Swaffham Prior Have your say on the future of PRIOR

• What do you want to change or improve? • What do you want to protect? • What facilities would you like to see?

East District Council wants to work with you to produce a ‘Vision’ for your village.

Questionnaires for each village can be viewed on the District Council’s website at www.eastcambs.gov.uk/local- development-framework/consultation-villagetown-visions; or paper copies can be obtained by phoning the Forward Planning team on 01353 665555. The consultation period runs from 14 July - 25 August

East Cambridgeshire Background documents relating to the review District Council can also be found on the website.

A Vision for Swaffham Prior

Have your say on the future of Swaffham Prior

l What do you want to change or improve? l What do you want to protect? l What facilities would you like to see?

What do you think? District Council wants your views on how Swaffham Prior should change in the future. What sort of place would you like Swaffham Prior to be? What are your priorities for the village and the wider Parish? Your views will help us to form a long­term vision for Swaffham Prior which sets out how it should develop over the next 20 years.

What will the Vision do? The Vision will be used to guide decisions on future development and planning applications. It will also help ensure that key infrastructure and facilities are provided and improved. The Vision will be included in the statutory development plan for East Cambridgeshire ­ known as the 'Core Strategy'.

How do I comment? Please let us have your views by answering the questions below. Comments should be made by 25th August 2011 and respondents are encouraged to fill in the questionnaire online at www.eastcambs.gov.uk/local­development­framework/swaffham­prior­village­vision

Paper copies of the questionnaire can be returned to Karen King, Swaffham Prior Parish Clerk, 10 Mill Hill, Swaffham Prior, Cambridge, CB25 0JZ or posted to Forward Planning, East Cambridgeshire District Council, The Grange, Nutholt Lane, Ely, CB7 4EE. There will be a further opportunity to make comments on the draft Vision, which we hope to publish in early 2012. If you have any questions please call the Forward Planning team on 01353 665555.

Any information that you will provide will only be used for the purpose of the Core Strategy, and processed in accordance with the Data Protection Act.

1. Please provide your details: Name: Company: Email address: Address 1: Village/Town: Postcode: Phone Number:

2. Please select whether you would like your details to be added to the Core Strategy consultation database, in order to be notified of key stages of production:

nmlkj Yes nmlkj No

3. Please indicate the reason for your interest in the development of Swaffham Prior (please tick all that apply):

gfedc Local resident of Swaffham Prior gfedc Developer or local landowner

gfedc Local business owner gfedc Potential investor

gfedc Employee, working in Swaffham Prior gfedc Professional interest

gfedc Other (please specify)

5 6 4. How would you like to see the village/parish change or improve in the future?

Please list your top 3 priorities below:

Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3

Housing

5. Do you think there should be housing growth outside the development envelope on the edge of Swaffham Prior?

Please choose one of the following options:

nmlkj No

nmlkj Yes ­ small scale housing growth (up to 10 houses) for a mix of private and affordable (e.g. like provided by Sanctuary Hereward) housing

nmlkj Yes ­ medium scale housing growth (up to 20 houses) for a mix of private and affordable housing

nmlkj Yes ­ large scale housing growth (more than 20 houses)

nmlkj Yes ­ small/medium scale housing for affordable housing only

nmlkj Other? (please give details)

5

6

6. If there is support for housing growth outside the development envelope on the edge of Swaffham Prior, where should this take place?

A map of the village and potential locations can be viewed at the back of this questionnaire; together with a table summarising the opportunities and constraints of each location.

Please select whether you would support development in the following locations: Yes No Land off Rogers Road nmlkj nmlkj Land north­east of 27 Lower End nmlkj nmlkj Land west of 75 High Street nmlkj nmlkj Land adjacent 75 High Street nmlkj nmlkj Land north of 49 Lower End nmlkj nmlkj Other nmlkj nmlkj

If you selected other, please provide details of your preferred location

5

6 7. Housing development will continue to come forward on small sites within the village. However, schemes are currently limited to a maximum of 2 dwellings. Do you think this approach should continue?

nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Don't know

If you selected no, what alternative approach would you like to see?

5

6

Employment

8. Would you like to see more opportunities for small businesses in the village/parish? (e.g. offices, industrial units, workshops).

nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Don't know

9. If there is support for small business development, would you support development in the following locations? Yes No Land east of Goodwin Farm, Heath Road nmlkj nmlkj Land west of 75 High Street nmlkj nmlkj Land north of 49 Lower End nmlkj nmlkj Other nmlkj nmlkj

If you selected 'yes' to other, please provide details of your preferred location

5

6

Local infrastructure and facilities

10. The District Council can secure funds from developers to spend on improving local infrastructure and facilities. If new development comes forward in the village, what benefits would you like to see? Please select your top 3 priorities from the list Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Improvements to play areas nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj New play areas nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Improvements to sports grounds/open space nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj New sports ground/open space nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj More school places nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Improvements to pedestrian/cycle routes nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Improvements to the community/village hall nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Traffic calming/Highway improvements nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Other nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

If you selected other, please provide details of the benefit you would like to see

5

6 11. For the priorities that you have selected in Question 10 above, can you provide more detail on what these improvements should be, and where they should be located? 5

6

Development envelope

12. The District Council is consulting every parish in the district on the following question regarding development envelopes:

The development envelope (see map at back) marks the built up area of the village where development is normally allowed to take place. The area outside the development envelope is protected as open countryside.

Which of the following approaches would you prefer?

nmlkj Keep the development envelope

nmlkj Replace the development envelope with a policy that assesses each application on its merits

nmlkj Don't know

Other issues

13. Please use this space to outline any other issues that you would like us to consider in the future development of Swaffham Prior (please attach another sheet if necessary) 5

6

Background Information (optional)

You do not have to complete this section, however it would be useful if you could provide the following information about yourself.

Please note that any information provided will only be used for the purpose of the Core Strategy.

14. Sex

nmlkj Male

nmlkj Female

15. Status

nmlkj Employee nmlkj Homeworker

nmlkj Self­employed nmlkj Student

nmlkj Unemployed nmlkj Retired

16. Age

nmlkj 0­16 years nmlkj 50­59

nmlkj 17­24 nmlkj 60­74

nmlkj 25­39 nmlkj 75­84

nmlkj 40­49 nmlkj 85+

17. Ethnic origin

nmlkj White British nmlkj Chinese nmlkj Caribbean

nmlkj White Irish nmlkj Indian nmlkj Other black background

nmlkj Other white background nmlkj Pakistani nmlkj Other ethnic group

nmlkj Gypsy / Traveller nmlkj Other Asian background

nmlkj Mixed ethnicity nmlkj African

18. Disability

Under the Disability Discrimination Act a person has a disability if he/she 'has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long­term effect on his/her ability to carry out normal day to day activities.' Do you consider yourself to have a disability?

nmlkj Yes nmlkj No

Thank you for your help. This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. East Cambridgeshire District Council Licence Number 100023279. Land north of 49 Key Lower End Development Envelope Housing options Employment options

Land off Rogers Road

Land north-east of 27 Lower End

Visually sensitive edge Visually sensitive edge

Proximity to power lines

Land east of Goodwin Farm, Heath Road

Land adjacent 75 High Street East Cambridgeshire District Council Land west of 75 High Street ± Not to scale Swaffham Prior Village Vision Questionnaire Results

Key facts:

Consultation period: 14th July – 25th August 2011 Total responses: 87 Number of dwellings in the village: 320 Response rate: 27%

Summary of Results

Q3. Please indicate the reason for your interest in the development of Swaffham Prior (please tick all that apply):

A total of 87 people responded to this question with 96.6% of respondents indicating that their interest in the development of Swaffham Prior was as a local resident. Whilst a number of respondents also declared other interests, it is significant that the vast majority of responses came from people living in the village or parish.

Q4. How would you like to see the village/parish change or improve in the future? Please list your top 3 priorities below:

A total of 74 people responded to this question. Key priorities identified by the respondents included:

 Keeping the village the same/no growth (16 people)  Allowing small/limited growth (11 people)  Provision of a roundabout at the B1102 at Cage Hill/Heath Road  More joined up rights of way for circular routes  More school places/investment in school (9 people)  Reduction of volume and speed of traffic on Mill Hill  Provision of small local employment units (4 people)  To keep housing located centrally around school and church  More housing (2 people)  A small shop/post office (17 people)  Affordable housing for local/young people (6 people)  Softer lighting on High Street and Cage Hill  Clean and tidy streets  Maintenance of rural character (9 people)  Improved bus services and upkeep of bus stop (6 people)  Fewer power cuts  Speed restrictions through the village (2 people)  Provision of a bypass  Improved community facilities  Traffic calming/reduction (7 people)  More trees  Provision of a village wood (2 people)  Economic viability of pub and school  Additional access – footpaths, cycle ways etc (2 people)  Make ‘real’ changes by being different  Keep village small – don’t allow sprawl  Improved indoor/outdoor play/sports facilities (5 people)  A more diverse community  Mains gas (2 people)  Hand rails for the older residents in The Beeches  More open space for children to play  Minor development with retirement homes for older residents  Increased use of the youth club hut for village events  More public access to landing and around the village  Circular horse riding routes (off road)  No development without infrastructure resources  Plant more native trees on community land  A youth club along with a sports hall on the existing site  Reduce crime  Protection of the environment  Recycle boxes or bins  Investment in change and make it work to create interest  To limit development to infill only  Improved links to Cambridge  Renewable strategy – whole village is on oil  High speed broadband access  Need to see off the National Trust’s so-called ‘Wicken Vision’ Q5. Do you think there should be housing growth on the edge of Swaffham Prior? Please choose one of the following options:

A total of 87 people responded to this question. The majority of respondents (63.1%) supported allowing housing growth on the edge of Swaffham Prior, with 33.3% of respondents against it.

Of the people that supported growth, most support was given to small scale housing growth (36.9%), followed by medium scale housing growth (21.8%) and small/medium scale housing growth for affordable housing only (5.7%). Three respondents (3.4%) provided the following (summarised) comments under ‘other’:

 Believe that limited development of mixed ‘affordable’ and market homes within the existing village, but outside of the very restrictive development envelope, would be of great benefit to the future prosperity of the village.  Growth should be outside the development envelope and small scale.  Strongly support the proposal put forward by Sir Michael Marshall and Messrs. Adrian and Nigel Dickens to develop residential use on part of the field now described as 'Land off Rogers Road’.

There was no support for large scale housing growth in the village (more than 20 houses). Q6. If there is support for housing growth outside the development envelope on the edge of Swaffham Prior, where should this take place? Please select whether you would support development in the following locations:

Of the five development options, only Land off Rogers Road received a majority level of support, with 52 respondents (70.3%) stating that they would support development of the site. Of the other options, Land north-east of 27 Lower End was supported by 31.3%, followed by Land adjacent 75 High Street (30.8%), Land north of 49 Lower End (27.9%) and Land west of 75 High Street (10.9%).

A number of alternative development sites were also proposed, as listed below:

 Land adjacent to 10 Lower End, behind Cage Hill, which is locked in, and needs access from Cage Hill, Mill Hill or Lower End.  Land between 32 – 38 Mill Hill (along Burwell Road)  Houses opposite the Manor in Lower End, behind trees rather than opposite Rogers Road houses  Land east of Goodwin Farm  Burwell  Land occupied by the (unused?) youth centre  Adjustment of development to include further land/properties  Old police house to Manor House, Lower End, along road  Land on Lower End facing the road between The Beeches and Sheldricks Cottage

It should be noted that Land north of 49 Lower End has now been ruled out as a development option following correspondence with the landowner. Q7. Housing development will continue to come forward on small sites within the village. However, schemes are currently limited to a maximum of 2 dwellings. Do you think this approach should continue?

Of the 86 people that responded to this question, 68.6% agreed with the current policy approach to restrict in-fill development. 22.1% of respondents disagreed with this approach, whilst 9.3% were unsure.

From the respondents who disagreed, the following alternative approaches were suggested:

 All applications should be taken on merit (10 people)  Development outside the development envelope  A mixed development on Rogers Road  Number of dwellings to suit the size of the site  Minor adjustments to the development envelope to allow sympathetic development  No new developments  Allow up to 5 private, or 10 with 40% affordable

One respondent also made reference to the need to improve the upkeep of Sanctuary Housing properties in the village. Q8. Would you like to see more opportunities for small businesses in the village/parish? (e.g. offices, industrial units, workshops).

A total of 86 people responded to this question of which (50%) supported seeing further opportunities for small businesses in the village and parish. Approximately 38% of respondents were against the proposal, with 10 respondents (11.6%) unsure.

Q9. If there is support for small business development, would you support development in the following locations?

Of the three development options, only Land east of Goodwin Farm received a majority level of support, with 53 respondents (69.7%) stating that they would support development of the site. Of the other options, Land north of 49 Lower End received the second highest level of support (22 people) followed by Land west of 75 High Street (7 people).

A number of alternative development sites were also proposed, which are listed below:

 The High Street  Land east of existing properties on Heath Road (2 people)  Land off Rogers Road (3 people)  Ivy Farm – use/redevelopment of farm buildings

One respondent suggested that the Rogers Road site could accommodate a mixed use scheme including housing, small business units, allotments, and a woodland/wildlife area, whilst another noted a small gypsy site could be accommodated as part of mixed use employment scheme on the Heath Road site.

As previously noted, Land north of 49 Lower End has now been ruled out as a development option following correspondence with the landowner.

Q10. The District Council can secure funds from developers to spend on improving local infrastructure and facilities. If new development comes forward in the village, what benefits would you like to see? Please select your top 3 priorities from the list:

A total of 76 people responded to this question, with 11 people choosing not to answer. Overall, the need for traffic calming/highway improvements was selected most frequently followed by more school places and improvements to the community/village hall.

When analysed in terms of priorities, traffic calming/highway improvements ranked most highly as priority 1 (22 people), improvements to pedestrian/cycle routes was ranked most highly as priority 2 (11 People) with improvements to the community/village hall ranked most frequently as priority 3 (15 people).

Of the respondents who selected ‘other’ the following improvements were suggested:

 Provision of a parish run community bus  More off road bridleways  Retention of the village as it is  Provision of a tennis court/bowling green  Provision of a village shop/post office  Less violation of parking on pavements/verges  Improved public transport  Provision of a village green  More storage facilities at the village hall  Provision of a village wood  More footpaths  Demolition of poor quality buildings of little historical or architectural value  Sustainable energy source  New youth club hut  Improvement to school buildings

Q11. For the priorities you have selected in Question 10 above, can you provide more detail on what these improvements should be and where they should be located?

A total of 46 people responded to this question, which raised the following infrastructure issues:

 Improve access onto Mill Hill from cage Hill and Heath Road – adjust pedestrian crossover points at this location  More play equipment in Town Close  Provision of a roundabout at the B1102 at Cage Hill  Provision of a pedestrian crossing across Cage Hill, near the top  Better maintenance of play areas  Improved pedestrian access – no connecting footpaths onto or lodes  Need for improved bus services  Expansion of the school  Improve village hall car park and facilities  Add a pavilion and toilets to the existing sports field in Station Road  Provision of pedestrian crossing on Mill Hill  Update and improve play area  Provision of cycle paths as an alternative to the B1102  Provision of a footpath between Station Road and Barton Drove  Greater range and quality of ‘soft’ outdoor play for children  Village Hall to be sign posted  Traffic calming – Mill Hill  Roundabout at top of Cage Hill and Rogers Road  Continuation of cycle path from Lode/ through to Swaffham Prior  Provision of village shop, possibly on land north-east of 27 Lower End  Stage and stage curtains in village hall  Better maintenance of non-tarmac footpaths  Provision of a footpath between Swaffham Bulbeck and Swaffham Prior  More passing points on Heath Road  Traffic calming on Lower End, between Manor House and national speed limits  Update kitchen in village hall  Provision of a tennis court  More flexible use of village hall – developing the rear exit as a separate entrance would achieve this  Less parking on High Street  Properly enforced 20 mph limit on High Street  Village green to be provided on land north east of 27 Lower End with play facilities and sports field  Combine school and existing village hall facilities  Develop youth club and play area site  Provision of a scouts and football field  A footpath half way down Caddenham Lane running across to Heath Road  Redevelopment of the school site – potential for relocation on Rogers Road  Solar power field on County Council land between Heath Farm and Mill Hill  Cycle route linking Swaffham Prior to Clayhithe to link the west side of the Cambridge route to Cambridge cycle bridge across A14

Q12. The District Council is consulting every parish in the district on the following question regarding development envelopes: The development envelope marks the built up area of the village where development is normally allowed to take place. The area outside the development envelope is protected as open countryside. Which of the following approaches would you prefer?

A total of 85 people responded to this question, of which the majority (56.5%) thought that the development envelope should be retained. Approximately 32% of respondents considered that planning applications should be considered on their merit, whilst 10 respondents (11.8%) did not know. Q13. Please use this space to make any other comments:

A total of 36 people provided a response to this question making the following comments:

 No further development  Extension to the Beeches into adjacent field  Limited social housing development facing Rogers Road – private housing facing new road running adjacent to Lower End with access from the Beeches – tree planting area to enclose the development, Fairview Grove and Mill Hill  Plastic recycling  No travellers sites  Any affordable housing provided to be properly maintained  More facilities (shops, post office etc) within the village (5 people)  Keep open the view from Lower End (no 27) into the fen landscape  No development north of existing settlement boundary  Small scale development only  Some affordable housing would allow people who have been raised in the village the chance to stay (2 people)  Concern over the impact that development would have on the availability of school places (3 people)  Building on Rogers Road would adversely effect the character of the area (2 people)  Power cuts need to be addressed  Should avoid allowing the village to ‘sprawl’  Justification of ‘need’ for additional housing in the village  The Parish Council should remember how hard it fought Dencora’s wish to build on land off Rogers Road  Opposed to all further development, both inside and outside, the development envelope  Development of housing principally for the profit of developers, not to improve the village – way to improve village without building?  Any new housing should be high quality and sensitively designed (2 people)  New developments should be judged on merit  Provide a duck pond on land north-east of 27 Lower End  Provide playing field on waste land, on the opposite side of the bypass to Adams Road, with access to Heath Road  Village needs a hub – a community run shop/café/gallery where creative types could gather/work/sell and mums and babies could have somewhere to chat – potentially could be provided on land north of 27 Lower End  More storage room needed at the village hall  Land/field behind Mill Hill to be turned into a greens pace/park/woodland  Enlarge the development envelope on land close to the village i.e. the land between Rogers Road and Fairview Grove and land north-east of 27 Lower End  Need to consider availability of water supply, services and facilities and high levels of car dependency -  Need for demographic survey of Swaffham Prior  Development would spoil the village – not bring is additional shops/services  Village pub should be protected  Need a more diverse community – the gypsy site should be welcomed as a positive contribution to the village  Accommodation for older people – large proportion of affordable homes are occupied by the elderly  No requirement for business development in Swaffham Prior – keep business/industrial development for larger villages and towns, or limit to sites within the development envelope  Plant more trees, improve and link up public footpaths  Why does the development envelope not include the homes already built on the corner of Heath Road  Appalled that the area used by the scouts has been proposed as a development option  Protected species on land west of 75 High Street  Need to preserve small countryside villages like Swaffham Prior  Explore opportunities for renewable energy in the village (2 people)  Replace old peeling street lights on footpath across land at Rogers Road  Use S106 money for the benefit of the village at wish of Parish Council i.e. ability to use public art contribution for other community benefit  Need for greater flexibility in planning consents  Support District and County Council’s stance on Wicken Fen Vision  The former Wesleyan Methodist Church at River Bank, near , should be protected and preserved.  The village should be preserved and enhanced by additional tree planting