land off Station Road Fulbourn (SHLAA site 74) and other Fulbourn SHLAA sites
OBJECT
Roads are already a problem. Half the sites are in the Green Belt, and exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated. Policy should refer to sites being allocated in the Green Belt only if there are no sites available outside the Green Belt. Bullet 2 requiring sites to make appropriate financial contributions to any necessary additional infrastructure is unnecessary as a plan policy. Roads in Gamlingay cannot cope. Object to further development in Melbourn. Oakington Parish Council object that the plan does not include the following sites as housing allocations: o Sawston (SHLAA sites 230, 116, 23, ) o Cottenham (SHLAA sites 123, 263) o Fulbourn (SHLAA site 74) o Linton (SHLAA site 152) o Swavesey (SHLAA site 83) o Bassingbourn (SHLAA site 85) o Comberton (SHLAA sites 4, 158, 255) o Papworth Everard (SHLAA site 151) Waterbeach (SHLAA sites 89, 189, 155, and 206)
Additional or alternative village housing sites
90 additional or alternative village housing sites suggested, most of which have been previously submitted and reviewed through the SHLAA. These have been summarised and assessed separately, and the assessments can be read in Annex B.
Rural Centres: o Cambourne: 1 site, 56 homes (1 new site) o Cottenham: 5 sites, 477 homes (All SHLAA sites) o Great Shelford & Stapleford: 7 sites, 702 homes (6 SHLAA sites, 1 new site) o Histon & Impington: 5 sites, 380 homes (All SHLAA sites) South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 86 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes o Sawston: 4 sites, 152 homes (All SHLAA sites) Minor Rural Centre: o Bassingbourn: 2 sites, 71 homes (1 SHLAA site, 1 new site) o Comberton: 2 sites, 181 homes (1 SHLAA site, 1 new site) o Fulbourn: 5 sites, 416 homes (All SHLAA sites) o Gamlingay: 4 sites, 191 homes (3 SHLAA sites, 1 new site) o Girton: 2 sites, 15 homes (All SHLAA sites) o Linton: 3 sites, 473 homes (All SHLAA sites) o Melbourn: 1 site, 200 homes (SHLAA site) o Papworth Everard: 1 site, 167 homes (SHLAA site) o Swavesey: 3 sites, 284 homes (All SHLAA sites) o Waterbeach: 4 sites, 178 homes (All SHLAA sites) o Willingham: 1 site, 28 homes (SHLAA site) Group Villages - 22 SHLAA sites, 4 new sites. Includes sites proposed by Great Abington and Little Abington Parish Councils. Infill Villages – 5 new sites. Includes sites proposed by Graveley Parish Council.
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages Site reference H/1a Sawston, Dales Manor Business Park
Proposed Total: 146 Submission Support: 44 Representations Object: 102 Received Main Issues Support Cambridge Past Present and Future – support this policy. Cambridgeshire County Council – three Sawston sites can be appropriately accessed. Detailed Transport Assessment needed to determine impacts, required mitigation and viability, deliverability and acceptability of works. Education impacts capable of mitigation. Hinxton, Ickleton, Oakington & Westwick and Pampisford Parish Councils – support reuse of brownfield site. Sustainable development, brownfield land, will improve appearance of village boundary and benefit community. Allows for additional housing without ruining the Green Belt. Development of only this site would limit traffic congestion on Babraham Road, minimise impact on schools, health centres and other local services. Sawston provides housing to average income home owners who cannot afford to live anywhere else south of Cambridge. One of the few communities with the infrastructure to support South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 87
such developments. Need housing for local people. Include a corner shop – already needed in the area. Objection Environment Agency – former industrial site above a Source Protection Zone. Need a land contamination report prior to the drainage plan - suggest adding requirement to policy. Governing Body of Icknield Primary School – object to all 3 Sawston sites: increased roll detrimental to education provision / school ethos, buildings inadequate; negative impact on education from construction noise and disruption; significant / negative impact on community; access, traffic and parking are major issues. If approved, require new buildings, retention of existing school site and grounds, improved access and parking, and full involvement in discussions / decisions. Great Abington Parish Council – developments in or near Sawston, particularly on eastern edge, are unacceptable. Considerable traffic impacts for Sawston and Babraham. James Binney Will Trust – accept need for more dwellings and in vicinity of Sawston and Pampisford is appropriate in principle. Serious concerns over highways safety and setting of heritage assets; increased traffic on Babraham Road, Sawston Road and Babraham High Street - roads inadequate, and significant upgrades to junctions will detract from rural character, impact on local residents and setting of Listed Pampisford Hall. Impact on drainage system to south must be assessed to ensure natural ecosystem not affected. MCA Developments Limited – given limited employment opportunities in villages and there are locations (e.g. West Cambourne) that can accommodate housing without loss of employment land, there is not sufficient justification for this site. Peterhouse (Bidwells) (promoter) – support allocation - will strengthen vitality and viability of village, and provide needed housing and employment opportunities. Site within a variety of ownerships and overall delivery is unlikely until after 2020 (2017/18 in housing trajectory). Delete 3rd bullet. Salmon Harvester (Savills) (promoter) – support allocation, but opportunity for 230-250 dwellings. Insufficient market interest for employment - opportunity for redevelopment of underused site for housing and business uses. Traffic study shows capacity in highway network. Site is available on phased basis, but to be completed by the end of the plan period. Replace 200 with 230 dwellings. Sawston Parish Council – fully supportive of sustainable new housing on brownfield site, within framework, supported by residents. Would not overburden facilities. If well planned, could enhance neighbourhood and provide better transition between built-up area and countryside. Alternative access to Wakelin Avenue needed. Consideration needed to cumulative South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 88 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes impact should football stadium be permitted on adjacent site. All 3 sites will create large housing estate, increase population significantly, and change nature of village - becoming a town. Lower number of homes so new population can be absorbed into village. Need assurance of attractive and varied design. Appropriate measures needed to deal with significant additional traffic, especially peak times. Require developers to fund new access road - suggestions: (i) along old railway line, (ii) north of Deal Grove wooded area to Cambridge Road, (iii) parallel to Woodlands Road wooded area to Cambridge Road, (iv) new bypass from Babraham Road to Cambridge Road. Wakelin Avenue is unsuited to extra traffic - use Grove Road and West Way. Considerable distance from High Street – will encourage car use – parking in the village already saturated. Too far from nearest bus stop and routes to Cambridge are infrequent, slow and unreliable. Sawston does not have facilities for these houses, and no apparent mitigation. No room to expand Icknield School. Bellbird School not suitable for increased demand. Health centre at capacity. Limited local employment. Sewage plant needs upgrading. Water pressure already low. Policy should require retention of tree belt located to rear of Broadmeadows / Fairfields - enhances environment and natural habitat. Part of a scheme to reduce noise and pollution. Choosing industrial site short sighted – expanding population in Sawston / growing economy may mean more industrial units are needed. Consider non-industrial areas first. Location between industrial and football stadium unsuitable. Provide sustainable employment opportunities for residents, e.g. sports centre, ice rink or cinema. Need village hall. Site is supposed to be for affordable homes but cannot ensure they will be allocated to local residents. Will create suburb of Cambridge – Sawston, Stapleford and Babraham will all join together in future. Consider land off New Road / smaller sites on west of village. Near bypass; easier for cars to leave village, nearer High Street; more likely to walk/cycle. Flood issues acceptable with careful controls. Whittlesford station is within walking distance.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 89
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages Site H1/b – Sawston, land north of Babraham Road (in Babraham Parish)
Proposed Total: 210 Submission Support: 9 Representations Object: 201 Received Main Issues Support Anglian Water – capacity available to serve proposed growth in water recycling centre and foul sewerage network. Surface water network capacity – major constraints to provision of infrastructure and/or treatment to serve proposed growth. Sewers crossing the site – site layout should take into account. Cambridgeshire County Council – three Sawston sites can be appropriately accessed. Detailed Transport Assessment needed to determine impacts, required mitigation and viability, deliverability and acceptability of works. Education impacts capable of mitigation. Logical infill to improve appearance of entrance to village - create soft green edge. Make provision for maintaining or enlarging path along the current eastern edge of the village. Sawston provides housing to average income home owners who cannot afford to live anywhere else south of Cambridge. One of the few communities with the infrastructure to support such developments. Need housing for local people. Objection Babraham Parish Council – Green Belt should not be built on. Increase in traffic unacceptable - will make Babraham High Street/A1307 more dangerous. Will attract London commuters, not allocated to local residents. Medical centre and schools at capacity. Land owned by Ward’s Charity is not available for housing under charity’s terms. Cambridge Past Present and Future – half the sites in villages lie within Green Belt - Council has not demonstrated ‘exceptional circumstances’. Governing Body of Icknield Primary School – object to all 3 Sawston sites: increased roll detrimental to education provision / school ethos, buildings inadequate; negative impact on education from construction noise and disruption; significant / negative impact on community; access, traffic and parking are major issues. If approved, require new buildings, retention of existing school site and grounds, improved access and parking, and full involvement in discussions / decisions. Great Abington Parish Council – developments in or near Sawston, particularly on eastern edge, are unacceptable. Considerable traffic impacts for Sawston and Babraham.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 90 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Within Green Belt and Babraham parish. Hinxton Parish Council – greenfield land in Green Belt. Increased traffic. Concerns over capacity of parking, schools and doctors surgery. Ickleton Parish Council – not sustainable as good agricultural and Green Belt land. Too far out of village - car journeys to facilities elsewhere. Medical Centre at capacity. Public transport inadequate or non-existent. James Binney Will Trust – accept need for more dwellings and in vicinity of Sawston and Pampisford is appropriate in principle. Serious concerns over highways safety and setting of heritage assets; increased traffic on Babraham Road, Sawston Road and Babraham High Street - roads inadequate, and significant upgrades to junctions will detract from rural character, impact on local residents and setting of Listed Pampisford Hall. Impact on drainage system to south must be assessed to ensure natural ecosystem not affected. MCA Developments Limited – NPPF clear Green Belt should only be considered where exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated. Release of Green Belt land around Sawston is not justified when other options exist e.g. Cambourne West. Pampisford Parish Council – consider effect of 540 homes in same area on Sawston and surrounding villages. Located far from village centre and few residents have employment in Sawston - reliance on cars. Increase congestion and pollution on Babraham Road. Roads unsuitable – no credible transport plan to mitigate impacts. No justification for using agricultural land outside village framework – contrary to NPPF. Impact on local infrastructure especially schools and medical services. Quy Farms Ltd – hierarchy gives edge of Cambridge as preferred location - difficult to understand why releasing land from Green Belt on edge of villages. Some development is needed in villages to provide choice, quantum is unsound. Allocate land at Fen Ditton - edge of Cambridge. Sawston Parish Council – 540 homes out of proportion. Poorly related to public transport and unacceptable distance from village facilities - increase car usage. Physically impossible to increase parking in village. Increase traffic on Babraham Road and no clear proposals for increasing capacity on road network. Existing amenities oversubscribed. Limited scope to expand Icknield School - site constraints. Bellbird 800+ metres away, discouraging walking. Green Belt important in preserving the separation between Sawston and Babraham. In public consultation only 33% of representations supported. Stapleford Parish Council – Parish Plan states should resist Green Belt except for recreation. Recognise need for housing, South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 91
but concerned that existing infrastructure cannot support massive rise in housing and population. Traffic increase will have massive impact on Stapleford parish. Whittlesford Parish Council – will place added pressure on infrastructure e.g. schools, shopping, medical centre, roads. Nearby small villages depend on these services. Will add considerable traffic accessing and joining A505 and cause congestion in Babraham. All 3 sites will create large housing estate, increase population significantly, and change nature of village - becoming a town. Adequate sustainability report not prepared. Minimal contribution to five year supply, not vital. Council has only considered land deemed available by owners. Look for appropriate brownfield sites and approach owners. Loss of good quality agricultural land and wildlife habitat - don’t need houses to soften the edge of the village – just plant trees. Adverse impact on Babraham in terms of character and nature, facilities and safety. Lower number of homes should be built so that the new population can be successfully absorbed into the village. Too much strain on village centre - cannot expand. Shops would compete with village centre and endanger its vitality. Village infrastructure will not support increased population and no substantive remediation plans. Increased load on schools, nursery and medical facilities. Access problem for dependent neighbouring villages. No employment in Sawston. Water pressure already low. If developed require: primary school, improved transport, additional village amenities and parking. Need housing for local people. Will become commuter village. Significant impact on traffic and surrounding roads. Strain on public transport. No adequate traffic impact appraisal done for this site or cumulative impacts of 3 proposals. No traffic mitigation planned. Congestion on main roads will lead to side roads being used as ‘rat runs’. Concerned about cumulative impacts of traffic if Cambridge City FC move to Sawston. Require developers to fund new access road - suggestions: (i) along old railway line, (ii) north of Deal Grove wooded area to Cambridge Road, (iii) parallel to Woodlands Road wooded area to Cambridge Road, (iv) new bypass from Babraham Road to Cambridge Road. Distance to village centre - car dependent. No plans for safe non-car routes. Car parks at capacity. No suitable public transport links to Cambridge. Locate homes around transport links - train stations. Bus routes infrequent, slow and unreliable. Protect Babraham Restricted byway 10 along the edge of site. Sawston carrying disproportionate housing burden – other villages could take 40-50 new homes. South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 92 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Effects on Sawston and surrounding villages like Babraham, Pampisford and Whittlesford have not been considered. Will create suburb of Cambridge – Sawston, Stapleford and Babraham will all join together in future. Provide sustainable employment opportunities for residents, e.g. sports centre, ice rink or cinema. Need village hall. Consider land off New Road / smaller sites on west of village. Near bypass; easier for cars to leave village, nearer High Street; more likely to walk/cycle. Flood issues acceptable with careful controls.
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages Site H1/c – Sawston, land south of Babraham Road (part in Babraham Parish)
Proposed Total: 231 Submission Support: 13 Representations Object: 218 Received Main Issues Support Anglian Water - capacity available to serve proposed growth in water recycling centre. Foul sewerage network capacity – infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades required or diversion of assets may be required. Surface water network capacity – major constraints to provision of infrastructure and/or treatment to serve proposed growth. Some localised enhancement to network may be required to receive foul water. Sewers crossing site – layout should take into account. Cambridgeshire County Council – three Sawston sites can be appropriately accessed. Detailed Transport Assessment needed to determine impacts, required mitigation and viability, deliverability and acceptability of works. Education impacts capable of mitigation. John Huntingdon Charity (promoter) – charity provides relief to local people who need housing through alms houses. Intend to provide further alms houses. Good location / obvious place to extend village. Would give continuity to village and better access to amenities. Opportunity to improve boundary landscaping. Need for affordable housing – prevents residents being forced to move away from family and support networks. Sawston provides housing to average income home owners who cannot afford to live anywhere else south of Cambridge. One of the few communities with the infrastructure to support such developments. Need housing for local people. Site put forward by local charities who understand the local South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 93
need. Some land could be used for school playing field. Desperately need additional housing - should not be dismissed on basis of imagined or hypothetical problems. Objection Babraham Parish Council – Green Belt should not be built on. Increase in traffic unacceptable - will make Babraham High Street/A1307 more dangerous. Will attract London commuters, not allocated to local residents. Medical centre and schools at capacity. Land owned by Ward’s Charity is not available for housing under charity’s terms. Cambridge Past Present and Future – half the sites in villages lie within Green Belt - Council has not demonstrated ‘exceptional circumstances’. Governing Body of Icknield Primary School – object to all 3 Sawston sites: increased roll detrimental to education provision / school ethos, buildings inadequate; negative impact on education from construction noise and disruption; significant / negative impact on community; access, traffic and parking are major issues. If approved, require new buildings, retention of existing school site and grounds, improved access and parking, and full involvement in discussions / decisions. Great Abington Parish Council – developments in or near Sawston, particularly on eastern edge, are unacceptable. Considerable traffic impacts for Sawston and Babraham. Within Green Belt and Babraham parish. Hinxton Parish Council – greenfield land in Green Belt. Increased traffic. Concerns over capacity of parking, schools and doctors surgery. Ickleton Parish Council – not sustainable as good agricultural and Green Belt land. Too far out of village - car journeys to facilities elsewhere. Medical Centre at capacity. Public transport inadequate or non-existent. James Binney Will Trust – accept need for more dwellings and in vicinity of Sawston and Pampisford is appropriate in principle. Serious concerns over highways safety and setting of heritage assets; increased traffic on Babraham Road, Sawston Road and Babraham High Street - roads inadequate, and significant upgrades to junctions will detract from rural character, impact on local residents and setting of Listed Pampisford Hall. Impact on drainage system to south must be assessed to ensure natural ecosystem not affected. MCA Developments Limited – NPPF clear Green Belt should only be considered where exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated. Release of Green Belt land around Sawston is not justified when other options exist e.g. Cambourne West. Pampisford Parish Council – consider effect of 540 homes in same area on Sawston and surrounding villages. Located far from village centre and few residents have employment in South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 94 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Sawston - reliance on cars. Increase congestion and pollution on Babraham Road. Roads unsuitable – no credible transport plan to mitigate impacts. No justification for using agricultural land outside village framework – contrary to NPPF. Impact on local infrastructure especially schools and medical services. Quy Farms Ltd – hierarchy gives edge of Cambridge as preferred location - difficult to understand why releasing land from Green Belt on edge of villages. Some development is needed in villages to provide choice, quantum is unsound. Allocate land at Fen Ditton - edge of Cambridge. Sawston Parish Council – 540 homes out of proportion. Poorly related to public transport and unacceptable distance from village facilities - increase car usage. Physically impossible to increase parking in village. Increase traffic on Babraham Road and no clear proposals for increasing capacity on road network. Existing amenities oversubscribed. Limited scope to expand Icknield School - site constraints. Bellbird 800+ metres away, discouraging walking. Green Belt important in preserving the separation between Sawston and Babraham. In public consultation only 33% of representations supported. Shelford & District Bridleways Group – Reword bullet 4 to incorporate access for horse riders as well as pedestrians and cyclists - not compliant with NPPF, evidence in Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy and Equality Act. Stapleford Parish Council – Parish Plan states should resist Green Belt except for recreation. Recognise need for housing, but concerned that existing infrastructure cannot support massive rise in housing and population. Traffic increase will have massive impact on Stapleford parish. Whittlesford Parish Council – will place added pressure on infrastructure e.g. schools, shopping, medical centre, roads. Nearby small villages depend on these services. Will add considerable traffic accessing and joining A505 and cause congestion in Babraham. All 3 sites will create large housing estate, increase population significantly, and change nature of village - becoming a town. Adequate sustainability report has not been prepared. Site is amalgamation of Site Options 8 and 9, put forward separately by different developers - cannot legally be considered as one. Minimal contribution to five year supply, not vital. Council has only considered land deemed available by owners. Look for appropriate brownfield sites and approach owners. Loss of good quality agricultural land and wildlife habitat - don’t need houses to soften the edge of the village – just plant trees. Within Babraham parish - adverse impact on Babraham in terms of character and nature, facilities and safety. South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 95
Small strip of land that gives access is owned by Ward’s Charity - without this land the site is undeliverable. Lower number of homes should be built so that the new population can be successfully absorbed into the village. Too much strain on village centre - cannot expand. Shops would compete with village centre and endanger its vitality. Village infrastructure will not support increased population and no substantive remediation plans. Increased load on schools, nursery and medical facilities. Access problem for dependent neighbouring villages. No employment in Sawston. Water pressure already low. If developed require: primary school, improved transport, additional village amenities and parking. Need housing for local people. Will become commuter village. Significant impact on traffic and surrounding roads. Strain on public transport. No adequate traffic impact appraisal done for this site or cumulative impacts of 3 proposals. No traffic mitigation planned. Congestion on main roads will lead to side roads being used as ‘rat runs’. Concerned about cumulative impacts of traffic if Cambridge City FC move to Sawston. Require developers to fund new access road to bypass village centre / encourage traffic away from Babraham. Suggestions: (i) along old railway line, (ii) north of Deal Grove wooded area to Cambridge Road, (iii) parallel to Woodlands Road wooded area to Cambridge Road, (iv) new bypass from Babraham Road to Cambridge Road. No undertaking given to prevent access onto Church Lane. Distance to village centre - car dependent. No plans for safe non-car routes. Car parks at capacity. No suitable public transport links to Cambridge. Locate homes around transport links - train stations. Bus routes infrequent, slow and unreliable. Public footpath runs through site – object to its extinguishment but would consider a sensible diversion. Sawston carrying disproportionate housing burden – other villages could take 40-50 new homes. Effects on Sawston and surrounding villages like Babraham, Pampisford and Whittlesford have not been considered. Will create suburb of Cambridge – Sawston, Stapleford and Babraham will all join together in future. Provide sustainable employment opportunities for residents, e.g. sports centre, ice rink or cinema. Need village hall. Consider land off New Road / smaller sites on west of village. Near bypass; easier for cars to leave village, nearer High Street; more likely to walk/cycle. Flood issues acceptable with careful controls. Consider housing on Michael Mallows Farm. Infill small serviced sites within the village first.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 96 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages Site H1/d – Histon & Impington, land north of Impington Lane
Proposed Total: 24 Submission Support: 2 Representations Object: 22 Received Main Issues Support Anglian Water – Capacity available for water recycling and foul sewerage to serve the proposed growth. Support completion of Unwins site for small, affordable, carless properties to help young people stay locally. Objection WJ Unwins & Messrs Biggs (site promoters) – Support, but object to northern site boundary – illogical, not defined on ground. Green Belt release for only 25 houses at highly sustainable Rural Centre is inappropriate. Increase site size. Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Within Green Belt. Not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. NPPF permits limited infill in Green Belt for affordable housing only. Ely Group of Internal Drainage Boards – Site outside IDB area but must be consulted (with Environment Agency) on surface water disposal proposals. Histon and Impington PC – Need for homes not outweigh harm to Green Belt – no exceptional circumstances. Adverse impact on rural appearance and character of area, including setting of Conservation Areas and Grade II Listed Buildings, archaeological potential. Further strain on infrastructure – schools. Inappropriate access. Alternative brownfield sites. Already loss of Green Belt for Orchard Park, Darwin Green etc. Even if larger site, not strategic scale and faces same issues. Oakington and Westwick PC – Object to site option. Green Belt. Not exceptional circumstances to remove. Premature to release before proper review conducted, including all possible brownfield sites. Outside village framework. Floods during winter. Bidwells report erroneous claiming water table does not reach this field. Access previously refused as inappropriate, dangerous and does not comply with highway regulations regarding visibility. Impact on pedestrian safety - main walk / cycleway to school. Services over capacity – doctors, schools, recreation. Impact on Green Belt, village character, village sprawl not South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 97
offset by benefits of 25 dwellings. Most employment in Cambridge or south of city. Impington Lane and B1049 do not have capacity for more traffic. Junction Impington Lane / The Green - accident area. Lack of information on “significant landscape buffer”. Parish Council’s plans for ‘station’ should be followed. Build barriers to reduce A14 noise pollution.
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages Site H1/e – Melbourn, land off New Road and rear of Victoria Way
Proposed Total: 230 Submission Support: 179 Representations Object: 51 Received Main Issues Support A high number of largely identical representations have been submitted as part of a local campaign supporting the site but opposed to any wider scale of development in the village.
Brian Tyler (site promoter) – Site is sustainable, deliverable, and owner preparing planning application. No overriding constraints to delivery of high quality housing for local people. Nicholas Newman (site promoter) – Sustainable site forming an obvious extension to the settlement. Anglian Water – Capacity available for water recycling and foul sewerage to serve the proposed growth. Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Supports policy. Defence Infrastructure Organisation – Site falls outside of statutory consultation zones for MOD aerodromes. Oakington and Westwick PC – Support site allocation. Support housing site off New Road to the rear of Victoria Way. Support but consider 65 to be absolute maximum for village. Evidence of democracy in action – listened to response of village to H7 & H8 (overwhelmingly against). As long as sustainability is factored in i.e. % families / elderly, affecting all services – medical, schools, transport, parking. Will need imaginative landscape as forms promontory development jutting into farmland. Sustainable location, obvious extension to village, capable of meeting housing needs. Access achievable from New Road. Support site, with plans for The Moor, the Old Elm Tree and the Old Police Station, ample housing for Melbourn.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 98 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Objection
Object to housing site off New Road to the rear of Victoria Way Too many houses. Village already at capacity. More like small town than village. Housing not required and sets precedent. Does not deal with (overstretched) infrastructure – water, sewerage, doctors, school, village centre gridlocked at traffic lights, community halls. Contradicts Minor Rural Centre policy – no more than 30 dwellings. Access to New Road insufficient. Roads inadequate. Traffic from scientific and technology parks not taken into account. More in favour of creating new village than diminishing quality of life in Melbourn and other affected villages. Loss of significant area of high quality agricultural land. 54% population children or pre-middle age, remainder elderly - enhance schools and communal facilities not add to demands. Would be serious social disruption to established community. Serious engineering / surveying difficulties within site. Strange change of use of a field that provides a buffer to the extension of the village. Would be open except for cemetery.
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages Site H1/f – Gamlingay, Green End Industrial Estate
Proposed Total: 13 Submission Support: 4 Representations Object: 9 Received Main Issues Support Anglian Water – Capacity available for water recycling and foul sewerage to serve the proposed growth. Defence Infrastructure Organisation – Site falls outside of statutory consultation zones for MOD aerodromes. Gamlingay PC – Support inclusion as it was the most sensible option to cater for Gamlingay’s housing needs in this period. Oakington and Westwick PC – Support site allocation. Objection Green End Trading Company (site promoters) – Support in principle. Object to clause “employment uses utilising not less than 25% of the site” on viability grounds. Only some existing uses could be retained, rest speculative – limited demand and
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 99
excess supply locally. Alternative wording proposed. Gamlingay PC – Concerns about ensuring proposed mix of development properly caters for existing businesses on site. Support need for them to be retained on site or relocated to Station Road site. Objectives of climate change must be rigorously pursued in this development – where feasible zero carbon policy applied. Over 65s need 2 bed houses of sensible size in Gamlingay to downsize. Roads already choked. Trucks, lorries and buses cannot get through. Further industrial development will add to problem. Gamlingay has reached capacity – no more. Can infrastructure cope? – doctors, shops, schools, transport / roads. Excess traffic. Roads full of potholes. Lack of amenity space this side of village. Overdevelopment of village.
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages Site H1/g – Willingham, land east of Rockmill End
Proposed Total: 5 Submission Support: 4 Representations Object: 1 Received Main Issues Support Ely Diocesan Board of Finance (site promoter) – Site justified when considering reasonable alternatives. Willingham sustainable village. Viable, deliverable, minimal landscape, access, heritage, wildlife impacts - capable of being mitigated. Quantum of development corresponds to Minor Rural Centre. Anglian Water – Capacity available for water recycling and foul sewerage to serve the proposed growth. Defence Infrastructure Organisation – Site falls outside of statutory consultation zones for MOD aerodromes. Oakington and Westwick PC – Support site allocation. Objection Ely Group of Internal Drainage Boards – Site drains into Old West IDB. No residual capacity for increased run-off – must include scheme for water accommodation within development, at developers expense.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 100 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages Site H1/h – Comberton, land at Bennell Farm (in Toft Parish)
Proposed Total: 32 Submission Support: 2 Representations Object: 30 Received Main Issues Support Anglian Water – Capacity available for water recycling and foul sewerage to serve the proposed growth. Defence Infrastructure Organisation – Site falls outside of statutory consultation zones for MOD aerodromes.
Objection Mr & Mrs Arnold (site promoters) – Support but seek more flexibility: (1) alternative disposition of residential development across site, not restricted to east of access road. (2) Query need for football pitch, monies better directed to existing facilities & Village College overspill car parking provision – allow flexibility for on- or off-site provision or both. (3) Expand site to include remaining part of field to allow better disposition of uses – unsuitable for agriculture once site built. Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Within Green Belt. Not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. NPPF permits limited infill in Green Belt for affordable housing only. Barton PC – Must reduce amount of traffic through villages - access from A428 to M11 must be provided before houses. Comberton PC – Majority of residents support no significant changes to Comberton. Sewage capacity issues. Traffic flow without traffic calming / controls – impact on pedestrian safety and children attending schools. All negative impacts while Toft gets financial benefits. Remove site, or offset adverse impacts. Toft PC – Site not suitable for 90 houses, cannot achieve low density. Overstretch local infrastructure, amenities and services. Opposite Village College – hazardous. Within Toft Parish but adjacent to Comberton – support any representation from Comberton PC. Concerns about football pitch / changing room proposals – not discussed with PC. Green Belt should be protected and not “released”. Loss of separation with Toft. Alternative non-Green Belt sites available. Goes against Council’s own policies - outside village framework, Minor Rural Centre - maximum size 30 dwellings. Road and public transport cannot support traffic – commuting South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 101
already difficult, congestion. Roads blocked by parked cars. Opposite Village College – hazardous. Poor pavement continuity. No safe cycle path. Toft does not need elaborate football field and changing facilities. Takes no account of existing provision in Comberton. Unlikely to benefit younger children - too far from village. Drainage and risk of flooding need to be planned for. Consult Comberton residents on how to spend monies – new footpaths, cycleways, road safety measures etc. Overstretch local infrastructure, amenities and services in Comberton – library, health, schools, shops etc. No mains gas. Lack of local employment – commute elsewhere. Historical grazing land, rich in wildlife. Within Toft Parish but on edge of Comberton – Toft receives benefits / finance (move Parish Boundary), whilst Comberton gets the negative impacts. Numerous planning applications refused as outside village framework and encourage ribbon development. Disproportionate number of homes planned for area. Developments this size should be near good fast roads and adequate local shopping and employment. Requirement for affordable housing to meet local needs welcomed, but need to preserve character of area, reduce traffic impact and address drainage – no more than 50-60. Hierarchy preference for edge of Cambridge. Quantum of development in villages compared to edge of Cambridge unsound. Object to release of Green Belt land at villages in preference to land at Fen Ditton.
Policy H/2 Bayer CropScience Site, Hauxton
Proposed Total: 21 Submission Support: 8 Representations Object: 13 Received Main Issues Support Environment Agency – Support the remediation of all contamination to make the drainage of the site effective. Natural England – Welcome policy references to landscape, biodiversity, and cycle and pedestrian linkages. Support the development which will deliver riverside open space, bus services and cycle links into Trumpington which will benefit residents from Hauxton, Harston and Trumpington. Support subject to adequate de-contamination measures.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 102 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Objection Environment Agency – FRA required at an early stage. Land decontamination must take account of ground water. Provision should be made for the needs of horse riders in section 1 and in section 2 b, and c. Development will lead to a huge increase in traffic on the Hauxton Road. The A10 should be diverted around the village. Harrow Estates PLC - Site boundary should be extended to include the former Waste Water Treatment Works which could be developed for up to 35 family properties without any greater impact on the Green Belt.
Policy H/3 Papworth Everard West Central
Proposed Total: 3 Submission Support: 1 Representations Object: 2 Received Main Issues Support Objection Cambourne, Caldecote PCs – The policy should require contributions to be made to the A428/A1198 junction as the scale of development proposed will have an adverse effect on the junction.
Policy H/4 Fen Drayton Former Land Settlement Association Estate
Proposed Total: 3 Submission Support: 3 Representations Received Main Issues Support Environment Agency – No soundness concerns on flood risk as development is limited to the existing footprint. Support the continuation of this policy.
Policy H/5 South of the A1307, Linton
Proposed Total: 4 Submission Support: 3 Representations Object: 1 South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 103
Received Main Issues Support Suffolk County Council – Policy H/5 is designed to improve the safety of this road and is supported. The A1307 is operating at and above capacity and transport issues along it need to be addressed. Objection The policy serves no useful planning purpose and should be deleted from the plan. Safe access across the A1307 can easily be achieved. A purely affordable home development for 18 affordable homes was permitted in February 2013 on the Old Police Station site. Assessment This long established policy seeks to prevent residential development south of the A1307 in the interest of public safety and sustainability. With regard to the Old Police Station, the site was already in residential use with 4 existing homes, and Planning Committee determined that a departure from policy was justified to provide a substantial number of new affordable homes in a village with a very high level of local need. Approach in Submission No change. Local Plan
Policy H/6 Residential Moorings
Proposed Total: 2 Submission Support: 2 Representations Object: 0 Received Main Issues Support Cambridge City Council – The City Council has allocated adjoining land in Cambridge for the same purpose since 2006, the addition of this land will render the scheme more developable and so have positive impacts on residential and leisure moorings on the river
Policy H/7 Housing Density
Proposed Total: 8 Submission Support: 1 Representations Object: 7 Received
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 104 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Main Issues Support Support policy.
Objection Policy is inflexible and too prescriptive and should give more weight to site and design related considerations. Remove the minimum density requirements. Not consistent with the NPPF which has removed density requirements. The Taylor Family and Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd - 40 dph is too high for the Bourn Airfield development as there is no market locally for flats. Clause 1b should refer to 30- 35dph being acceptable at Bourn Airfield. The site could deliver 3,500 homes at an average density of 33.3 dph. Use higher densities to reduce the number and area of development sites required.
Policy H/8 Housing Mix (paragraphs 7.26, 7.28 and 7.29)
Proposed Total: 30 Submission Support: 3 Representations Object: 27 Received
Main Issues Support Gamlingay PC - Smaller housing units and lifetime homes are needed to cater for an aging population. The 30% allocation for larger family houses is appropriate for rural communities. Agree that specialist accommodation for the elderly should not be subject to the housing mix policy.
Objection Bourn PC - Plan should define the meaning of local circumstances. Gt Abington and Little Abington PCs - Greater flexibility required, policy should allow input from local housing need assessments. Cambridgeshire County Council - For sites providing 100 homes or more a ‘demographic change impact assessment’ should be required. New policy sought. All market homes should be built to the lifetime homes standard. Cambourne Parish Council - Include a 20% flexibility South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 105
allowance. Homes and Communities Agency – Support the provision of lifetime homes, but delivering 1 in 20 homes as lifetime homes could affect the deliverability and viability of Northstowe. Gallagher Estates - The percentages of differently sized homes in the policy do not reflect forecast needs. Account should be taken of the higher provision in Cambridge of 1 and 2 bedroom homes. Flexibility is required in respect of the phased development of new settlements. Amend the proportions to accord with SHMA evidence:(At least 12% 1 or 2 bedroom homes, at least 22% 3 bedroom homes, at least 23% 4 or more bedroom homes, with a 10-15% flexibility allowance and unless it can be demonstrated that the local circumstances of the particular settlement or location suggest a different mix would better meet local needs). Too inflexible and prescriptive. Not justified by the evidence base and changing market conditions over the plan period. Ignores site circumstances and location. Amend to remove the percentages. For developments of 9 or fewer homes the policy should state that the mix will take account of local circumstances.
Policy H/9 Affordable Housing
Proposed Total: 24 Submission Support: 8 Representations Object: 16 Received Main Issues Support Gamlingay PC - Will deliver balanced communities Fowlmere, Caldecote PCs – Support Madingley PC – Support, local need in the Parish A threshold of 3 dwellings is much better. Avoids creation of them and us ‘ghettos’. Support this approach and the flexibility it provides in respect of viability. Accords with the NPPF.
Objection Gamlingay PC - Provision must be on-site. Financial contributions should be ‘ring-fenced’ to that community Bourn PC – Allows off site provision and should include a definition of the term ‘local circumstances’. Not clear on how Parish Councils can get involved. Cambourne PC – Would support a threshold of 5 homes.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 106 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Threshold should be set higher (at between 5 and 10 homes). If set at 5 homes, 2 on site affordable homes could be achieved. Homes and Communities Agency – Support H/9, but to ensure clarity the status of the Affordable Housing SPD must be clarified. The viability of this policy has not been demonstrated, there is a lack of clarity about how small sites will be treated where exactly 40% provision cannot be made on site. Home Builders Federation - The evidence does not support a 40% affordable housing rate across the District taking account of CIL and the impact of other plan policies on viability. Section f) should be deleted as it contradicts sections d) and e).
Policy H/10 Rural Exception Site Affordable Housing (paragraphs 7.36, 7.39)
Proposed Total: 25 Submission Support: 5 Representations Object: 20 Received Main Issues Support Gamlingay PC – Where there are no other sites available within the village envelope to meet local needs.
Objection Gamlingay PC – Allowing some market housing will inflate the hope value of land for landowners. There is no mention of a role for Parish Councils. Bourn PC – Support the policy generally, but object to the lack of clarity about Parish Council involvement regarding identification of local needs, siting, phasing and the level of market housing. Great Abington PC – Support policy but exception schemes should not be the only way to get more housing in Group Villages like the Abingtons. Little Abington PC – More flexibility required in definition of exception sites to allow the housing to meet local needs including for market housing. Cambourne and Caldecote PC’s – Policy should require that the affordable homes are not isolated or disenfranchised from the existing settlement. Exemption housing schemes in the Green Belt should be South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 107
limited to no more than 5 dwellings. Delete section 2. Replace section 2f) with: ‘Including an appropriate mix of market housing to make the scheme viable to meet the needs of the Parish Councils and still remain an exception site’. Not consistent with the NPPF, a more positive and flexible approach to the inclusion of market housing is required particularly to allow exemptions for Community Land Trusts. There is a need for more market housing in the Abingtons to meet local needs and allow downsizing.
Policy H/11 Residential Space Standards for Market Housing (Figure 10: Residential Space Standards)
Proposed Total: 16 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 16 Received Main Issues Objection Gamlingay PC – Ensure smaller accommodation meets Lifetime Homes standards. The policy is unduly prescriptive and inflexible and not consistent with the NPPF. It fails to allow for the implications of individual sites to be taken into account. Space in the home should be left to the market. We should use the same standards as are proposed in Cambridge. No adequate evidence base or viability testing. It will increase house prices. It ignores the fact that market homes are often under-occupied and that purchasers are satisfied with their new homes. The standards are different from those in the Government’s Housing Standards Review which includes a proposed national minimum standard. They should be amended to be consistent with the minimum level 1 standards in Table A1-A3 of the review. Remove the restriction on the area of a study. The Council has used the upper end of the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) standards for affordable homes, but to establish a minimum acceptable standard it should have used the lower end room sizes from the HCA range. The proposed standards are too small and will not increase the size of homes.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 108 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
Policy H/12 Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside
Proposed Total: 3 Submission Support: 3 Representations Object: 0 Received Main Issues Support Bourn PC – This will help protect local character. Great Abington PC – Welcome policy which will help address planning issues in the Abington Land Settlement Area. The equivalent policy in previous plans was unduly restrictive.
Policy H/13 Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside
Proposed Total: 5 Submission Support: 1 Representations Object: 4 Received Main Issues Support Great Abington PC – Welcome policy which will help address planning issues in the Abington Land Settlement Area.
Objection Bourn PC – Generally support but seek a 15% maximum increase limit to any extension put back in the policy to protect local character and the availability of smaller homes. Cambourne, Caldecote PCs – Limit extensions to no more than 15% of original dwelling.
Policy H/14 Countryside Dwellings of Exceptional Quality
Proposed Total: 5 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 5 Received Main Issues Objection Bourn PC – Would be divisive and allow wealthy applicants to bypass normal planning controls. The policy criteria are subjective. Replace ‘truly outstanding and innovative’ with ‘consistent with local building materials and historical and landscape context’. South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 109
Support the principle but disagree that such dwellings should be excluded from the Green Belt (GB). The GB surrounds Cambridge where entrepreneurs may live and work. Existing policy can allow rural worker dwellings and rural exception site affordable housing in the GB. Development could improve damaged and derelict GB land. Lack of evidence that it would help to satisfy a demand from top executives.
Policy H/15 Development of Residential Gardens
Proposed Total: 3 Submission Support: 3 Representations Object: 0 Received Main Issues Support Over development of gardens can adversely affect the character and environment of historic areas of South Cambs. Natural England – Welcome reference in the policy to biodiversity and trees.
Policy H/16 Reuse of Buildings in the Countryside for Residential Use
Proposed Total: 6 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 6 Received Main Issues Objection Bourn PC – Support the policy, but it should actively promote the use of the Community Asset Register to protect employment buildings from conversion to residential. Contrary to paragraph 55 of the NPPF which removed the ‘employment use first’ sequential test. Bullet point 2 of paragraph 55 of the NPPF allows for the conversion of redundant countryside buildings for residential where this would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be enabling development to secure the future of the heritage asset. The policy fails to include these provisions and should be amended to do so. Policies H/16 and H/13 are inconsistent. H/16 allows the reuse of redundant or disused buildings in the countryside for residential whilst H/13 requires demonstration that residential use has not been abandoned.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 110 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
Policy H/17 Working at Home
Proposed Total: 4 Submission Support: 4 Representations Received Main Issues Support It is important to safeguard residential amenity and the character of the locality.
Policy H/18 Dwellings to Support a Rural-based Enterprise
Proposed Total: 1 Submission Object: 1 Representations Received Main Issues Objection Support the principle of policy H/18 but object to the wording of section 4 k). The required marketing exercise would contravene the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 or the Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008.
Policy H/19 Provision for Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople (table of needs, paragraphs 7.61, 7.62 and 7.65)
Proposed Total: 17 Submission Support: 1 Representations Object: 16 Received Main Issues Support Essential that need is expressed as a minimum figure. Objection Cottenham PC – Section 1 of the policy should say that provision has been made, rather than will be made. Section 2 of the policy should either be deleted as contrary to Government policy for Travellers Sites, or amended to be clear that it applies to both private and public sites. Paragraph 7.62 should explain why sites in Meldreth and Willingham have been excluded. Paragrapth 7.65 should name the relevant major developments. South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 111
Distribution of need should be front loaded and thereafter less prescriptive. Unrealistic to assume there will be periods when there will be no need. The policy should offer greater flexibility and choice of location, size and tenure of sites. There are suitable alternatives to Chesterton Fen. Land suitable for the development of affordable homes should not be used to accommodate travellers as proper homes provide a healthier lifestyle. The GTANA needs assessment is not robust failing to take account of overcrowding, household growth, unauthorised sites and waiting lists, and so cannot be relied on. A new needs assessment for Cambridgeshire is needed which engages with the Traveller communities. This will show a substantial need for which the plan should allocate sites and broad locations including sites in rural locations and on village edges.
Policy H/20 Gypsy and Traveller Provision at New Communities (paragraphs 7.66, 7.67, 7.68, 7.69)
Proposed Total: 23 Submission Support: 5 Representations Object: 18 Received Main Issues Support Cottenham PC – Support the wording of policy section 2, a) and b). Support the wording in paragraph 7.68 as consistent with section 2 of policy H/20. Support in principle, but it is unclear how it will be achieved and whether the sites will be affordable, suitable and accessible. Objection Cambourne PC – Policy is unclear as to which developments would be affected. How would it affect Northstowe and Cambourne? Cottenham PC - Policy is ambiguously worded and should be amended for clarity and to avoid creating an escape clause for reluctant developers. The final sentence of paragraph 7.66 should be given more emphasis. Paragraph 7.67 should specify phasing requirements to avoid provision only in later phases. The reference to policy H/20 providing a criteria based approach to site identification is incorrect. Disagree with the proposed site guidelines in paragraph 7.69, allowance should be made for the growth of extended families. Caldecote PC – The policy is unclear and so unsound. Does it
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 112 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes include Bourn Airfield and a new town at Waterbeach? No examples exist of the implementation of such a policy. It prescribes to Gypsy and Traveller communities where they should live, whereas sites should be provided where such communities want to live. The wishes of the landowner must be taken into account to demonstrate that such sites are deliverable. All such developments should include G&T sites, like affordable housing. The policy is too vague and uncertain. Provision should be made for 2-5 pitch family sites.
Policy H/21 Proposals for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Sites on Unallocated Land Outside Development Frameworks (paragraphs 7.70 to 7.77)
Proposed Total: 43 Submission Support: 10 Representations Object: 33 Received Main Issues Support Gamlingay PC – Support the policy taking into account cumulative impacts and proximity to facilities and services. Cottenham PC – Support criteria a). Support paragraphs 7.72 and 7.73. Natural England – Welcome policy reference to assessing impacts on biodiversity and trees. Objection Cottenham PC – The site size guideline of 5-10 pitches in major developments (policy H/20) must also apply to policy H/21. Existing sites must also be capped at the officially approved number and no further growth in pitch numbers allowed. The policy criteria fail to reference activities which may/may not be conducted from sites. Policy criteria b) is unrealistic regarding location, access to services. A definition of what ‘dominating’ means should be given in context of section 2 f). A definition of ‘nearest settled community’ is needed. Similarly the enforceability of 2 g) and 2 h), cannot be understood without greater exemplification of what would be unacceptably adverse impacts. Criteria i), should cover noise and disturbance issues from on-site business activities. The policy and supporting paragraphs should also apply to existing sites and not just to new sites. If an existing site falls vacant and does not meet the standards it should be denied further South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 113
occupancy. Definition of nuisance required in paragraph 7.77. Criteria a) is contrary to paragraph 22 (d) of Planning Policy for Travellers Sites, which does not require a need to be identified. Policy H/21 is too complicated and creates unnecessary obstacles to development.
Policy H/22 Design of Gypsy and Traveller Sites, and Travelling Showpeople Sites (paragraphs 7.78.7.86, 7.87)
Proposed Total: 12 Submission Support: 1 Representations Object: 11 Received Main Issues Support Cambridgeshire County Council – Welcome reference to space for play on sites of 10 or more pitches. Objection Cambridgeshire County Council – Space for play should be required on all sites. Cottenham PC – Criteria i) on play is at odds with the 5-10 pitch guideline from paragraph 7.69. Paragraph 7.86 should also refer to space for grazing and exercising horses. A criteria is needed concerning the keeping and control of dogs. The policy should include provision to help control littler and the abuse of verges. The 2008 Good Practice Guidance should not be used in isolation to decide whether a private application is permitted. Para 1.13 of the guide makes clear it was not intended for private sites. This policy is too complicated and creates unnecessary obstacles to obstacles to necessary Gypsy and Traveller development.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 114 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Chapter 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy
Paragraphs 8.1 to 8.11 Introductory Paragraphs
Proposed Total: 8 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 8 Received Main Issues Object Paragraph 8.4 indicates that growth in the R&D sector will be slower than in the past and other sectors will account for a higher proportion of growth. Evidence suggests that this will not be the case. The Cambridge area has a truly exceptional level of R&D employment, more than any other district. Insufficient land allocated in the right locations to accommodate the level of required employment need and support the economy. The employment land proposed for allocation is either not available, not suitable or will be subject to deliverability issues. Provision for B use class employment, particularly B1(b) R&D uses in Cambridge is location sensitive. Employers want to be located in, or on the edge of Cambridge. An additional 112,700 sq m of employment floor space on 31 ha of land is needed. This represents an additional 2,700 jobs. Objection proposes a science park at Cambridge South that would meet the forecast employment land requirements: o in the most sustainable location that is accessible by public transport in a location attractive to occupiers and investors. o Promote and facilitate the expansion of Cambridge's world class knowledge and high technology cluster in Cambridge. o Provide competition between providers and choice for occupiers, as the lack of planned provision is acting as a barrier to business growth. o Provide a strategic site for inward investment.
Policy E/1: New Employment Provision near Cambridge - Cambridge Science Park (and paragraphs 8.12 to 8.14)
Proposed Total: 9 Submission Support: 2 Representations Object: 7 Received Main Issues Support Trinity College Cambridge is pleased to note that the Local
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Page 115 Plan identifies the importance of the Cambridge Science Park to assist in delivering employment growth through densification. There are already a number of examples of plots on the park that have been successfully reconfigured.
Object Cambourne Parish Council / Caldecote Parish Council - Encourages commuting rather than encouraging extra employment growth at the major development sites. A Masterplan should also be produced to show how the density of the existing Science Park could be increased. Car parking should be addressed as it is a waste of valuable land.
Policy E/2: Fulbourn Road East (Fulbourn) (and paragraph 8.15 to 8.16)
Proposed Total: 36 Submission Support: 6 Representations Object: 30 Received Main Issues Support Cambridge City Council - Support the allocation of this site. Provides scope for on-going employment development at Peterhouse Technology Park. English Heritage - welcome the consideration in part 2 of the setting of new development into the landscape in this location. Natural England - welcome specific reference to landscape, biodiversity and GI requirements for relevant developments Support if policy requirements are fully applied.
Object Fulbourn Parish Council – Parish Plan opposed to changes to Green Belt in village. Contrary to proposed policies S/2, S/4, NH/2, NH/3 and NH/13. The land immediately adjoining Peterhouse Technology Park, in the Parish of Fulbourn, is in the ownership of a charity which has no intention to dispose of this land. Request it is removed from plan. Important to character of Fulbourn and the Green Belt. Impact on the Green Belt, highly visible form the south east, and will merge Cambridge towards Fulbourn. Exceptional circumstances required for development in the Green Belt have not been demonstrated. There are other sites available for employment ion Cambridge, and on Capital Park. The December 2012 Inner Green Belt Appraisal assessing the
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 116 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy importance of the Green Belt in this location is flawed and contains errors and inconsistencies. There may be insufficient planning control to ensure that these sites are released for employment purposes that support the Cambridge Cluster. Should be restricted to firms that have a need. Fulbourn Road already busy at peak times. Need improved safety measures for pedestrians and cyclists. Should retain land south of roundabout in case there is a future proposal for southern relief road. Loss of agricultural land.
Policy E/3: Allocations for Class B1 Employment Uses and Policy E/4: Allocations for Class B1, B2 and B8 Employment Uses (and paragraph 8.17)
Proposed Total: 6 Submission Support: 4 Representations Object: 2 Received Main Issues Support Anglian Water - Waste Water infrastructure available to serve the sites (all four sites) Environment Agency – raised concern regarding location, but subsequently updated comments that issues are capable of mitigation at the planning application stage.
Object Additional Site: Sawston – Spicers Estate. Business led development on the existing Spicers employment site, supported by residential enabling development on a site north of Whitefield Way. .
Policy E/5: Papworth Hospital (and paragraphs 8.18 to 8.22)
Proposed Total: 12 Submission Support: 3 Representations Object: 9 Received Main Issues Support Papworth Everard Parish Council - very important that the housing and employment balance of the village is maintained.
Object Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust - Having a
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Page 117 framework for redevelopment is helpful, but policy is not coherent. Suggest the following changes: o Definition of healthcare imprecise – should be ‘hospitals, nursing homes, residential care homes, clinics and health centres’. o Reference to ‘other’ employment uses not compatible with definition of healthcare above. o Requirement for 2 year marketing unreasonable as would have to start before policy adopted. o Requirement to ‘maintain’ the viability of Papworth Everard is unreasonable. o Requirement to ‘Maintain the present setting of Papworth Hall’ should be to sustain and enhance the setting. Reference to the Conservation area in the policy is superfluous. o Should be greater flexibility for residential as part of a mixed use scheme.
Policy E/6: Imperial War Museum at Duxford (and paragraphs 8.23 to 8.24)
Proposed Total: 8 Submission Support: 2 Representations Object: 6 Received Main Issues Support The Ickleton Society - IWM Duxford is a major asset of significant importance to our district.
Object IWM Duxford - pleased to note and give support to the proposal for a more flexible and appropriate policy for IWM Duxford, but suggest paragraph 8.24 is included in the main policy. English Heritage – Reference to a ‘special case’ should be clarified. The significance of the site should be weighed appropriately in considering any proposals for development. Should include reference in policy to address their protection.
Policy E/7: Fulbourn and Ida Darwin Hospitals (and paragraphs 8.25 to 8.36)
Proposed Total: 5 Submission Support: 1 Representations Object: 4 Received
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 118 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Main Issues Support Natural England - welcome specific reference to landscape, biodiversity and GI requirements.
Object Fulbourn Parish Council - should make specific cross- reference to proposed policy NH/9 in particular to maintaining existing height and openness in any redevelopment. Risk of merging Fulbourn with Cherry Hinton. Expand the green wedge further east.
Policy E/8: Mixed-Use Development in Histon & Impington Station Area (and paragraphs 8.37 to 8.43)
Proposed Total: 18 Submission Support: 13 Representations Object: 5 Received Main Issues Support Histon and Impington Parish Council - Significant support from majority of residents. Mixed use has been misinterpreted by some, and vision offers greater flexibility. Evidence that guided bus has increased footfall in the area. Worthwhile, as long as it is led by the local Parish Council for villagers and to attract visitors passing through from Cambridge and St Ives. Has potential to benefit area, but must not impact on retail in High Street. Need firm decision making to implement vision for mixed use. Regarding a supplementary Planning Document, Consultation will need to be undertaken with property owners to ensure their future plans are addressed. Need flexibility rather than fixed use allocations.
Object Proposal not subjected to full and proper evaluation before being promoted. No clear support from land owners. No impact assessment on village centre. No evidence of additional need for retail uses. Not appropriate to indicate the area as a destination. Too restrictive. Local Plan should not been seen as an alternative to a Neighbourhood Plan. Welcome the intent, but needs to explain costs / viability, and how future benefits will be accrued if existing businesses are to review their accommodation. Less pre-occupation with small
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Page 119 specialist shops and leisure outlets as they could not be viable. Needs to be flexible and not prejudice existing businesses. Reality is that redevelopment will need to be led by residential development and the proposed allocation fails to recognise the desirable benefits of this highly sustainable location for residential development or the impact on the remainder of the village of a second retail centre. There is not support from the principle landowners and there has been no discussion with the key stakeholders.
Policy E/9: Promotion of Clusters (and paragraphs 8.44 to 8.48)
Proposed Total: 11 Submission Support: 5 Representations Object: 6 Received Main Issues Support Unanimous agreement by all the businesses consulted on the Cambridge PPF 2030 Vision that location in clusters with like- minded companies was essential for their success. The concentration (in the form of a mini-cluster) of businesses at Granta Park/TWI has itself brought significant benefits. This policy will proactively drive and support the sustainable economic development of existing business and help attract new businesses to South Cambridgeshire. Existing policy ET/1 (Development Control Policies DPD) is very restrictive, failing to recognise high value manufacturing, high tech headquarters, and support services can help reinforce development of high-technology clusters.
Object Cambourne Parish Council, Calcedote Parish Council - Cambourne should be included as a site suited to cluster development. Clusters should be located only where there is adequate provision of public transport or where new public transport is planned. The promotion of clusters requires more than the identification of additional employment land in appropriate locations. It is important that the plan recognises the importance of maintaining the character of Cambridge and providing sufficient and accessible supporting development, including new housing, to support the jobs target and the creation of effective clusters in and on the edge of the City.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 120 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Paragraph 8.48 should be deleted because it undermines a number of key policies in the NPPF, including planning positively for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters and the provision of sustainable economic development generally. The supporting text to Policy E/9 should recognise the potential need for new high technology businesses to be located close to existing centres of excellence where linkages and collaborative work can be facilitated. Object to the non-allocation of the Cambridge South site for an 85,000 sq m R&D led mixed use development. Sustainable location, would benefit the economy, provide a new focus for R&D south of the City.
Policy E/10: Shared Social Spaces in Employment Areas (and paragraphs 8.49 to 8.50) Proposed Total: 2 Submission Support: 1 Representations Object: 1 Received Main Issues Support Granta Park/TWI benefits from shared social spaces.
Object The words 'small-scale' should be replaced with 'appropriately scaled'. Whilst uses should be ancillary to business, they should be appropriate to meet needs.
Policy E/11: Large Scale Warehousing and Distribution Centres (and paragraph 8.51) Proposed Total: 2 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 2 Received Main Issues Object Cambourne Parish Council, Caldecote Parish Council - applications for Large Scale Warehousing and Distribution Centres should be taken on a case by case basis with a view to promoting sustainability by providing alternative employment.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Page 121
Policy E/12: New Employment Development in Villages (and paragraph 8.52) Proposed Total: 3 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 3 Received Main Issues Object Bourn Parish Council - weakens the existing LDF policy (ET/4) by removing all size restrictions. It also does not define any local employment criteria. Concerned that the term "very small scale" requires further definition and clarification to provide better guidance for would- be developers and parish councils.
Policy E/13: New Employment Development on the Edges of Villages (and paragraph 8.53)
Proposed Total: 9 Submission Support: 4 Representations Object: 5 Received Main Issues Support Permissive towards new employment uses adjoining or close to development frameworks and expressly prioritises previously developed land. Support elements e and f as will protect rural nature of South Cambs. Support subject to good design. Reference to green belt policy is fundamental.
Object Bourn Parish Council - it will remove any protection offered by the village framework with respect to business development (as opposed to housing development). Sections a and b do not provide a mechanism for a formal consultation process involving the applicant, SCDC and PC. Amend to remove the onerous requirements that prevent existing established businesses in villages from expanding (development framework at Volac International site Fishers Lane Orwell should be amended)
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 122 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Policy E/14: Loss of Employment Land to Non Employment Uses (and paragraphs 8.54 and 8.55)
Proposed Total: 7 Submission Support: 1 Representations Object: 6 Received Main Issues Support Fully supportive in restricting development employment sites.
Object Bourn Parish Council – Support the policy, but it should include formal consultation with Parish Councils. 12 months marketing is not enough. It must be shown that a very robust marketing strategy has been implemented to retain land for employment. It should be VERY difficult to get employment land approved for housing. Policy is unduly restrictive. Does not deal with derelict sites. Need to take account of viability. If not viable for employment marketing not required. Negative presumption within Policy against alternative uses, at odds with NPPF which states Planning Policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is little prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Policy ET6, which would be replaced by Policy E/14 does not require valuation to be agreed with Council before marketing properties stated in 8.55. Instead Council has ability to seek independent advice when it considers a property has been inappropriately valued. Insufficient evidence to justify proposed change in approach. May add delay, cost and place additional burden on developer. If one of criteria a, b, or c has been met it should not be necessary to meet point 2 - should be deleted.
Policy E/15: Established Employment Areas (and paragraphs 8.56 to 8.58) Proposed Total: 5 Submission Support: 2 Representations Object: 3 Received Main Issues Support Granta Park/TWI and the Wellcome Trust support the policy and the amended boundaries shown on the policies map.
Object
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Page 123 Babraham Bioscience Technologies - Babraham Research Campus should be removed from the Green Belt to deliver new specialist research and development floorspace. Richard Arbon - Syngenta Site Whittlesord should be removed from the green belt and identified as an established employment area. Site should not be lost to employment as other village sites have. John Shepperson - Buckingway Business Park Swavesey should be expanded to the east. SCDC assessment identified no significant constraints. Need for employment land. Most sites near to Cambridge serve only high tech.
Policy E/16: Expansion of Existing Businesses in the Countryside (and paragraphs 8.59 to 8.60) Proposed Total: 4 Submission Support: 2 Representations Object: 2 Received Main Issues Support Offers appropriate encouragement for the sustainable growth of existing businesses in rural areas. Support for paragraph 8.60 in clarifying the scale of growth must be sustainable.
Object Bourn Parish Council – Weakens existing policy, the original period of operation of 5 years in the LDF has been reduced to just 2 years, and the restrictions on the scale of development have been removed. Fails to provide for a formal consultation process with Parish Councils.
Policy E/17: Conversion or Replacement of Rural Buildings for Employment (and paragraph 8.61)
Proposed Total: 2 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 2 Received Main Issues Object Generally support this policy, but consider that it should provide greater flexibility by allowing for the development of live / work units. As the policy relates to the re-use of existing buildings without material changes, the form, bulk and general design will not be altered. Furthermore the building will remain in its existing
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 124 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy context and surroundings. Therefore, what is the intention and meaning of paragraph c?
Policy E/18: Farm Diversification (and paragraphs 8.62 and 8.63)
Proposed Total: 8 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 8 Received Main Issues Object A cohesive bridleway network opens up opportunities for farm diversification into horse-related business (bed and breakfast, holidays etc). Should add reference to horse riding. Dernford Farm Great Shelford / Sawston – allocate as leisure / tourism facility utilising former mineral workings.
Policy E/19: Tourist Facilities and Visitor Attractions (and paragraphs 8.64 and 8.65) Proposed Total: 12 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 12 Received Main Issues Object English Heritage - Part c of the policy is phrased so as to allow some degree of adverse impact to local character. We would prefer a more positive wording, and one that allowed for enhancement. National Trust - It is unclear what "in scale with its location" means for an existing large scale tourism attraction. The second part of the sentence appears to be duplicated in part e. of the policy. National Trust – Concern with last sentence of paragraph 8.65. The scale of growth proposed in the SC and CC Local Plans will mean that existing tourism sites are put under increasing pressure to expand. If limitations are to be placed on existing sites but no further sites are to be encouraged then how will the Council plan pro-actively to provide tourism-based leisure to meet the demands of a growing population? IWM Duxford seek amendment to part c to include no significant adverse impact on operation and function of the area. Add horse riding to point e - "walking, cycling, horse riding and public transport". Object to policy item f on the basis that sustainable site
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Page 125 management of green spaces requires on-site accommodation to make them more viable and sustainable, especially in urban fringe and rural areas.
Policy E/20: Tourist Accommodation (and paragraph 8.66) Proposed Total: 9 Submission Support: 2 Representations Object: 7 Received Main Issues Support Support the development of tourist facilities/accommodation in the countryside. This policy could help struggling or closed public houses to become re-vitalised by the addition of sensitively developed accommodation.
Object Add reference to horse riding.
Policy E/21: Retail Hierarchy (and paragraphs 8.67 to 8.70) Proposed Total: 4 Submission Support: 2 Representations Object: 2 Received Main Issues Support Towns and town centres first is consistent with national policies including the NPPF. New retail development should remain to be encouraged within the Rural Centres, in order that services and facilities can continue to support additional growth in these areas at a proportionate level.
Object Cambourne Parish Council / Caldecote Parish Council - Item a, should read ‘town centres’ and not list names as in the other Retail Hierarchy categories. This allows other settlement centres or settlements to be upgraded as they develop and grow.
Policy E/22: Applications for New Retail Development (and paragraphs 8.71 to 8.74) Proposed Total: 7 Submission Support: 2
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 126 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Representations Object: 5 Received Main Issues Support Bourn Parish Council – Support retail impact assessment thresholds. Fulbourn Parish Council - Protects the intrinsic character of the village and surrounding countryside.
Object Local thresholds will be difficult to implement. There are no defined village centre boundaries and in their absence a single local threshold should be adopted which requires all retail schemes over 250 square metres gross within the Rural Centres to be supported by a retail impact assessment. Approach to local thresholds for impact assessment is not proportionate and places an unnecessary burden on an applicant, contrary to the provisions of the NPPF in paragraph 21. The suggested threshold set out in the NPPF requiring a retail impact assessment for stores outside a centre is 2,500sqm. Council’s Retail Study contains flaws and underestimates retail need. It ignores overtrading. It is out of date.
Policy E/23: Retailing in the Countryside (and paragraph 8.75) Proposed Total: 8 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 8 Received Main Issues Object Overly restrictive in respect of existing retail uses. Does not support uses unsuited to a town centre location, and development of existing rural retail businesses. Add reference to horse riding.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Page 127
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 128 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Chapter 9: Promoting Successful Communities
Key facts and paragraphs 9.1 – 9.3
Proposed Total: 2 Submission Object: 2 Representations Received Main Issues Object Inter-Church Contact Group – insufficient weight given to community infrastructure needed to support development. Much space given to transport infrastructure whilst few references to cultural and community infrastructure. Experience of new developments (Cambourne and Orchard Park) show existing or new churches play vital role in supporting emerging communities – undervalued role. Cambridgeshire County Council - Joint Strategic Needs Assessment for New Communities and Health & Housing highlights importance of green space to supporting mental as well as physical wellbeing. Should include in bullet "Sport and play space is important for supporting healthy lifestyles."
Policy SC/1: Allocation for Open Space (and paragraph 9.4 – 9.5) Proposed Total: 35 Submission Support: 11 (including 3 Parish Councils) Representations Object: 24 (including 2 Parish Councils) Received Main Issues Support Environment Agency – support allocating land for open space as it can be available for water storage now – perhaps more formally in future. Open space provides resilience to climate change- areas that can flood with minimal effect compared to occupied property. Green spaces to store excess surface water. Cambs Surface Water Management Plan sets out known hot spots. Support designations in following locations to be future formal flood storage areas – Great Shelford; Longstanton and Swavesey. Oakington and Westwick Parish Council – support policy
Object Natural England – Should amend policy to refer to Natural England’s ANGSt standards as advocated in Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
9: Promoting Successfully Communities Page 129 Swavesey and District Bridleways Association and six individual respondents – policy should mention importance of leisure routes such as public bridleways – promotes health, leisure and transport network.
Village allocations SC/1:1a – Land east of recreation ground, Over – Objection from landowners (The Ginn Trustees) – other land adjacent to playing fields should be used instead. No objection to half site being allocated even given substantial areas have already been compulsory purchased previously for playing fields but not all used for that purpose. Site allocated for many years – opportunity for resolution of matter as no proposals by District or Parish Councils. Representation also submitted for southern half of site to be allocated for housing.
SC/1:1b - Land east of Bar Lane, Stapleford and west of the access road to Green Hedges Farm Support for allocation
SC/1:1d – Land north of recreation ground, Swavesey Objection from landowner. Site rolled forward without consideration of alternatives. Land part of larger area next to village green. Could now expand village green in alternative directions. Need better distribution of open space within village – all at northern end. Swavesey linear village. Site unlikely to be deliverable during plan period. Should replace with alternative site to east or south of existing village
SC/1:1e – Land at Grange Farm, Church Street, Great Shelford Objection from landowners of field – land not accessible to public / not a village amenity. No consultation with owners by Parish Council who put forward site or District Council who included it in Issues and Option 2 consultation. Site not available. In private ownership. Objection as recreation ground is big enough- parts not fully used. Need for land for new housing. . Village in Recreation and Open Space Study 2013 found to be well provided for compared to other villages. Two new sites proposed in plan – over provision of open space Support for allocation from three respondents. (Separate representation received for site to be allocated for housing)
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 130 9: Promoting Successful Communities SC/1:1f – Land north of former EDF site, Ely Road. Milton Milton Parish Council support allocation.
SC/1:2g – Land known as Bypass Farm, west of Cottenham Road, Histon Objection to site from 7 respondents – not suitable site, too close to neighbouring properties, not needed in village, no consultation with those affected by it. Should look for alternative site. Likely to generate increased traffic on already busy road, not safe to cross road. Using green belt land. Land floods. Objection from landowners of site next to allocation – concern at that site not suitable – wrong location for village. Support proposal but as part of proposal should reduce speed limit on B1049. Site car park should not be open 24/7 to minimise disturbance to local residents. Consider light pollution at night. Support from Histon and Impington Parish Council – confirmation from landowners that willing to sell land. Shortage of open space in village. PC has leafleted near neighbours and only three adverse comments.
SC/1:2h – Land south of Granham Road, Great Shelford. Great Shelford Parish Council Support for allocation from 3 respondents. Separate representation received for southern part of site to be allocated for housing.
New sites proposed in villages
Fulbourn New site - Field abutting existing recreation ground should be used as extension to recreation ground. Shortage of open space in village especially as much new housing proposed.
Dry Drayton Dry Drayton Parish Council - New site – Provision for a recreation ground of at least 2 acres as close to school as possible and a separate play area for community within the parish. Only village in district with no play area or recreation ground
Graveley Graveley Parish Council – New site – Need for informal recreation area in village – joint representation with Manor Farm for new housing with provision of green area.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
9: Promoting Successfully Communities Page 131
Policy SC/2: Health Impact Assessment (and paragraphs 9.6 – 9.8)
Proposed Total: 14 (including 2 Parish Councils) Submission Support: 3 Representations Object: 11 Received Main Issues Support Cambridgeshire County Council – support policy. Need for consistent approach across Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire. Fulbourn Parish Council – support policy Oakington and Westwick Parish Council – support
Object Swavesey and District Bridleway Association and six respondents – policy should mention importance of leisure routes such as public bridleways – promotes health, leisure and transport network. Objection – HIA adds no value to decision making process – all health related issues covered by sustainable development considerations/ other policies in the plan. Should only be required for EIA developments. House Builders Federation – Policy unnecessary. Contrary to paragraph 122 in NPPF. Delete policy. Unreasonable for guidance on HIA to be delayed until SPD – clarification needed as to whether existing SPD still valid?
Policy SC/3: Protection of Village Services and Facilities (and paragraph 9.9)
Proposed Total: 11 Submission Support: 7 including 2 parish councils Representations Object: 4 including 2 parish councils. Received Main Issues Support Campaign for Real Ale – pleased to see inclusion of public houses in policy. Cambridge Past Present and Future – Support policy. Particular attention should be paid to retaining pubs. Fulbourn Parish Council – support policy as it protects character of village
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 132 9: Promoting Successful Communities Oakington and Westwick Parish Council - support for policy.
Object Bourn Parish Council – supports policy. Services often focal point for surrounding community. Important that parish councils are formally consulted with respect to section 2 (a) and (b). Also as part of policy the Council should promote Community Asset Register. Barrington Parish Council – policies in chapter 9 relate to large scale developments. Insufficient mention of day to day needs of Group Villages. Plan not protecting further erosion of facilities and services in villages particularly public transport, education and health services. Not considering increased demand and diminishing capacity of existing provision. The Theatres Trust – policy does not refer to cultural infrastructure – should add cultural buildings to section 1 of policy to reflect paragraph 28 bullet 4 in NPPF. Support policy but term ‘village service’ should explicitly cover educational provision such as local primary schools. New housing development in existing villages will generate extra burden on local schools – need for new provision to provide for that development.
Policy SC/4: Meeting Community Needs ( and paragraph 9.10 – 9.15) excludes paragraphs relating to sub-regional facilities including Community Stadium
Proposed Total: 34 Submission Support : 6 (including 2 Parish Councils ) Representations Object: 28 (including 3 Parish Councils ) Received Main Issues Support Campaign for Real Ale – support policy including public houses in list of commercial facilities important to community life (section 4 f) Cambridgeshire County Council – welcome libraries mentioned Fulbourn Parish Council – support policy Haslingfield Parish Council – support policy new services and facilities in new developments must be done in timely fashion – at early stage of development / not neglected General support for policy
Object Homes and Communities Agency – mismatch of policies as
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
9: Promoting Successfully Communities Page 133 set out in adopted Northstowe Area Action Plan (NAAP) and draft policy. Need for clarity. Will new policy supersede older ones in NAAP? Suggested amended wording for Policy SC/4 to clarify Cambridgeshire County Council – JSNA New Communities Report should be referenced in plan. Importance to plan for social infrastructure. Infrastructure Study in section on social infrastructure only sets out physical requirements for social facilities and omits reference to community development resources needed to development community cohesion. Cambridgeshire County Council – still outstanding requirement for Household Recycling Centre in area. Also need to clarify that for waste and recycling provision that this includes both HRCs and bring sites as set out in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mineral and Waste Core Strategy and the RECAP Waste Management Guide - Propose amending wording to 4(i) Cambridgeshire County Council – amend policy to include options whereby if land is required to provide for existing or future community or education services then site may come forward for mixed- use development (including residential) where there is an enabling development argument. Harston Parish Council – insufficient information for other needs than housing of a community – future school provision; health and social care; lack of proposals for other amenities such as shops, pubs and village halls, sports and children’s facilities; no mention of future governance – need for new parish council. Cambourne and Caldecote Parish Councils – amend policy by adding to range of services to be provided – allotments and youth and older people’s services/facilities. Also need new section in policy about Community Governance – ‘parishing’ of new communities. Cambridgeshire Ecumenical Council – insufficient weight given to role faith facilities play in providing for needs of wider community. Key component in creating community. Little reference to a place of worship or religious instruction. The Theatre Trust – policy does not include reference to cultural infrastructure – need to add cultural buildings to those listed in section 4 to reflect NPPF paragraph 28. Swavesey and District Bridleway Association and eight respondents – policy should mention importance of leisure routes such as public bridleways – promote healthy, leisure and transport network. Cambridge Past Present and Future - List of services and
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 134 9: Promoting Successful Communities facilities to be provided should include adequate green open space with playing fields, green infrastructure and children’s playground. House Builders Federation – policy conflicts with paragraphs 203 - 206 in NPPF. Council may seek financial payments to range of services listed through CIL but not planning obligation. Requirement for new developments to provide for provision of faith groups and burials is unreasonable and unjustified. Better provided for at district level. New development must provide sufficient additional local educational infrastructure for new population. Need to consider full impact on existing schools. Council should ensure free home shopping deliveries are provided by major supermarkets on major new developments to reduce unnecessary car journeys. Need for doctor’s surgery in Hardwick or Caldecote.
New policy on healthcare provision. Cambridgeshire County Council – recommend that Cambridge City and S Cambs jointly agree policy on health care facilities. Cambridge City has explicit policy – Policy 75 which recognises the changing way in which health services may be delivered.
Paragraph 9.16- 9.18 Consideration of Sub-regional facilities including Community Stadium and Sawston Stadium.
Proposed Total: 15 Submission Support : 8 (including 5 Parish Councils specifically supporting Representations non- inclusion of Community Stadium) Received Object: 7 (including 1 Parish Council objecting to non- inclusion of policy for sub-regional facilities) Main Issues Support Grantchester Parish Council - support decision not to further consider Community Stadium at Trumpington Meadows. Need for stadium on green belt not been demonstrated and 900 signature petition against demonstrated local opposition. Community Stadium should be sited amongst population it is intended to serve so supporters can walk to games. Green Belt not appropriate location for stadium. Harlton and Haslingfield Parish Councils – support rejection of stadium at Trumpington Oakington and Westwick Parish Council – support rejection of stadium proposals
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
9: Promoting Successfully Communities Page 135 Great Shelford Parish Council – no compelling case for allocating community stadium or other facilities in green belt General support for no inclusion of community stadium at Trumpington – would conflict with new country park; would undermine viability of Trumpington facilities; site poorly served by public transport. Cambridge Past Present and Future – support for emphasis that provision of sub regional facilities in Green Belt would only be allowed if exceptional circumstances.
Object General Trumpington Residents Association – Support Councils’ assessment that green belt location for community stadium not appropriate. Fundamentally opposed to such a stadium. Policy does not include way the Council would respond to proposals for sub-regional community, sports and leisure facilities – should include specific reference to Council’s policy consistent with City Council Policy 73. Oakington and Westwick Parish Council – object to plan not including site for ice rink. A suitable site would be the rowing lake at Waterbeach. Object that plan does not include a concert hall – suitable site at Northstowe or off A428 near Cambridge Cambridge FA – growing demand for football and to deliver FA strategy need improved facilities.
Community Stadium Grosvenor/ Wrenbridge Ltd - Plan fails to respond to evidence base and sporting needs of Cambridge and surrounding area. Land west of Hauxton Rd, Trumpington and at Abbey Stadium, Newmarket Rd should be allocated for community football stadium, indoor and outdoor sports and residential development to fund delivery. Release 15 hectares from green belt west of Hauxton Rd. to accommodate residential development and built sports facilities. Land between new green belt boundary and M11 provide outdoor sport and ancillary features. Proposed wording for policy and supporting text. New policy for Community stadium – should be new policy as stadium is absolute priority for area. Surely one of nine sites proposed was sufficient. With planned growth and resulting increased population need for adequate sporting facilities to meet community needs. Both Cambridge United and City need stadium. Benefits clear.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 136 9: Promoting Successful Communities Sawston Stadium Need for new policy to allow for football stadium in Sawston – village would benefit from additional sporting facilities and green space proposed by club. Potential traffic issues over- stated. Proposed site is brownfield site not greenfield.
Policy SC/5: Hospice Provision (and paragraph 9.19)
Proposed Total: 2 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 2 Received Main Issues Object Arthur Rank Hospice – Welcome policy but concerned policy fails to understand hospice requirements, locating close to acute hospital, and increasing role in community healthcare. Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – Policy should be upgraded to include wider healthcare facilities. Suggest change of wording in policy and supporting text by replacing ‘hospices’ with ‘community healthcare facilities’.
Policy SC/6: Indoor Community Facilities (and paragraphs 9.20 – 9.22)
Proposed Total: 5 Submission Support: 2 (including 2 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 3 Received Main Issues Support Fulbourn PC – Support to ensure facilities are enhanced to meet increased demands. Oakington and Westwick PC – Support Policy SC/6.
Object Home Builders Federation – contrary to national policy paras 203 and 206.(3 tests for planning obligations ) May seek payments through CIL but not planning obligations. Demonstrate tests met and not already charging. Requirements onerous and unjustified having regard to evidence base. Unclear how CIL would affect requirement since contributions would be superseded by CIL charge. Costs in relation to viability and cumulative impact not properly
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
9: Promoting Successfully Communities Page 137 tested. Suggest rewording of policy to exclude mention of an appropriate standard and also reference to it in paragraph 9.22 – each development should be determined based on local circumstances.
Policy SC/7: Outdoor Play Space, Informal Open Space and New Developments ( and paragraphs 9.23 – 9.30 including Figure 11)
Proposed Total: 11 Submission Support: 6 (including 5 from Parish Councils (PC)) Representations Object: 5 Received Main Issues Support Bourn PC – Support ensuring adequate play areas available in new developments to promote safety and well being of children. Many new developments infill and omit space. Cambridgeshire County Council – Welcome reference to “informal open space suitable for play” in para 9.24 – keen to see variety of spaces. Fulbourn PC – Support to ensure facilities are enhanced to meet increased demands. Great Abington PC – Pleased to see recognition of importance of allotments and community orchards. Developments proposed in village include both. Oakington and Westwick PC – Support Policy SC/7 and Figure 11.
Object Cambridgeshire County Council – Welcome reference to creative design approach, but recognise these are places adults want to spend time in too. English Heritage – Provision of fixed structures associated with outdoor recreation should be appropriately located as not to intrude on sensitive areas e.g. setting of heritage assets. Natural England – Would like reference to ANGSt standards as advocated through Green Infrastructure Strategy for provision of multi-functional green infrastructure. Sport England – Support principle but recommend robust assessment of need using Sport England methodology and action plan be developed which identifies priorities for new open space provision. Do not support principle of providing for new development through a standard of provision. New housing developments should make provision for community
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 138 9: Promoting Successful Communities indoor sport. Support objective, but space standards not always appropriate. Development should take account of provision in immediate area not whole district.
Policy SC/8: Open Space Standards (and paragraph 9.31 – 9.33)
Proposed Total: 5 Submission Support: 3 (including 3 from Parish Councils (PC)) Representations Object: 2 Received Main Issues Support Bourn PC – Support ensure adequate open space for communities. Strongly support provision of allotments. Currently large demand and many new developments have small gardens. Fulbourn PC – Support to ensure facilities are enhanced to meet increased demands. Oakington and Westwick PC – Support Policy SC/8
Object Home Builders Federation - Unsound, contrary to national policy paras 203 and 206. May seek payments for outdoor space through CIL but not planning obligations. Homes and Communities Agency – Support provision of open space but Northstowe AAP establishes (lower) provision required. Change to provision will affect viability. Clarify.
Policy SC/9: Protection of Existing Recreation Areas, Allotments and Community Orchards (and paragraph 9.34 – 9.37)
Proposed Total: 8 Submission Support: 7 (including 4 from Parish Councils (PC)) Representations Object: 2 Received Main Issues Support Bourn PC – Support as complements Policy SC/10 in providing some protection against inappropriate infilling. Great demand for allotments in parish and finding suitable land is difficult. Fulbourn PC – Protects intrinsic character of the village and surrounding countryside.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
9: Promoting Successfully Communities Page 139 Natural England – Welcome protection of existing recreation areas, allotments and community orchards. Oakington and Westwick PC – Support Policy SC/9. Protect existing open spaces of value to local communities.
Object Sport England – Support principle but suggested amendments, including final criteria should note there is no up to date playing pitch assessment for district. Urge SCDC to carry out such an assessment as soon as possible. Council should promote new community orchards, woodland and allotments. New site at end of Manger’s Lane, Duxford for community orchard and residential.
Policy SC/10: Lighting Proposals, (and paragraph 9.38 – 9.43)
Proposed Total: 8 Submission Support: 5 (including 3 from Parish Councils (PC) Representations Object: 3 Received Main Issues Support Bourn PC – Support as it will help contain the problem of light pollution in the district. Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Support subject to appropriate constraints being applied to developments in or close to sites of natural and built heritage and Green Belt. Fulbourn PC – Support policy for protecting the intrinsic character of the village and surrounding countryside. Natural England - Welcome policies to ensure development addresses potential for adverse environmental effects through lighting, noise and emissions to air. Oakington and Westwick PC – Support.
Object Cambridge City Council – Support control of lighting but bearing in mind cross-boundary sites and benefits of a coordinated approach, policy could benefit from mention of ecological impact. Include an additional bullet in policy as follows - "Impact on wildlife is minimised, particularly in countryside areas." English Heritage – Floodlighting for sports pitches can conflict with amenity and appreciation of heritage assets. Floodlighting heritage assets can have positive and negative impacts.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 140 9: Promoting Successful Communities Amend text to reflect need for sensitivity in relation to heritage assets and their settings. Home Builders Federation – Contrary to paragraph 122 of NPPF and should be deleted. Not planning matters.
Policy SC/11: Noise Pollution (and paragraphs 9.44 – 9.53)
Proposed Total: 7 Submission Support: 4 (including 3 from Parish Councils (PC) Representations Object: 3 Received Main Issues Support Bourn PC – Support but is concerned it must be complemented with an effective enforcement regime. Fulbourn PC – Support policy for protecting the intrinsic character of the village and surrounding countryside. Natural England - Welcome policies to ensure development addresses potential for adverse environmental effects through lighting, noise and emissions to air. Oakington and Westwick PC – Support.
Object Cambridge City Council – Support aims of policy but consider bullet 4 should be amended to ensure no worsening of noise beyond site boundary. Replace existing text in Policy SC/11 clause 4 which reads "Noise level at nearby existing noise sensitive premises..." with "Noise level at the boundary of the premises subject to the application and having regard to noise sensitive premise..." IWM Duxford – Support need to ensure appropriate noise control, but concerned may restrict aviation and F1 testing activities. Amended wording to paragraph 9.53 is proposed. Home Builders Federation – Contrary to paragraph 122 of NPPF and should be deleted. Not planning matters.
Policy SC/12: Contaminated Land (and paragraphs 9.54 – 9.56)
Proposed Total: 4 Submission Support: 2 (including 2 from Parish Councils (PC) Representations Object: 2 Received Main Issues Support
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
9: Promoting Successfully Communities Page 141 Fulbourn PC – Support policy for protecting the local community’s health and amenities. Oakington and Westwick PC – Support.
Object Environment Agency – Support inclusion of policy, but will need redrafting either prior to submission or through modifications. o Suggest change policy title to ‘Land Contamination’. Contaminated land has strict definition in Environment Protection Act. o Need to address development affected by landfill gas - append to existing policy /new policy? - NPPF leaves it for local policies to address when formally covered by PPS23. o Need to cover water pollution (groundwater) in policy – as it stands only relates to health and amenity. This area depends on groundwater for majority of drinking water so important. Many chalk aquifers vulnerable to water pollution. o Policy needs to address approaches to development on aquifers as well as EA designated Source Protection Zones. o Support Environmental SPD concept but question title as being vague – danger of being side lined. Landfill gas and land contamination could command their own SPD Home Builders Federation – Contrary to paragraph 122 of NPPF and should be deleted. Not planning matters.
Policy SC/13: Air Quality (and paragraphs 9.57 - 9.62)
Proposed Total: 6 Submission Support: 4 (including 2 from Parish Councils (PC) Representations Object: 2 Received Main Issues Support Cambridge City Council – Represents comprehensive and effective policy, incorporating all necessary protections and promotes low emission strategies. Site specific air quality issues for major sites can be addressed through this policy in tandem with site specific policies. Fulbourn PC – Support policy for protecting the local
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 142 9: Promoting Successful Communities community’s health and amenities. Natural England – Welcome policies to ensure development addresses potential for adverse environmental effects through lighting, noise and emissions to air. Oakington and Westwick PC – Support.
Object Home Builders Federation – Contrary to paragraph 122 of NPPF and should be deleted. Not planning matters. Needs expanding to cover air quality from vehicle emissions as well as development – cause serious health problems. Need to work with City and County to ensure buses meet European emissions standards. Suggest include following: 'Measures will be taken to extend the Quality Bus Partnership beyond 2015. Buses accessing towns and cities where air quality is an issue must conform to European emission Code Level 5 as a minimum requirement'.
Policy SC/14: Hazardous Installations (and paragraphs 9.63 -9.65 )
Proposed Total: 2 Submission Support: 1 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC) Representations Object: 1 Received Main Issues Support Fulbourn PC – Support policy for protecting the local community’s health and amenities.
Object Home Builders Federation – Contrary to paragraph 122 of NPPF and should be deleted. Not planning matters.
Policy SC/15: Odour and Other Fugitive Emissions to Air (and paragraphs 9.66 - 9.69)
Proposed Total: 5 Submission Support: 4 (including 3 from Parish Councils (PC)) Representations Object: 1 Received Main Issues Support Natural England – Welcome policies to ensure development addresses potential for adverse environmental effects through lighting, noise and emissions to air.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
9: Promoting Successfully Communities Page 143 Bourn PC – Support but is concerned it must be complemented with an effective enforcement regime. Fulbourn PC – Support policy for protecting the local community’s health and amenities. Oakington and Westwick PC – Support.
Object Home Builders Federation – Contrary to paragraph 122 of NPPF and should be deleted. Not planning matters.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 144 9: Promoting Successful Communities Chapter 10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure
Paragraphs 10.1 - 10.8
Proposed Total: 6 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 6 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Received Main Issues Object English Heritage – Priority should be given to solutions that take account of the historic environment. Ickleton PC – Include new cycle and footpaths to the village. St Edmundsbury BC - Plan weakened by lack of reference to delivering aspirations of emerging Transport Strategy. Growth strategy reliant on significant improvements in public transport and deliverability depends on availability, level and timing of public funding. Large gap in funding and cost. Identify sites less reliant on improvements to ensure deliverability. Little about railways, except Chesterton Station. Little money for roads or to address congestion on A505.
Policy TI/1: Chesterton Rail Station and Interchange
Proposed Total: 5 Submission Support: 5 Representations Object: 0 Received Main Issues Support Natural England – Welcome the requirement for development to protect Jersey Cudweed. New station is fundamental to redevelopment of the Northern Fringe East and will benefit all of northern Cambridge / region. Opportunity to enable greater use of the railway, an underused means of transport, and a corridor capable of carrying an increased modal share in the area.
Policy TI/2: Planning for Sustainable Travel
Proposed Total: 45 Submission Support: 21 (including 2 from Parish Councils (PC))
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure Page 145 Representations Object: 24 (including 6 from PC) Received Main Issues Support Cambridgeshire County Council – Location of development important to ensure distance and need for travel is reduced and maximises opportunity to travel by sustainable modes. All sites in plan can achieve appropriate access from network, but need comprehensive Transport Assessment to fully assess. Fulbourn PC - Support this policy to encourage and support cycling and use of public transport. Great Chesteford PC – Strong support. Fits well with footpath / cycle path project to link villages. Natural England – Support protection and enhancement of routes and linkages between villages, Northstowe, Cambridge, market towns and wider countryside. Pleased developers will be required to mitigate environmental impacts. Rampton PC – Criterion 2b - important for small infill villages, to provide access without car. Need cycleway to Willingham. Most effective way of achieving is by ensuring correct spatial strategy is chosen - focus on edge of Cambridge/close to jobs. Naïve to assume edge of town is more sustainable than rural area if effective and reliable public transport can be provided. Travel by car is becoming increasingly unsustainable and a blight. Roads too busy. Reality is people will continue to use their cars. Against development that would lead to large increase in car use due to lack of public transport facilities within a village. Support extending cycleways, particularly in villages along the Guided Busway to give good access for all. Necessary to prevent transport infrastructure in the region becoming so overburdened it has negative economic impact. List commendable but should not be used to bribe communities into accepting inappropriate levels of development.
Object Barrington PC – Does not address sustainable provision for the needs of Group Villages. Focus on walking, cycling and public transport at odds with reality. Bourn PC – Support but lacks detail on timescales for attaining “sufficient integration”. “Significant transport implications” does not consider distance from employment / service centres, as excludes cycling / walking as option. Cambridgeshire County Council – Support but add reference to Transport Assessments being agreed with the local highway
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 146 10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure
authority and encourage travel planning activities from smaller schemes. Dry Drayton PC – Request network of off-road cycle paths along each road in / out of village. Haslingfield PC –– No direct / safe all weather cycling route to Cambridge. Uncertainty about public transport provision – essential for ageing population some of whom do not drive. Ickleton PC – Policy will only succeed if new routes link with established settlements. Cycle path between Ickleton and Great Chesterford would link station, facilities and NCN11. Madingley PC – Welcome development that reduces traffic and speeds, provides cycle / footpaths. Need new Park and Ride at Bar Hill, car park at Oakington Guided Bus stop, direct link to M11, A428 / A14 link, improved junction at Cambridge Road, Madingley and A1303. Royston Town Council - Development at Cambourne already had significant effect on Royston. Bourn Airfield / Cambourne West and other developments should mitigate traffic impacts on Royston / pressure on station car park. Suffolk County Council – Policy should secure appropriate improvement in accordance ‘with the aims of relevant local transport plans or strategies’. Add policy to include bus services / park and ride. Radial roads clogged during rush hour and major developments will exacerbate. Objective will not be achieved with the development strategy. Different travel patterns achieved in City, urban fringe and new settlements - evidence supports sites on urban fringe. Fails to acknowledge parts of district not adequately served by public transport, yet these areas still have development needs. Protect and enhance Rights of Way for all users (horse riders). Bridleways as default – good value for money.
Policy TI/3: Parking Provision (paragraphs 10.23-10.25 and Figure 12)
Proposed Total: 15 Submission Support: 6 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 9 (including 3 from PC) Received Main Issues Support Bourn PC – Support - defines standards for car parking and garage sizes. Support promotion of cycle parking to encourage more people to cycle. Current developments have insufficient
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure Page 147 car and cycle parking spaces leading to inappropriate parking. Oakington & Westwick PC – support criterion 4 – specify minimum size dimensions for garages so large enough for modern cars, cycles and other storage needs. For the share of cycling to grow, adequate facilities have to be provided over and above current level of demand. The number of spaces defined in this policy will help achieve this.
Object Bourn PC – Footnote 2 – specify minimum height for MPVs or 4 wheel drive vehicles? Figure 12 – unclear as to allocation of parking for multiple residential properties such as flats. Caldecote & Cambourne PCs – Change ‘minimum’ to ‘indicative’ to ensure flexibility in accordance with Travel Plan. Review after 1 year. Undue costs on community buildings. Homes and Communities Agency – Object to 1 cycle space per bedroom - excessive. Seek flexibility, including communal parking. Is the standard for A2 uses an error (2m2)? Oakington & Westwick PC – remove all car parking standards and adopt design-led approach. Wording of policy contradicts supporting text - policy advises standards should be met but text advises indicative standards.
Policy TI/4: Rail Freight and Interchanges
Proposed Total: 2 Submission Support: 1 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 1 Received Main Issues Support Bourn PC – Strongly in favour of shifting more freight from road to rail given the strains on local road infrastructure.
Object Support proposals concerning rail freight and protection of sidings. Should require construction items to come by rail to Chesterton sidings for A14 / construction of new settlements.
Policy TI/5: Aviation-Related Development Proposals
Proposed Total: 11 Submission Support: 3 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 148 10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure
Representations Object: 8 (including 2 from PC) Received Main Issues Support Fulbourn PC – Being regularly over-flown by aircraft from Cambridge Airport support this policy to protect amenities of local residents. Natural England – Welcome requirement to take into account effects on nature conservation and landscape. Cambridge Airport not suitable for further expansion - close proximity to city. Increase in flights will create major disturbance - night flying should not be permitted.
Object Caldecote & Cambourne PC – Preserve Bourn as a flying facility for commuting / recreation. Close to employment. Would decrease need for expanding other airfields. IWM Duxford – Support criteria-based policy and tests include economic advantages / recreation opportunities. Criteria could impact on viability of business - historic aircraft (noise). Clarify that there are a variety of different airfields in South Cambs. Marshall of Cambridge – Cambridge Airport makes positive contribution to economic well-being of area. DfT emphasises need to make best use of existing runways. Positively worded policy would accord with NPPF. Cambridge Airport - significant impacts warrant separate policy Lack of formal procedures to ensure development / change of activity complies with legislation - most development under permitted development rights. Not enforced.
Policy TI/6: Cambridge Airport Public Safety Zone
Proposed Total: 3 Submission Support: 1 Representations Object: 2 Received Main Issues Support Marshall of Cambridge – Support policy which is firmly based on advice by central government to seek to minimise risk.
Object Defence Infrastructure Organisation – Statutory safeguarding / consultation zones around MOD aerodromes to ensure structures do not obstruct air traffic movements,
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure Page 149 compromise operation of air navigational transmitter, birdstrike. IWM Duxford – Support but the Plan should include reference to the IWM Duxford Aerodrome Safeguarding Map.
Policy TI/7: Lord’s Bridge Radio Telescope
Proposed Total: 2 Submission Support: 1 Representations Object: 1 Received Main Issues Support Chanceller, Masters and Scholars of Univ. of Cambridge – Lord’s Bridge is internationally important, and the policy to protect its operational viability is supported.
Object Inclusion in this chapter inappropriate as radio telescope is not public infrastructure. Suggest it is included in chapter 8.
Policy TI/8: Infrastructure and New Developments (and paragraph 10.36)
Proposed Total: 17 Submission Support: 5 (including 3 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 12 (including 3 from PC) Received Main Issues Support Caldecote & Cambourne PCs – Criterion 1 is vital for the proposals of new development. Fulbourn PC – support this policy to ensure facilities are enhanced to meet increased demands. Hertfordshire County Council – Where development is proposed close to Royston may require contributions to mitigate impacts on Royston schools. Natural England – Support requirement for developers to demonstrate improvement or provision of infrastructure. Note contributions may also be required towards future maintenance and upkeep in accordance with Government guidance.
Object Caldecote & Cambourne PCs – Criterion 2 should read “will” not “may” - contributions towards maintenance are essential to
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 150 10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure
allow communities to take on the infrastructure necessary. Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Key infrastructure provision to be supported through CIL should include community assets. Support for Green Infrastructure. Harlton PC – Insufficient information in the proposals for the needs of a community and adjacent communities. No reference to availability of public utilities. Highways Agency - No reference to A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet improvement within Infrastructure Delivery Study (IDS). Clarify how it will be taken forward and whether it has implications on deliverability of Local Plan. IDS includes improvement to A14 Histon Interchange, but no costs or funding gap specified. Further information needed in update. Middle Level Commissioners – Costs for flood defence works and SuDS do not need to be included in tariff, but may need to include maintenance. Require funds for infrastructure to be met by S106 and CIL money. Provision of essential infrastructure must be in place before house building starts. Provide critical mass of residents faster so essential facilities and services are put in earlier. Policy does not address deliverability of sites where new infrastructure required. NPPF clear that reliance should not be placed on major infrastructure to deliver sites. Council should ensure viability and deliverability. Sites in plan should not be subject to scale of obligations / policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is compromised.
Paragraphs 10.45 & 10.46 Waste Infrastructure
Proposed Total: 3 Submission Support: 2 Representations Object: 1 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Received Main Issues Support Cambridgeshire County Council – Welcome inclusion of reference to Minerals and Waste Plan and policies regarding areas of search, safeguarding and consultation zones.
Object Bourn PC – Concerned that Policies Map Inset 11 for Bourn – mineral classification is incorrect.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure Page 151
Policy TI/9: Education Facilities
Proposed Total: 10 Submission Support: 4 (Including 1 from Parish Council (PC)) Representations Object: 6 (including 1 from PC) Received Main Issues Support Cambridgeshire County Council – Policy is appropriate and encouraging that educational facilities are being supported in locations that are accessible and experience growth. Proposals within Plan have potential for appropriate mitigation, where required. Coherent approach with less disruption for schools. Fulbourn PC - Ensure facilities are enhanced to meet increased demands. Suffolk County Council – Welcome recognition of the need to secure cross-border contributions as appropriate. Should also cover all housing developments where education facilities have not been explicitly mentioned.
Object Harlton PC – Insufficient information in the proposals for the needs other than housing of a community and adjacent communities. No reference to future school provision to be provided by Cambridgeshire County Council. Sport England – No objection in principle, but development on educational sites should minimise impact on sports facilities. More schools needed if there is to be a big population growth. Must tackle problem before it arises and reduce traffic problem by preventing children being driven to school. Criterion 3 is insufficiently strongly stated, merely ‘suggesting’ developers work with the CSA to ensure timely provision.
Policy TI/10: Broadband
Proposed Total: 5 Submission Support: 3 (including 2 from Parish Councils (PC)) Representations Object: 2 (including 1 from PC) Received Main Issues Support Fulbourn PC – Support this policy to ensure facilities are enhanced to meet increased demands. Great Abington PC – Support policy and recognise high
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 152 10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure
speed infrastructure is essential to maintain our community as a desirable place to live. Current speeds is limiting self employed people working from home. Support as fast and reliable access to the internet will soon be essential for citizens to fully participate in the community.
Object Ickleton PC – Want to see solid proposals for broadband improvement in Ickleton Parish coming forward. Mobile Operators Association – New clear and flexible criteria based telecommunications policy should be included.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure Page 153
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 154 10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure
Appendix A Supporting Studies and Evidence Base Appendix C - Glossary
Appendix A Supporting Studies and Evidence Base Appendix C - Glossary
Proposed Total: 1 Submission Support: 0 Representations Object: 1 Received Main Issues Objection Cambridgeshire County Council - Suggest Building for Life standards for well designed homes and neighbourhoods should be referenced.
Assessment Agree, the Building for Life standard should be added. Further minor changes are proposed for clarification.
A number of hyperlinks to evidence documents included in the chapters in the plan are not listed in Appendix A and should be. A minor change is proposed to include these documents in the appendix. Approach in Minor change Submission Local Plan Add ‘Building for Life standard’ to the glossary with the following definition: Building for Life is a useful tool for gaining an indication of how well-designed homes and neighbourhoods are.
Add ‘Cambridge Area’ to the glossary with the following definition: The area covered by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council.
Add ‘General Permitted Development Order’ to the glossary with the following definition: Provides permitted development rights which allow certain types of development to proceed without the need for a planning application.
Add ‘Green Corridor’ to the glossary with the following definition: Area of open land which penetrates into an urban area for amenity and recreation.
Add ‘High Quality Public Transport’ to the glossary with the
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Appendix A: Supporting Studies and Evidence Base & Appendix C: Glossary Page 155 following definition (source: adopted Local Development Framework) : Generally service frequencies of at least a 10 minutes peak / 20 minutes inter-peak. Weekday evening frequencies of ½ hourly until 11pm, Saturday ½ hourly 7am - 6pm, then hourly and Sunday hourly 8am - 11pm. Also provides high quality low floor / easy access buses, air conditioning, prepaid / electronic ticketing, Real Time information and branding to encourage patronage.
Add ‘Local Needs’ to the glossary with the following definition: The definition varies depending on the circumstances in which it is used. Where talking about types of housing or employment provision in the district it will often relate to the needs of the wider Cambridge area. Where talking about local needs as identified through the Strategic Housing Market Assessment it refers specifically to the needs of the housing market area. With regards to exception sites for affordable housing it refers to the needs of the village / parish.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 156 Appendix A: Supporting Studies and Evidence Base & Appendix C: Glossary