Core Strategy and Development Policies – Preferred Options 2
Further copies of this document can be obtained from:
Planning Policy Team Fenland District Council Fenland Hall County Road March PE15 8NQ
Telephone: 01354 654321
It can also be viewed on our web site at: www.fenland.gov.uk Documents prepared by Fenland District Council are available In community languages, large print, Moon, Braille, Audio cassette and electronic format upon request
September 2007 Contents
1 Introduction 5
1.1 The Local Development Framework 5
1.2 The purpose of this consultation 5
1.3 Content of the Core Strategy 6
1.4 Key issues and influences 6
1.5 Your comments 9
2 Spatial Portrait and Objectives 11
2.1 Approach of the Core Strategy 11
2.2 Portrait of the District 11
2.3 Critical issues 16
2.4 Spatial Vision 22
2.5 Spatial Strategy 23
2.6 Key Diagram 36
3 Core Policies 37
3.1 CP1 Sustainable Development Principles 37
3.2 CP2 Settlement Hierarchy 39
3.3 CP3 Development in the Countryside 43
3.4 CP4 Comprehensive Development 46
3.5 CP5 Infastructure Requirements 47
4 Housing 51
4.1 H1 Windfall Housing Sites 51
4.2 H2 Phasing of Housing Development 53
4.3 H3 Affordable Housing 55
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Contents
4.4 H4 Affordable Housing Rural Exceptions 59
4.5 H5 Housing Density 62
4.6 H6 Housing Mix 65
4.7 H7 Replacement or Alteration of Rural Housing 68
4.8 H8 Conversion of Rural Buildings to Residential 70
4.9 H9 Dwellings for Rural Workers 72
4.10 H10 Gypsies and Travellers 73
5 Economic Growth and Prosperity 77
5.1 GP1 Location and Scale of Employment Development 77
5.2 GP2 Protecting Employment Land 80
5.3 GP3 Wisbech Port 83
5.4 GP4 Re-use and Redevelopment of Rural Buildings 84
5.5 GP5 Farm Diversification 87
5.6 GP6 Tourist Attractions 89
5.7 GP7 Tourist Accomodation 92
5.8 GP8 Location of Retail and Leisure Development 96
5.9 GP9 Primary Shopping Frontages 98
6 Built Environment 101
6.1 B1 Design 101
6.2 B2 Amenity 105
6.3 B3 Shop Fronts and Advertisements 107
6.4 B4 Conservation Areas 109
6.5 B5 Listed Buildings 112
6.6 B6 Archaeological Sites and Monuments 114
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 6.7 B7 Flood Risk and Drainage 116
6.8 B8 Pollution 118
6.9 B9 Contaminated Land 120
7 Natural Environment and Resources 123
7.1 N1 Landscape Character 123
7.2 N2 Biodiversity 125
7.3 N3 Protected Trees and Important Hedgerows 127
7.4 N4 Protected Sites and Species 129
7.5 N5 Renewable Energy 132
7.6 N6 Wind Turbine Development 135
7.7 N7 Energy Efficiency 137
8 Community Services and Facilities 139
8.1 S1 Requirements for Growth 139
8.2 S2 Retention of Local Services and Facilities 140
8.3 S3 Protection of Open Space and Recreational Facilities 143
8.4 S4 Telecommunications 145
9 Transport 147
9.1 T1 Managing the Need to Travel 147
9.2 T2 Reducing the Need to Travel 150
9.3 T3 Car and Cycle Parking 152
9.4 T4 Walking, Cycling and Public Rights of Way 155
Appendices
1 Maps Identifying Broad Locations 159
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Contents
2 County Wildlife Sites 163
3 Car and Cycle Parking Standards 165
4 Glossary of Terms 175
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 1 Introduction
1.1 The Local Development Framework
Fenland District Council is preparing a new Local Development Framework (LDF). The LDF is a series of documents which will eventually replace the Fenland District-wide Local Plan that was adopted in 1993 and the Interim Statement of Proposed Supplementary Planning Guidance adopted in 2001. The LDF will consider how the District will develop over the period up to 2024. It will set out planning policies, and allocate sites for housing, employment and other land uses.
The series of LDF documents will be produced over a period of time. The Core Strategy and Development Policies Development Plan Document (to be referred to as the Core Strategy) is one of the first documents to be produced. It will set out a strategic vision for the district and policies that will be used when considering individual planning proposals. Allocations of land for specific purposes will be considered in a separate document (to be known as the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document), which will conform to the framework set by the Core Strategy. Full details of the documents to be prepared and a production timetable are set out in the Council's Local Development Scheme (see the Council's website at www.fenland.gov.uk.)
Due to the need for consultation, the Core Strategy will be produced in a number of key stages which, are as follows:
Initial public and stakeholder consultation on issues and options Public consultation on Preferred Options Public consultation on further Preferred Options (CURRENT STAGE) Draft Core Strategy submitted to Secretary of State and published for public consultation (Jan 2008) Independent Examination on the document (begins Aug 2008) Receipt of binding Inspectors report and adoption of document (probably in Feb 2009).
1.2 The purpose of this consultation
Fenland District Council carried out a preferred options consultation with the public and stakeholders in late 2006, however, following discussions with the Government Office for the East of England it was agreed that further work should be undertaken. This additional work is needed to take account of revised national guidance on housing and a new requirement for Core Strategies to indicate broad locations for development. Work has also been undertaken to produce a more focused Spatial Vision and Strategy and to inform the transport proposals.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 5 1 Introduction
Due to the nature of the amendments stated above, a decision with the support of the Government has now been made to undertake a consultation on the further preferred options work. This will provide Stakeholders and the public with an additional opportunity to comment on the Core Strategy, before it is finalised and submitted to Government. The Council is keen to seek your views on these further preferred options and find out whether you agree with our choices.
1.3 Content of the Core Strategy
The Core Strategy Document is the strategic document that will inform other development plan and guidance documents within the LDF. The Core Strategy sets out the long term spatial vision (integrating land use planning and local strategies including the Sustainable Community Strategy, Local Transport Plans etc) for Fenland District Council and will provide the policy framework for development and change. This document will set out the strategy for delivering housing up to 2024. PPS3, paragraph 53, stipulates Local Planning Authorities should identify broad locations and specific sites that will enable continuous delivery of housing for at least 15 years from the document's adoption. The quantity of employment land has also been projected to 2024 to ensure there is a balanced approach between housing and employment.
The Core Strategy will not identify specific sites for development, but will set out the spatial strategy for growth, identifying broad locations for housing, employment, open space and retail development and how the delivery of these sectors will shape the localities and district.
Also within this document from chapters 4 - 9, are the Development Policies which are more focused on particular themes to guide and assess development. They will be used for assessing planning applications.
1.4 Key issues and influences
The Core Strategy needs to take account of a number of key sources of information and guidance. Details of these key influences are set out below.
National and regional / county planning policies
The Government produces Planning Policy Guidance Notes, which are being replaced by Planning Policy Statements. These set out Government policy on a variety of topics, including housing, employment, retail and transport. The Core Strategy has to be consistent with what they say. Relevant national policy sources that have been drawn upon are listed in the various policy sections of this document. The full text of the Government documents can be viewed on their website at www.communities.gov.uk
6 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 The Secretary of State's Proposed Changes to the Draft Revision of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England (RSS) were published in December 2006. It sets out the spatial strategy for the region (see the East of England Regional Assembly’s website for details at www.eera.gov.uk). The Core Strategy needs to be in ‘general conformity’ with RSS. As it is in draft form, there may be some future changes – these changes will need to be accommodated, wherever possible, in a revised Core Strategy. Relevant regional policies that have been drawn upon are listed in the various policy sections of this paper.
RSS will eventually replace most of the policies in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan adopted in 2003. However, because the Structure Plan is relatively up-to-date and is ‘saved’, we need to take account of its policies and proposals. Relevant policy links are listed in the policy sections of this paper, and the full text of the Plan can be viewed on the County Council’s website at www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk
Other plans and strategies
The Core Strategy also needs to take account of the plans and strategies of the District Council and other organisations (such as the Police, Health Authority and Highways Authority) where these have implications for the use of land.
The Fenland Sustainable Community Strategy is a key local strategy document. It seeks to co-ordinate the strategies and objective of voluntary, community and public sector organisations operating in the district. It was produced in 2007 by the Fenland Strategic Partnership, which consists of representatives from various groups. The LDF needs to take account of the Community Strategy, and act as a delivery mechanism for elements which relate to development and land use. The six priority themes in the Strategy are as follows:
Fenland's future generations Helping people live healthy independant lives Making communities safer and stronger Building a sustainable environment Building communities with decent homes, a sense of place and purpose Helping people into work and encouraging innovation and enterprise
Other plans and strategies which will feed into development of the Core Strategy are listed below. This list is not exhaustive, but includes documents which could potentially have an important influence. For further details of these documents, please see the District Council’s and County Council’s websites.
Council’s Corporate Plan 2007 - 2010 Housing Strategy 2004 – 2007
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 7 1 Introduction
Economic Development Framework 2007 Culture and Leisure Strategy 2005 – 2008 Community Safety Strategy 2002 – 2005 Local Transport Plan 2006 – 2011 March Transport Strategy 2002 Wisbech Transport Strategy 2003
In preparing the LDF a range of ‘evidence gathering’ has been undertaken to ensure the documents have a robust basis. Some of the key research studies which will inform the preparation of the Core Strategy are listed below (for a full list see the Council’s Local Development Scheme), and can be viewed on the Council’s website.
Housing Land Availability Assessment and Urban Capacity Study (2007) Housing Needs Assessment (2003) and (2006) Settlement Hierarchy Paper (2006) Play Space Provision Assessment (2003) and Open Space Audit 2006 Retail Study (2006) Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2005) Employment Study (2006) Broad Locations Background Paper (2007) Cambridgeshire Strategic Open Space Study (2005) – prepared by the County Council Cambridgeshire Horizons Green Infrastructure Strategy (2006) Cambridgeshire Housing, Employment and Retail Monitoring Reports – prepared by the County Council Cambridgeshire County Council Climate Change Strategy, 2005
Public and stakeholder consultation
The views of local people and key organisations (or ‘stakeholders’) have already helped to inform development of the Preferred Options Document. Consultation was carried out early 2006, and comments were sought on potential policy options and alternative 'Areas of Search' for development that may be included in the Core Strategy. The main focus of this consultation was the Core Strategy and Development Policies Issues and Options Document which looked at policy and development options where reasonable alternatives were considered to exist. This consultation phase was supported by the findings of an Initial Sustainability Appraisal (see below), and helped to refine the proposed options in this Preferred Options Document. The results of this consultation have been summarised, and set out in a ‘Summary of Responses’ document published with the Preferred Options Document in October 2006. These documents are available from the Council (see the website at www.fenland.gov.uk).
8 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Sustainability Appraisal
Another key influence on the content of the Preferred Options Document has been the Sustainability Appraisal process. All LDF policy documents are required by national and European legislation to undergo this process, which involves assessing the economic, environmental and social impact of policy options.
The first stage in this process involved the production of a Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report. This identifies key economic, social and environmental objectives, against which policies can be assessed. The Scoping report was published in October 2005.
Consultants used these sustainability objectives to carry out an Initial Sustainability Appraisal of policy options identified by the Council in the Issues and Options Document. These appraisals were published at the same time as the Issues and Options Document 2006. They helped to inform the consultation process, and have also helped to inform selection of the Council’s preferred policy options in this document.
Consultants carried out a Draft Final Sustainability Appraisal of the Council’s preferred options in August 2006. An Addendum report was completed in September 2007 to take account of the further preferred options work. This appraisal work is published alongside the Further Preferred Options Document to help to inform the consultation process. Your comments are invited on both these documents – see the Council’s website for details. When the Draft Core Strategy is formally submitted to the Secretary of State in 2008, a Final Sustainability Appraisal and the Scoping Report will also be submitted.
1.5 Your comments
We would like you to consider the policy options set out in the Preferred Options Document. We want to know whether you agree with our preferred options. We are keen to obtain your views now, to help inform our policy choices before they are finalised. Your views will be fed into the development of the draft Core Strategy, which will be submitted to the Secretary of State in early 2008.
Comments forms can be filled in electronically via the Council’s website at www.fenland.gov.uk Alternatively, printed forms are available from Planning Policy on 01354 622316 and can be returned via the pre-paid envelopes. All responses need to reach us by 5pm on 12th November 07. Please fill out a separate form for each comment.
If you have any questions about this document, or the LDF process please contact a member of the Planning Policy Team at:
Fenland District Council
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 9 1 Introduction
Fenland Hall County Road March Cambs PE15 8NQ
Tel: 01354 654321 E-mail: [email protected]
10 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 2 Spatial Portrait and Objectives
2.1 Approach of the Core Strategy
The Core Strategy will identify the spatial characteristics of Fenland and critical issues and challenges the District faces. It provides the spatial policy framework for development and change for the period up to 2024. The Core Strategy comprises:
Portrait of the District. Describes the main attributes of the area.
Critical Issues. Examines the main issues requiring attention.
Spatial Vision. Drawing on the identified issues, the vision identifies where we want to be.
Spatial Strategy. Identifies our approach for growth and implementing the spatial vision, taking on board the issues identified. Aims have been derived to guide the strategy.
Key Diagram. Illustrates the broad locations for strategic development, transportation issues and constraints.
Core Policies. Spatial policies derived from the aims to deliver the strategy.
Development Policies. To guide development
2.2 Portrait of the District
Background
Fenland is a predominantly a rural district located east of Peterborough, in the north-east of Cambridgeshire. The district covers an area of 54,547 hectares and has a population of 87,500 (Cambridgeshire County Council mid-year estimate 2005). The district contains four market towns and a large number of villages. The largest settlements are the market towns of Wisbech and March, followed by Whittlesey and Chatteris as follows.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 11 2 Spatial Portrait and Objectives
Wisbech 20,460 (The population of the built-up area of Wisbech is increased to 23,050 if you include 1150 in the Wisbech Fringe, Leverington Parish and 1440 in Walsoken.) March 19,150 (Excludes prison population.) Whittlesey 12,690 Chatteris 9,480
Together the four market towns comprise 71% of the district’s population. The average household size is 2.34, with a density of population of 1.6 people per hectare. Ethnic groups make up 3% of the total population of the district although some significant ethnic communities are long-established in Fenland.
Wisbech is the largest town in the district and a trading centre for a wide rural area with an inland port. The town’s position on the A47 and renowned built heritage makes it a stopping point for tourist traffic heading to the North Norfolk Coast. However the historic centre of the town has declined in recent years and requires regeneration. March is well located for road and rail links providing a range of high order services as well as those in Peterborough and Cambridge. Whittlesey provides many higher order services within its historic core although proximity to Peterborough has led to a decline in its service role in recent years. Chatteris has traditionally had a more modest range of services compared to the other towns although it has benefited from the economic growth associated with Cambridge. The villages of Doddington and Wimblington play a key service role for their rural hinterlands. The remaining villages have more limited services although a few such as Elm acts as a mini-hub for bus services.
Housing
In recent years Fenland has experienced considerable population and housing growth, due to its location in the London – Stansted – Cambridge – Peterborough Growth Area. This growth is due to falling household size and migration into the District from the rest of the country. Both the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan and the draft East of England Regional Spatial Strategy identify the southern part of the district around Chatteris as lying within the Cambridge sub-region. Chatteris and March in particular have been the focus for this considerable growth, along with the villages of Doddington, Wimblington and Manea in the same corridor. The villages of Elm and Leverington in the north of the district have also accommodated considerable housing growth.
House prices and land values are buoyant in the district due to the growth of Cambridge and Peterborough. The availability of jobs in Peterborough has made Whittlesey and its surrounding villages popular for out commuters and raised prices. The growth of the Cambridge Sub-region has had less effect in terms of direct commuting but has created
12 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 more demand across the south of the district especially in Chatteris and its surrounding villages. In addition the district is attractive to those looking for a quiet rural location, especially retirees.
Demand in both the short and medium term is likely to increase further in the district with pressure seen in recent years increasingly spreading northwards to March and the more accessible villages. In the longer term the growth of King’s Lynn will put pressure on house prices in Wisbech. The ratio of house prices to incomes is high compared to the region reflecting pressures of in migration and low incomes.
Employment
Fenland’s economy was traditionally based on agriculture. It still provides many direct and indirect jobs in food processing, specialist engineering, packaging, transport and business services. The added value investment within the agri-food sector continues to be highly successful, with multinational companies choosing Fenland as a prime location for UK operations.
Wholesale and retail trade is now the biggest employment sector, with manufacturing second. Brickmaking, printing and engineering have established their skill base and infrastructure over many years. Public services employment, for example, in local government, health, and education accounts for a fifth of jobs. Tourism related employment is modest and its share of jobs in Fenland is lower than in most neighbouring authorities. Future growth can be expected in the sectors that population growth will stimulate; construction and services to people, including retailing.
The total number of residents in employment is approximately 37 500, according to the 2001 census. The census data shows us that 60% commute within the District and 40% commute outside of the district. Of that 40%, 29% commute within Cambridgeshire and 11% commute outside of the County, mainly to Peterborough, Lincolnshire and Norfolk.
Retail
Wisbech town centre is the most important comparison retail centre within the catchment area, with an estimated turnover of £67.75 million in 2006. The second most important comparison spend location is March town centre, with an estimated comparison turnover of £26.84 million. With regard to convenience stores, the Retail Study shows that 12.6 % (£29.29 million) of the total convenience goods expenditure of the residents of Fenland’s overall catchment area (£233.21 million) is spent in just one store within the catchment, this being the Tesco superstore at Sandown Road, Wisbech. Two other individual foodstores located within the catchment achieve market shares of 8% or
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 13 2 Spatial Portrait and Objectives
greater, these being the Tesco superstore at March which accounts for 10.2% (23.75 million) and the Asda store at North End, Wisbech, which accounts for a further 8.2% (£19.21 million).
Wisbech town centre contains 13 convenience outlets, which equates to 5.3 per cent of the total units compared to the GB average of 9.4 per cent. The only main supermarket in the centre is the Somerfield store in the Horsefair Shopping Centre although the relative lack of supermarkets is not unexpected given the centre’s historic nature.
There are 117 comparison goods outlets in the town centre which equates to 47.6 per cent of the total units, which is only marginally below the GB average of 48.2 per cent. The town is under-represented in a number of sub-sectors, in particular clothing; ‘men’s and boys’ wear’ accounts for just 0.8 per cent of total town centre units, compared to the GB average of 1.4 per cent, and ‘women’s, girls, children’s’ clothing – a key indicator of the strength of a retail centre - accounts for 4.5 per cent of total town centre units, the GB average being 5.5 per cent.
The overall proportion of service outlets in Wisbech town centre (32.1 per cent) is slightly above the GB average (30.3 per cent). Of particular note is the high representation of ‘estate agents & auctioneers’, the 16 outlets in this sub-sector equating to 6.5 per cent of all town centre units, almost double the GB average of 3.4 per cent. The 24 units in the ‘restaurants, cafes, coffee bars, fast food & take-aways’ sub-sector equate to 9.8 per cent of total units, which is notably below the GB average of 12.5 per cent.
March is a smaller centre than Wisbech and operates at a lower level in the retail hierarchy. As such, March has a narrower range of comparison retail outlets than its larger counterpart, with the comparison offer in March largely confined to independent operators. This is, however, not untypical for medium-sized market towns. The convenience sector offer in March is very healthy, with a good range of supermarkets namely Sainsburys, Somerfield, Tesco, Lidl as well as a number of smaller convenience outlets (bakers, and so on).
Whittlesey and Chatteris each serve predominantly localised convenience retail and service needs. Whittlesey is the larger of the two centres and contains a range of banks and building societies, as well as Nisa Local convenience store and two small supermarkets (Kwik Save and Somerfield). Comparison sector outlets in Whittlesey consist exclusively of small-scale independent operators. A new NHS surgery and pharmacy has recently been completed immediately north of he town centre at Syers Lane.
14 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 The comparison offer in Chatteris is also confined exclusively to local independent retailers. Chatteris does, however, contain several hotels and the centre has a good range of pubs/bars and restaurants, indicating that the centre serves a dual tourism/local service centre role.
Transport
The principal road network is made up of rural single carriageway roads with the A47 crossing the district, linking Norfolk and Fenland to Peterborough and the A1. The A141 and A142 travelling north/south provides links to A47 (North) and A14/M11 (south) towards Cambridge. The A1101 links the district northward into Lincolnshire. Regular bus services are also concentrated on these corridors and within the market towns, with limited services in more rural areas.
Fenland is connected by rail with the Birmingham – Peterborough – Stanstead Airport Line travelling through the district. In recent years, Network Rail has also relocated their rail infrastructure depot into the district at March. This supports use of the rail line for freight use as well as passenger services.
Wisbech Port is the only port in Cambridgeshire and is undergoing considerable expansion, as part of wider regeneration proposals for the town. This expansion may offer additional potential in the future to transfer freight from roads to the port.
The district is in close proximity to Peterborough, Kings Lynn (Norfolk) and various destinations in South Lincolnshire. Evidence from sources such as the Census 2001 (e.g. travel to work patterns) show there are strong travel links to and from these destinations for work and leisure purposes. Fenlands location within Cambridgeshire also creates higher levels of travel to both Huntingdon and Ely.
Walking & cycling networks include three routes on the National Cycle Network – NCN1 through Wisbech & into Lincolnshire, NCN11 from Kings Lynn on the east side through to Ely and NCN63 from Burton-on-Trent to Wisbech. The Hereward Way a long distance walking route between Oakham in Leicestershire and Norfolk runs through the heart of the district. There are also walking and cycling routes in the market towns and many Rights of Way throughout the district.
Natural & Built Environment
Four market towns, Wisbech, March, Whittlesey and Chatteris, all retain their strong historic character. There are about 850 listed buildings and 10 defined conservation areas. It is imperative therefore that this local distinctiveness and heritage is conserved and enhanced.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 15 2 Spatial Portrait and Objectives
The typical landscape is characterised by wide-open views across fields. Almost all the district comprises high-grade agricultural land. There are internationally important environmental assets, especially migratory and threatened bird habitats, and other nationally and locally designated habitats. Among the biodiversity action plans that apply to Fenland, there are some actions specific to its distinctive traditional orchards and ditches, and for recreating wetlands so that Fenland’s environmental assets are enhanced and protected for the future.
The district has two areas of international wildlife importance – the Nene and Ouse Washes. There are 4 SSSIs, two Local Nature Reserves (Lattersey Field and Rings End) and 31 County Wildlife Sites. However, overall biodiversity levels in the district are low, particularly in the southern part where tree and hedgerow coverage is sparse.
Land levels across much of the District are largely between 1 m below and 1m above Ordnance Datum (mOD). There are however ‘islands’ of higher land (5mOD or above) scattered throughout the District, generally associated with long established urban or village settlements. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment identified four principal flood risk sources in the District. These are the tidal channel of the River Nene, the Great Ouse / Bedford River system between Denver and Earith, the Middle Level arterial drainage network and the North Level arterial drainage system.
2.3 Critical issues
Social
More than one in three of all Fenland households (including pensioner-only households) have no one in employment. The share of working age people claiming key benefits is above the national average and 18% of children are in families facing income deprivation.
The concentration of deprivation and Fenland’s position relative to the rest of Cambridgeshire and the region makes its disadvantage strongly apparent. The most deprived areas of Fenland include Wisbech and its surrounding rural areas. Current Government statistical measures show that 8% of Fenland’s population live in one of the most deprived areas of the Country.
Life expectancy lags behind neighbouring areas, although it is not out of line with the national average. Health inequalities in Fenland map closely to the measures of deprivation, and there is a south-north gradient. Health’s wider determinants include aspects captured in measures of deprivation: poverty affecting children, housing conditions, and educational attainment.
16 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Crime figures show offences per 1,000 population below the national figure and the district is also below the County average for recorded crime rates. Crime too is geographically concentrated and Wisbech has the highest crime rate in the district.
Deprivation is measured on a small area basis known as Super Output Areas (SOAs). The most deprived areas of Fenland are concentrated around Wisbech and its surrounding area. The most deprived 20% of SOAs rank in the most deprived 30% of SOAs nationally. The most deprived areas of Fenland are more comparable with national levels of deprivation than other districts in Cambridgeshire. The table below shows the most deprived SOAs in Fenland.
Table 1 Most Deprived SOAs in Fenland by Ward
County Rank SOA Ward National Rank % rank nationally 1 E01018108 Waterlees, Wisbech North 2542 7.8% 2 E01018107 Waterlees, Wisbech North 3894 12.0% 3 E01018103 Staithe, Wisbech South 4057 12.5% 4 E01018068 Elm & Christchurch 6130 18.8% 5 E01018091 Parson Drove & Wisbech St Mary 7312 22.5% 6 E01018070 Hill, Wisbech South 7611 23.4% 7 E01018089 Medworth, Wisbech South 8396 25.8% 8 E01018063 Clarkson, Wisbech North 9064 27.9% 9 E01018078 March East 9157 28.2% 10 E01018097 Roman Bank 9257 28.5% 11 E01018071 Hill, Wisbech South 9466 29.1%
Source: ODPM/Cambridgeshire CC Indices of Multiple Deprivation Cambs including Districts (2004)
The education element of deprivation is important however the proposed Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme will help address this. BSF is a £93 million project to update Fenland's secondary schools. Fenland is the first district in Cambridgeshire to participate. At present proposals are being drawn up for the four secondary schools (community colleges) in each market town, Meadowgate Special School in Wisbech and the Fenland Junction Pupil Referral Unit in March. Building work should commence in 2009 and be completed in 2012.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 17 2 Spatial Portrait and Objectives
Housing
In-migration and falling household size are creating more demand for housing in the district. Build rates have increased in recent years potentially putting pressure on the supply of land. However, despite high build rates land supply has remained fairly constant. This is because of more infill housing development coming forward much of which is on brown-field land within the larger settlements. The most noticeable effect of this has been the reuse of derelict sites and empty buildings in Chatteris and more recently in the other market towns. This trend has reversed the decline in the historic built fabric of Chatteris and is beginning to have a similar effect on the historic cores of the other market towns. More small housing units are being built in line with rising demand. These have established a niche for those looking for low cost housing in a central location. Moreover the development of brown-field land within the historic core has brought investment into run down areas and improved their visual appearance. The release of large green-field sites could have implications for the regeneration of March, Whittlesey and Wisbech and will therefore need to be carefully planned to mitigate impact. Developments within the market towns and key villages on previously developed land need to be encouraged in order to promote regeneration subject to impact on their surroundings.
Average house prices in Fenland are now at an all time high of £150000 (2007). The cost of smaller property is increasing more rapidly than larger property. Despite high building rates for market housing affordable housing needs have not been met. In fact the identified need for affordable housing has increased in recent years to 560 dwellings a year. If no policy change takes place market demand will continue to be met but with a continuing shortfall of affordable housing and higher prices for smaller property.
There is an urgent need for more affordable housing in the district to meet the needs of local people. Most of the need for affordable housing in the district is for rented property. Meeting the housing and service needs of the elderly also presents a challenge – in line with national trends, Fenland has an ageing population. The latest mid 2005 population estimates indicate over 19% of Fenland’s residents are 65 or over compared to 15% for Cambridgeshire. The district contains a long established gypsy and traveller community both housed and on caravan pitches. The Cambridge Sub-region Traveller Needs Assessment 2006 estimates that 160 pitches will be needed between 2005 and 2010. This is the highest requirement in the East of England Region. There is a need to make further provision as a result of unauthorised pitches and natural population growth.
18 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Employment
Fenland is often described as a low wage economy. The average earnings are the lowest in the County. Traditionally, employment was agriculture related, but rationalisation in the industry and investment in added value activity has seen the importance of agriculture as a direct source of employment decline significantly. As the economy has diversified the changing nature of work has increasingly brought into question the adequacy of the skills base within the local economy. Fenland now remains reliant on manufacturing and distribution sectors with business and financial services, health, welfare, transport and communications also important. These sectors are often areas of low skill and this has a ‘knock-on’ effect of relatively low wages. These sectors are in decline in terms of number of jobs and growth and as such will result in pressure for redevelopment of these areas. However, there has been a growth in real estate, renting and business services. Some of this growth in Fenland may reflect the strength of the local residential property market. Also there has been growth in sections such as printing, IT and food processing and a rise in self employment.
40% of the working population out-commute to other areas for work, mainly to Peterborough from the north of the district. Huntingdon, South Lincolnshire and Norfolk are also significant areas which attract out-commuting. This creates pollution and congestion on the primary roads leading to these destinations. On the Cambridgeshire principal road network, the highest growth over the past ten years has occurred on roads which are either within Fenland District or are key for those travelling from the district to other areas such as the A1101 (58%), the A141 (47%) and the A142 (40%). The reliance on manufacturing, distribution and transport sectors relies heavily on road transport which will create additional journeys and traffic on these primary roads.
Whilst a larger percentage of the resident population works within the district, the average distance travelled to a fixed place of work in Fenland is 16.01km or 9.94 miles, for the East of England it is 15.88km or 9.87 miles and for England it is 13.31km or 8.27 miles. The nature of Fenland as a rural area will require people to travel further than those within urban areas to access employment. This average figure does however hide a picture showing that there is well over 50% of the 37,500 people (that make up the working population within Fenland) travelling shorter distances than the UK average. The national average travel to work distance for England is 13.31km or 8.27miles. Within Fenland, travelling below a 10km distance there are 18,202 people or 48.21%, and also 3,697 (9.79%) of people working at home.
There is also the continual loss of talent (particularly young people) to large urban areas. The challenge in the future will be to encourage further economic growth in the district, creating more and better skilled jobs which will meet the needs of local people.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 19 2 Spatial Portrait and Objectives
Retail and Leisure
The four market towns are the main service, commercial and social centres of the district, each serving a rural area that looks to it for services, facilities and employment. Wisbech and March are the principal market towns and the District’s main shopping centres, containing the largest number or commercial premises and a range of national multiple retailers. Whittlesey and Chatteris both service more local catchments and have relatively low scales of provision. There has been a high level of vacancies in Wisbech and an increasing number in Whittlesey, raising concerns about the long-term vitality of these centres. The challenge will be to stem the decline of these centres and promote future growth. However, the vacant units in Wisbech and March do not meet the modern floorspace requirements for today's retailers. Wisbech town centre is constrained due to the Conservation Area status and presence of listed buildings. Vacant units in March are small and unsuited for modern retailers.
All the market towns have traditional markets with out-of-centre Sunday markets in Wisbech and Whittlesey. The proximity of large towns such as Peterborough, King’s Lynn and Cambridge means that there is a high level of retail expenditure in shops outside the district (some 70% in the non-food sector). All four market towns have well established employment areas which complement the retail and business opportunities in the town centres.
Transport
The nature of Fenland District is such that about a third of the population live outside of the market towns in the many sparsely populated rural settlements. With the exception of the larger villages, the other villages and hamlets have either limited or no services and facilities, which creates a high level of car dependency. Public transport away from the market towns is also limited with infrequent bus services offering no real travel choice. By rail however, there are at least hourly services from March to Peterborough, Cambridge and Stanstead Airport. These services also connect onwards to the Midlands, the North, London and other East Anglian towns. Along the same rail corridor there are Fenland stations at Manea and Whittlesey although services are limited, particularly from Manea. A lack of integration between bus and rail services reduces the ability of those living in more isolated communities to make use of the rail network. Community transport through dial-a-ride and community car schemes assist with reducing gaps in the network however, further investigation is needed to establish the full potential of these schemes to deliver improvements to the transport network within Fenland.
Rural single carriageway roads are known to be less safe and have higher accident rates (DfT Road Safety Good Practice Guide 2001). Within Fenland road accidents are a big concern, mortality rates are almost double the national average (PCT Annual
20 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Report 2005), and are particularly high amongst 15 – 24 year olds and those over 75 years of age. The last ten years have also seen some of the largest increases of traffic in Cambridgeshire along the Fenland principal road network.
The existing walking and cycling network comprises of different types of route including footpaths, the National Cycle Network and Public Rights of Way. We are aware that there are gaps within this network, including routes which do not join up, and that better promotion of walking and cycling within the Countryside and the Market Towns is required. There is a need to ensure that the walking and cycling infrastructure within Fenland is comprehensive and integrated. The district take up of initatives such as Safe Routes to Schools and Travel Plans is also limited.
Traffic & travel movement is defined by linear infrastructure systems linking settlements and sites; it is not determined by administrative borders. Some settlements within Fenland look to neighbouring districts possibly in other counties for services e.g. most residents in Christchurch are registered with the doctor in Upwell, Norfolk. Given the location of the district in close proximity to neighbouring counties and issues raised by the example above, traffic and travel issues require a cross boundary approach.
Natural & Built Environment
The District has to deliver over 12500 new homes by 2024, associated with the growth is the need for sufficient employment, retail and community facilities. This pressure for growth will therefore have an impact on Fenland's unique countryside and the existing built environment. Well designed schemes will therefore be essential to ensure that the new developments assimilate well into the environment.
We have the opportunity to ensure that new growth has a proportionally smaller environmental impact, using new knowledge and technologies. Cambridgeshire County Council has adopted a Climate Change Strategy in March 2005, which builds on the County's existing environmental policies which monitor the County's wider environmental performance and awareness. The Strategy highlights the work the County are carrying out to address both the causes and consequences of climate change. Fenland District Council is also currently drafting a Climate Change Strategy which will highlight the main issues the District faces and introduce measures for adaptation and mitigation on the effects of climate change.
Flood risk is also a pertinent issue within Fenland. Development pressure and climate change may add to flood risk, and local topography and drainage systems mean that there is an existing flood hazard across parts of the district. It will be critical therefore to ensure that development is focused where flood risk is negligible.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 21 2 Spatial Portrait and Objectives
Access to good strategic open spaces is often an indicator to measure the quality of life, but also strategic open spaces can create habitats, and enhance the growth of flora and fauna to meet Local Biodiversity Action Plan targets. However, there are currently no strategic areas of open space within Fenland.
2.4 Spatial Vision
The Fenland Sustainable Community Strategy Vision is that, “Fenland is a district where there is a high quality of life for all, now and in the future and that Fenland is known as a great place to live, work, learn and visit.” To achieve the vision a framework has identified six priority themes which are set out at 1.4 above.
The Core Strategy shares and embraces this vision, but has translated it to ensure that the vision has spatial expression. The Spatial Vision for this Core Strategy is therefore expressed as follows:
To provide for local residents and support the growth of the district to 2024 with a mix of housing, jobs and services to meet the needs of the market towns and the rural communities. Growth must be embraced in a sustainable way, and balance development requirements with the need to promote and protect open spaces, landscapes, the built environment and the unique qualities of the Fens.
This will be achieved by:
ensuring that development is located in sustainable locations providing a range of housing types that are affordable and meet the needs of all residents providing high quality employment land to encourage innovation and secure a range of new job opportunities providing, managing and maintaining infrastructure such as telecommunications, utilities and transport networks that are integrated and that support the needs of local residents, businesses and visitors. seeking to secure significant community benefits and infrastructure provision in association with major development proposals ensuring that growth and development does not compromise the natural and built environment or the quality and character of the Fens.
22 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 2.5 Spatial Strategy
The spatial strategy will set out how the council will deliver the Core Strategy and its related Development Plan Documents. It will set out through a series of aims a way of delivering the spatial vision taking account of the critical issues raised above. The spatial aims are listed together in the table below but are also within each section with a detailed commentary and a target to ensure that the strategy is measurable and deliverable.
Preferred Aims To manage growth in a sustainable way by taking account of social, economic and environmental requirements Ensuring that appropriate housing, employment and social facilities are provided, whilst protecting and enhancing the environment and improving the quality of people’s lives To make best use of resources minimising irreversible loss of both undeveloped and high quality agricultural land by welcoming opportunities for the re-use of previously developed land within urban areas To provide a range of new housing which meets the demands, needs and aspirations of the community, is socially inclusive, and increases the supply of affordable housing in the district. The aim to minimise use of undeveloped land is also crucial to regeneration and conserving the environment To deliver a high quality supply of business land and premises in sustainable locations To deliver retail development to enhance and promote the town centres in order to regenerate and diversify the local economy To encourage the delivery of an integrated approach to transport in Fenland that is sustainable, facilitates growth, links town and country and includes walking, cycling, community and public transport measures To protect and enhance the historic environment, and ensure that all new development reflects the distinctive character and appearance of the local area through design, the use of material, layout and landscaping To protect nature conservation interests and the countryside from inappropriate development in order to safeguard the special landscape characteristics of the Fens To minimise the impact that our community has on the environment and on climate change, through the facilitation and encouragement of recycling, composting, waste minimisation, energy efficient construction and renewable energy production. To promote and provide high quality public and strategic open space which is accessible to all and makes a positive contribution to local biodiversity action plan targets To take account of flood risk
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 23 2 Spatial Portrait and Objectives
Generic Aims
To manage growth in a sustainable way by taking account of social, economic and environmental requirements Ensuring that appropriate housing, employment and social facilities are provided, whilst protecting and enhancing the environment and improving the quality of people’s lives To make best use of resources minimising irreversible loss of both undeveloped and high quality agricultural land by welcoming opportunities for the re-use of previously developed land in sustainable locations
In addition to specific proposals relating to a topic area e.g. housing, the spatial strategy must ensure linkage across the Core Strategy and deliver a balance between the social, economic and environmental requirements. The need for approaching development in a sustainable manner at a time when considerable growth is expected creates a requirement for a set of generic objectives that should be applied across the whole spatial strategy. The objectives below will take account of the need to provide a balance of housing and facilities, make best use of resources including previously developed land in urban areas and consider environmental, social and economic issues.
Housing
Aim
To provide a range of new housing which meets the demands, needs and aspirations of the community, is socially inclusive, and increases the supply of affordable housing in the district. The aim to minimise use of undeveloped land is also crucial to regeneration and conserving the environment.
This spatial strategy will provide a clear indication of where housing growth will be accommodated in broad locational terms and proportions of growth to Fenland's settlements in order to give spatial expression to our vision.
The District Council needs to plan to accommodate the housing target proposed in Draft RSS (11000 new dwellings between 2001 and 2021). There have been 3340 dwellings built between 2001 and 2006 some 670 a year. In order to meet the amount outstanding the Draft RSS reduces the annual requirement to 510 dwellings a year to 2021. However RSS encourages the Core Strategy to treat the 11000 dwelling requirement as a minimum. In particular Core Strategies should look beyond 2021 and seek to exceed this target if more can be delivered through brown-field capacity and affordable housing. Also PPS3 requires that a 15 year supply of land be identified from the date of adoption
24 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 of the Core Strategy. The date for adoption of the Core Strategy in the Second revised LDS is 2009 and the plan period has therefore been extended to 2024. This increases the housing target from 11000 dwellings to 12530 dwellings.
The District will work with stakeholders to enable the delivery of sufficient housing of the type and size that are required. This process will be informed by monitoring and site identification work carried out by the Council (for details see the Council’s Housing Land Availability Assessment, Urban Capacity Study, and Annual Monitoring Report on the website at www.fenland.gov.uk and the County’s Housing Supply Reports at www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk
The Housing Land Availability Assessment 2007 indicates the following;
Table 2 New Land Requirement
Chatteris March Whittlesey Wisbech Rural Dwellings
Housing completions 2001 476 900 196 565 1206 3,343 -06
Planning Permissions (large 138 320 146 346 331 1,281 sites)
Small Sites with Permission 95 145 115 128 232 715
Settlement capacity 144 301 53 756 77 1,331
Small Sites Allowance 75 125 75 125 190 590 (windfall)
Rural Exceptions Sites 0 0 0 0 72 72
Sub total 928 1791 585 1920 2108 7332
Requirement 12530
New Land allocation 5198 (Requirement minus Sub-total)
The above requirement of 12530 exceeds the minimum target set in Draft RSS. The strategy is to locate new development where it will make best use of public transport and existing facilities and prioritise the release of brown-field land. Districts are to maximise their contribution to the regional target of 60% of housing development on brown-field land. The above requirement includes brown-field land for 4657 dwellings representing 37% of the total.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 25 2 Spatial Portrait and Objectives
To meet the aims of Draft RSS new land allocations for 5,200 dwellings will need to be provided to 2024. Overall the first ten years is to be identifiable land including broad locations identified in the Core Strategy. The windfall allowance applies from 2019 to 2024 and only includes brown-field land. The Housing supply now consists of less than 5% windfall with more than 95% of land identified.
Addressing affordability is a key aim for the region and the district. This is recognised by increased funding from the Housing Corporation for provision in the district. Provision is to be through the planning system and secured within developments as these come forward as planning applications.
Proportions of Growth
The Council has produced a settlement hierarchy paper to inform where development could be best located. This paper looked at the role of each settlement in the district, their facilities and transport links to consider the implications of development in each settlement. It was concluded that the market towns of Wisbech and March are best suited as the main focus for new housing development because of their range of services and links to other settlements. Housing within / on the edge of the commercial core of Wisbech eg Nene Waterfront/ Oil Mill Lane also has significant regeneration effects on derelict areas in the most deprived parts of the district. Chatteris and Whittlesey are market towns better suited to a more modest scale of new growth, but more housing development will be allocated to Chatteris given its location within the Cambridge Sub Region. However the regeneration of each will benefit from further brown-field development within the built up areas of these towns. Areas for new green-field development will need to have regard to the objectives in the spatial strategy. Such sites will need to take account of social facilities such as schools, particularly in view of the extensive BSF programme referred to above.
It has been identified through the Housing Land Availability Assessment 2007 that 5200 new dwellings will be required on new land. Therefore based on the Settlement Hierarchy Paper it is proposed to proportion the growth in Fenland as set out below:
Table 3 Proportion of growth
Settlement Number of dwellings
Market Towns
Chatteris 1000
March 1800
Whittlesey 350
Wisbech 1800
26 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Settlement Number of dwellings
Villages
Key Service Centres 100
Limited Service Centres 150
These proportions of growth are justified through the results shown in the Settlement Hierarchy Paper. A large proportion of growth has been allocated to March and Wisbech as they have been identified as key centres in north Cambridgeshire as set out in the Draft RSS. A lesser scale of growth has been identified in Chatteris and Whittlesey, although Chatteris will accommodate more growth given its location within the Cambridge Sub Region.
Broad Locations
It has been identified that Fenland District has a requirement of 5200 dwellings on 'new' land to 2024. The Broad Locations Background Document identifies four / five broad locations for each of the market towns. Each identified area has been tested against a range of sustainability criteria: sequential status, accessibility in terms of bus routes, cycle routes, highway network; environmental impact in terms of loss of good quality agricultural land, wildlife, heritage and landscape; flood risk and community benefits. A scoring matrix has been applied to assess each of the locations and the preferred broad locations have been identified by name. Maps of the sites can be seen in Appendix 1 ‘Maps Identifying Broad Locations’. A full analysis and results of the preferred and discounted broad locations can be seen in the Broad Locations Background Paper. The Sustainability Appraisal addendum report assesses the suitability of the Preferred Broad Locations.
Chatteris
South East Chatteris (Location B) has been assessed as the most sustainable area and therefore the preferred location for development. This will be the only preferred location for development given that the other areas score much lower.
Whilst the area is within proximity to a Grade II listed building, the majority of the site lies within flood zone 1. The site scores well with regards to accessibility given the access to the A142 and connections to an existing regular bus service. There is also direct access to the town centre and community college. Existing footpaths and cycleways are also in existence and the area is well located for access to employment by a range of sustainable transport modes. There is also the opportunity to provide land for the Cromwell Community College as part of BSF programme. There is the opportunity
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 27 2 Spatial Portrait and Objectives
to link through to cricket field and football field. A proposal has also been put forward to provide informal Strategic Open Space and install the 1st stage of a link road from A142 to Somersham Road.
March
Two locations have been identified as the preferred locations given the scale of growth that is required to 2024, namely, South east March, and West March.
South East March (Location B) is not within proximity to any wildlife or conservation site and lies within Grade 2 and 3 agricultural land. The landscape is not of any significant merit. The B1099 borders the location to the north and the A141 Strategic Bus Corridor to the south west. The B1101, Wimblington Road, runs north – south to the west of the location which is also a route on the strategic bus corridor map. The location is within proximity to the southern end of the National Cycle Network link to the town centre. There are also several rights of way which criss-cross the northern edge of the location. The location does have access to the A141 leading to the employment area, however there are no bus services on that part of the route. There is the opportunity to provide 4 hectares of land for Neale Wade Community College as part of BSF programme. There is also the capacity to provide a Country Park as strategic open space in conjunction with the new College of West Anglia.
West March (Location C) is not within proximity to any wildlife site, although it is within proximity to St Wendreda’s church (Grade I), Alms Houses (Grade II) and listed buildings on Knights End Road (Grade II). The A141 runs along the western edge of the location. The Hereward Way borders the northern edge of the location and the south eastern fringe is located near to the National Cycle Network link from the south of the town centre. The northern area is crossed by Gaul Road and Burrowmoor Road which provides pedestrian access along these routes. The southern area of the location contains several rights of way that link to B1101 and the town centre. The location does have access to the A141 leading to the employment area, however there are no bus services on that part of the route. The location is adjacent to the West End Park and proposed Country Park and as such will improve access to sport and recreation.
Whittlesey
Three areas have been considered as the preferred locations given the close results of the test results. However, the location South of the A605 has been discounted given the existing use of the area and given that this location will not deliver in the plan period. The two preferred locations are therefore North west Whittlesey and South east Whittlesey.
28 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 North West Whittlesey (Location B) is within proximity to a County Wildlife Site and SSSI, however the area is located on Grade 4 and non agricultural land. Whilst the north of the area lies within flood zone 3 the broad location is within flood zone 1. If direct access can be provided onto the A605 there would be a good bus service despite being at the opposite side of town to the railway station. The area is also within proximity to the existing employment area on the A605. A Sustrans Nation Cycle Route passes through the centre of this area.
South East Whittlesey (Location E) does not accommodate any interesting features and is not within proximity to any heritage sites. There are however mature trees to the rear of the area adjacent to Guildenburgh Water. The location has direct access to the A605 and is on the same side of town as the railway station. There is a better than hourly bus service and can be accessed by foot and cycle. There is also the possibility to enlarge Lattersey Nature Reserve and potentially to provide a roundabout on the approach to Whittlesey to slow traffic speed.
Wisbech
Two locations have been identified as the preferred locations given the scale of growth that is required to 2024. The location which achieved the highest score was north Wisbech. However, the majority of this location is within Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council. It is therefore proposed to promote this location through their Core Strategy. Three other areas have achieved very similar scores: East, South and West Wisbech. However, East Wisbech has been discounted as no community benefits are apparent at this stage. The preferred locations are therefore West Wisbech and South Wisbech.
West Wisbech (Location B) is a preferred area recognising its strategic location for the future development of Wisbech. The site is not within proximity to a wildlife site but there will be significant landscape and conservation issues to address. The northern edge of the location is bounded by the B1169 from the town centre to Leverington, where there are a number of bus services connecting Wisbech to the smaller settlements and Lincolnshire. The eastern edge of the location is close to the town, it may therefore be possible to walk to the bus station. The north western edge of the area borders a footpath leading from the B1169 in a southerly direction. The north eastern section borders playing fields with access to the Sustrans National Cycle Route 1 and public footpaths leading to the town centre. The area is located within close proximity to the town centre and the employment opportunities including the Nene Waterfront project and the Port. Cromwell Road runs parallel to the area along the east. There is the potential to provide an informal pocket park linking to National Trust land. The development of this area could also provide improved transport infrastructure e.g. cycle bridge and foot bridge and western relief road identified in both Wisbech Transport Strategy and Cambridgeshire Long Term Transport Strategy.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 29 2 Spatial Portrait and Objectives
South Wisbech (Location C) is a preferred area as it is not within proximity to any wildlife or conservation sites and lies within Grade 2 agricultural land. The landscape is not of any significant merit. The location is bounded by the A47 Strategic Bus Corridor to the south, however bus services do not cover this part of the road as they collect passengers from the town centre. The eastern part of the site is close to where the A47 meets Elm High Road and Churchill Road which is also a strategic bus corridor. The eastern side of the area borders Sustrans Cycle Route 63. The area is located next to the south Wisbech employment areas and therefore has a range of employment opportunities within a short distance which could be accessed by cyclists and pedestrians.
To build at least 510 dwellings per year from 2006 until 2024 based on broad locations shown on the Key diagram resulting in 12530 new homes over the plan period. Development sites should contain a mix of affordable and market dwellings with at least 35% to be affordable to those identified in need. The target should apply to all sites subject to viability.
Employment
Aim
To deliver a high quality supply of business land and premises in sustainable locations.
It is essential that Fenland and its partners work together to deliver the emerging goals and priorities in the Economic Development Framework through the Core Strategy. The Core Strategy shall also provide for sufficient land in terms of quality and quantity to realise Fenland’s full potential and in order to support regeneration, tourism related industries and diversification. The definition of employment land includes all uses in Classes B1 – B8 of the Use Classes Order 1987. This includes ‘business’ (Class B1(a) – offices not within class A2; B1(b) – research and development, studios, laboratories, high tech; and B1(c) - light industry), ‘industrial’ (Class B2 – general industrial) and ‘warehousing’ (Class B8 – wholesale warehouse and distribution). The definition does not include any other uses that may be a source of employment, such as leisure uses (under class D2), shops and financial services (class A1 and A2) or institutions (class C2) for example.
In terms of broad locations for growth, it has been highlighted in the emerging RSS that Wisbech and March are key centres in north Cambridgeshire, as such the sub-regional strategy reaffirms the need to support their economic and service roles. It was also
30 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 identified in the Cambridgeshire Structure Plan that the following sites were strategic employment locations due to good transport links, a locally available labour supply and the potential for business or industrial expansion.
March Trading Park – in order to improve marketability and generate investment for the market town and its surrounding area. South-west approach to Wisbech – in order to improve marketability and generate investment for the market town and its surrounding area. Land at Chatteris to assist the economic regeneration of that town and to act as a stepping stone for spreading the economic benefits of the ‘Cambridge Phenomenon’
Whittlesey has not been identified as a strategic employment location given the lesser scale of housing growth to be delivered in Whittlesey as such there would not be a sustainable balance between homes and jobs. However, more employment opportunities are required in Whittlesey to readdress the existing inbalance and reduce out commuting.
To make provision for 95 hectares of employment land, up to 2024, in strategic employment locations as identified in the Key Diagram.
Retail
Aim
To deliver retail development to enhance and promote the town centres in order to regenerate and diversify the local economy.
Fenland District Council’s Retail Study has identified that the majority of comparison sector floorspace should be directed to March and Wisbech as the catchment areas two principal towns. The retail study has identified that Chatteris and Whittlesey both function as local service centres as opposed to main retail destinations. The majority of comparison floorspace will therefore be directed to Wisbech and March.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 31 2 Spatial Portrait and Objectives
The retail study has also identified a need within the leisure sector. Spending on leisure in Fenland is forecast to grow by 41%, a gain of £96.6 million, up to 2021. This could therefore support 2/3 multiplex cinemas in the catchment area, or 5 additional independent screens, in addition to the March screen. It has also been identified that at least one additional neighbourhood bingo club could be supported in the District.
To make provision for the additional retail floorspace, as set out below, up to 2021, focusing the comparison floorspace in the market towns of March and Wisbech as identified in the key diagram.
Retail Need for Fenland up to 2021 Retail Needs (floorspace) 2006 - 2011 2011 - 2021 Total 2006 - 21 Comparison (non-food) 1810 sq m 17, 033 sq m 18,843 sq m Convenience superstore format 66 3649 3715 (food), or Convenience smaller superstore 122 6690 6812 format (food) Convenience average 93 5136 5229
Please note however that with regard to the convenience provision it is superstore or smaller superstore rather than provision of both. The difference between the superstore and smaller superstore format is described below:
Smaller superstore is a local store serving the local catchment area i.e. Somerfield, Lidl Superstore is a larger store serving a wider catchment i.e. Tesco, Asda
Transport
Aim
To encourage the delivery of an integrated approach to transport in Fenland that is sustainable, facilitates growth, links town and country and includes walking, cycling, community and public transport measures
Within Cambridgeshire the County Council is the transport and highway authority, therefore the principal responsibilities within this area rest with them. Transport does however, play an important role within the aspirations and plans of Fenland District
32 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Council, particularly in relation to development. Development creates a need for transport and travel so that new buildings and facilities can be accessed. The location of these new developments combined with the ability of existing transport infrastructure and systems to meet demand, or the potential delivery of new infrastructure is essential. The integration of planning and transport policy is critical for future growth and to ensure that new development is sustainable. It is therefore important that as a District Council, Fenland sets out its transport policy. A Transport Evidence Base and a Policy and Strategy Document form our approach.
The Transport in Fenland Evidence Base Report sets out a number of priority transport issues that are affecting the district, these include:
• improving the public transport network
• accessing services and facilities from the more rural communities
• the importance of managing and maintaining the existing transport infrastructure
• environmental and air quality issues
• travel to work
• cross boundary issues.
Further details about the evidence base priorities and how they link to the spatial strategy can be found in the spatial profile and critical issues sections of this Core Strategy above.
The Transport Issues in Fenland Policy & Strategy Document then goes on to set out the Council’s approach to delivering the priorities established within the evidence base report, it includes the overall aim set out above. This document also supports the wider policy context and framework as set out in the Local Transport Plan for Cambridgeshire and the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England. It is intended that there is one transport strategy within Fenland with, the Council's Transport Policy Strategy seeking to establish the priorities at the local level. The role of the Local Development Framework within this context is to deliver the spatial elements of the Council’s Transport Policy & Strategy.
Copies of the Transport Issues in Fenland Evidence Base Report and the Transport Issues in Fenland's Transport Policy and Strategy Document can be found on the Council’s website at www.fenland.gov.uk. These draft documents will be subject to consultation alongside the Core Strategy before eventual Council approval.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 33 2 Spatial Portrait and Objectives
Based on the evidence base and policy and strategy document the spatial requirements to deliver the Council’s overall aspirations for transport include:
Delivery of the infrastructure for an integrated walking and cycling network Requirements to ensure that new strategic development sites offer travel choice through a range of walking, cycling, public transport measures Standards for the high quality design of streets and the public realm A car parking policy and standards for new developments including public car parking facilities Establishing links to wider policies within the LDF such as the Retention of Local Community facilities that will reduce the need to travel
Development of 10+ dwellings or for employment purposes should be within a 30 minute public transport journey time of key services and facilities. Key services and facilities are defined as schools, business areas, doctors surgeries and a supermarket
Natural & Built Environment
Aim
To protect and enhance the historic environment, and ensure that all new development reflects the distinctive character and appearance of the local area through design, the use of materials, layout and landscaping To protect nature conservation interests and the countryside from inappropriate development in order to safeguard the special landscape characteristics of the Fens To minimise the impact that our community has on the environment and on climate change, through the facilitation and encouragement of recycling, composting, waste minimisation, energy efficient construction and renewable energy production To promote and provide high quality public and strategic open space which is accessible to all and makes a positive contribution to local biodiversity action plan target. To take account of flood risk
34 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 With regard to the built environment the Council will continue to safeguard and enhance Fenland’s listed buildings and Conservation Areas. Continual monitoring of the listed buildings and undertaking appraisals of the Conservation Areas will ensure that our heritage is afforded the correct protection. This is however governed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
In terms of the natural environment, Fenland district has no strategic areas of public open space. The nearest country parks are Hinchingbrooke Park, Huntingdon to the south west, Milton Park, Cambridge to the south and Ferry Meadows, Peterborough to the west. Therefore in order to improve the quality of life for residents by encouraging passive recreation, country parks should be promoted for March, Chatteris and Wisbech. Whittlesey is already supported by Lattersey Nature Reserve, which is 12 hectares in area. The Nene and Ouse Washes are also part within the District, an area of 175ha is accessible to the public, serving the needs of Fenland residents living within 5 miles of the Washes. Rings End Local Nature Reserve also serves the population within the locality and is 11ha in area. The population of Fenland is expected to rise to 103 200 by 2021 which equates to a need of 526ha of parks and gardens (of which country park falls within the definition of), this figure has been worked out based on the report prepared by Cambridgeshire County Council in 2005 on strategic open space. It has also been identified in the Green Infrastructure Strategy for the Cambridge Sub-region that there is a need for a country park to the south of Chatteris.
To seek provision for 328ha of high quality strategic open space as identified in the Key Diagram. To apply the sequential test when allocating land to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites in areas with a lower probability of flooding. Ensure / encourage sustainable design and construction to minimise the impact on the environment.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 35 2 Spatial Portrait and Objectives
2.6 Key Diagram
Map 2.1 Key Diagram
! ( Tydd Gote Foul Anchor ( ! Four Gotes Key Diagram Tydd St Giles ! Newton ( ! Fitton End Gorefield A47 Leverington# Wisbech VW" \l ! Parson Drove Wisbech St. Mary# ! Elm# Murrow ( ( Tholomas Drove Colletts Bridge
Friday Bridge#
A47 ! Guyhirn ! ( Coldham Rings End
( Westry Whittlesey Coates# " ! VW March VW Eastrea ! ! Turves \" l Christchurch
( Pondersbridge !Wimblington
Manea# ( ! !Doddington Ramsey Mereside Benwick ( Key Stonea " Market Town ! Key Service Centre Chatteris # Limited Service Centre VW " ! Smaller Village l ( Rural Hamlet VW Strategic Employment VW Employment Site \ Retail A47 A Roads B Roads l Strategic Open Space Rail Network RAMSAR SSSI Scale: 100,000 Indicative Flood Zone 3 This map is reproduced from Ordnance survey material with the Fenland District Boundary permission of OS 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. Fenland District Council 10023778, 2007.
36 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 3 Core Policies
3.1 CP1 Sustainable Development Principles
Consultation Outcomes
It was generally agreed that sustainability principles should be set out in the Core Strategy. Some of the environmental bodies proposed specific policy measures ranging from more efficient use of water to positive impacts on nature local conservation.
Preferred Option
Policy
The principle of sustainable development will underpin the policies and proposals for the use and development of land in the LDF. The LDF will develop an overarching policy on sustainable development which sets out this principle, and which will link to other policies and proposals in the plan, where issues are dealt with in greater detail. The policy will set out the following key sustainability criteria, against which proposals will be assessed:
Making efficient use of land Minimising the need to travel, whilst increasing opportunities to walk, cycle or use public transport Ensuring accessibility to jobs, shops and services by all sections of the community Minimising impact on the environment e.g. through energy efficiency, waste reduction, reduced water use, renewable energy production, energy efficient construction materials Providing healthy, safe and attractive environments for the local community Protecting and enhancing the quality of the natural and built environment in Fenland (including historic buildings and areas, and habitats and species) Mitigate against climate change vulnerability on landscape, biodiversity, woodlands, built heritage, as well as impacts on water, waste and energy.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 37 3 Core Policies
Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/CircularsPPSI 'Delivering Sustainable Communities’ RPG6 Policies 1 & 3 Draft RSS Policy SS1 Sustainable Community Strategy Helping people live healthy, independent lives Making communities safer and stronger Building a sustainable environment Best Practice Guidance ‘Planning for Sustainable Development’ (DETR 1998) The Planning Response to Climate Change’ (ODPM 2004) ‘Sustainable Construction in Cambridgeshire – a good practice guide’ (Cambridgeshire Horizons and Cambridgeshire County Council 2006) Other Sources ‘Proposals for introducing a Code for Sustainable Homes (ODPM 2005)
Reasons for Preferred Option
One of the principle aims of the planning system is to ensure that development is ‘sustainable’ and improves the quality of life for current and future generations. This involves taking account of economic, environmental and social aspects, and delivering ‘development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987)
The District Council is required by Government and European legislation to incorporate this overarching objective into all plans and policies. This is supported by Government guidance in PPS1 and policies in draft RSS which state that the LDF should support
38 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 the delivery of sustainable development objectives. The preferred option seeks to ensure that sustainable development objectives underpin all policies and proposals in the Core Strategy.
Alternative Options Considered
None. Government and strategic planning guidance requires that sustainability principles underpin the LDF, and the proposed criteria indicate how this can be reflected in practice.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
3.2 CP2 Settlement Hierarchy
Consultation Outcomes
88% supported the development strategy focusing on Chatteris, March and Wisbech with a lesser scale of growth in Whittlesey 86% agreed with list of 8 villages listed below as key and limited service centres as being suitable for modest growth
Although there was broad agreement with the proposed strategy, concerns were raised over lack of transparency in how conclusions had been reached and which settlements should get priority for development.
In particular there was a need for;
relevant information objective and sustainable criteria systematic assessment
As result a Background Paper has been produced on settlement hierarchy to inform the process.
Preferred Option
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 39 3 Core Policies
Policy
The Core Strategy will set out a settlement hierarchy which will be used to establish the scale of growth which is normally appropriate in different settlements. The settlement hierarchy policy should establish that the majority of growth will be directed to the largest market towns of March and Wisbech with a lesser scale taking place in the other market towns of Chatteris and Whittlesey. Development elsewhere will be limited with some modest development in the key and limited service centres. The following hierarchy is proposed:
Settlement Hierarchy Designation Chatteris, March, Whittlesey, Wisbech Market Towns Doddington, Wimblington Key Service Centres Coates, Elm, Friday Bridge, Leverington, Manea, Limited Service Centres Wisbech St. Mary Benwick, Christchurch, Coldham, Eastrea, Smaller Villages Gorefield, Guyhirn, Murrow, Newton, Parson Drove, Turves, Tydd Gote*, Tydd St Giles Elsewhere Open Countryside * Forms part of village in South Holland
40 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS3 ‘Housing’, PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ RPG6 Draft RSS Policies SS1, SS9 & CSR1 Structure Plan Policy P1/1 Existing Local Plan Policies H6, H9 and H11 Sustainable Community Strategy Making communities safer and stronger Building a sustainable environment Best Practice Guidance Planning for Sustainable Development’ (DETR 1998)
Reasons for Preferred Option
National and regional planning guidance requires that new development should be focused in the most sustainable locations, where there is a range of services, shops, public transport and employment. This can help to minimise the need to travel, as well as making best use of brownfield land and existing infrastructure and services, and ensuring a better quality of life for people. A settlement hierarchy should be established in order to guide the distribution of growth in an area. Regional and structure plan policies give guidance on the development of a hierarchy in Fenland, and state that development should be focused on market towns, and thereafter in key service centres which the LDF will identify. In Fenland it is considered that two villages can be categorised as key service centres being larger villages with a good level of services. However, the category of limited service centres has been identified in order to provide some flexibility in medium size villages where small-scale growth may be sustainable.
The Council’s proposed settlement hierarchy reflects national and regional guidance. It also takes account of local circumstances, which have been identified in a background paper on ‘Settlement Hierarchy’ produced by the District Council in 2006. This background paper assesses each Fenland settlement against criteria such as settlement
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 41 3 Core Policies
size and function, level of services and employment, and accessibility – in order to identify the most sustainable settlements. These criteria reflect those proposed in draft RSS and the Structure Plan.
Alternative Options Considered
Distribute growth more widely
for example, by identifying more villages as ‘key service centres’ rather than ‘limited service centre’ or ‘smaller villages’. However, this would deviate from national and regional planning guidance, which is to ensure that the most sustainable settlements are a focus for growth, in order to make use of existing services and facilities and minimise the need to travel. There is no evidence to suggest that allowing large amounts of development in medium and smaller villages can help to ensure the retention or enhancement of village facilities – there are other overriding influences, including commercial pressures.
Distribute growth less widely
for example, by identifying less settlements as key or limited services centres and re-classifying these settlements as ‘smaller villages’. However, the identified key and limited service centres all have a range of services and facilities, and are locations where some development may be considered appropriate. In relation to the limited service centres, strategic guidance in the Structure Plan and draft RSS indicates that development should be focused on market towns and key service centres thereafter – and elsewhere development should be limited. There is no reference to another category of settlements. However, the category of ‘limited service centres’ has been proposed to allow some flexibility in medium size villages which have some services and facilities, where small-scale growth may be considered sustainable.
Designations for Proposals Map
Settlement hierarchy will be shown.
42 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 3.3 CP3 Development in the Countryside
Consultation Outcomes
72% supported continuing to define development envelopes for all settlements, except the smallest settlements as defined in the existing Local Plan
There were strong objections to any policy that encourages housing in the countryside from the County Council and Government Office. Developers favoured a more flexible approach based on the approach of the existing local plan.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the LDF will seek to restrict development in the countryside to: that which is essential to the efficient operation of agriculture, horticulture, forestry or other rural-based activities, or required for the purpose of outdoor recreation, permitted mineral extraction, or public utility services. replacement of, or alteration or extensions to existing buildings, as defined by other policies in the Plan. affordable housing, special needs housing and business development, as defined by other policies in the Plan, see H4, GP5, GP6 and GP7 The Plan will define development envelopes around the framework of all settlements, except the smallest hamlets (defined in the settlement hierarchy as ‘open countryside’). Areas outside development envelopes are to be defined as ‘countryside’.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 43 3 Core Policies
Policy Sources
PPGs/PPS/Circulars PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ Structure Plan P1/2 RPG6 Policy 12 Existing Local Plan Policy H3 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Building a sustainable environment' and 'Promotion of Fenland's uniquely distinctive character'
Reasons for Preferred Option
The proposed policy option accords with Government policy in PPS7, which is to focus development within existing settlements, and strictly control development in the countryside – whilst allowing certain key exceptions where development outside settlements is allowed. Government’s aim is to promote more sustainable patterns of settlement, and to protect the character and environment of the countryside for its own sake.
Development envelopes are a planning policy tool which defines where policies for the built-up areas of settlements give way to policies for the countryside. Development envelopes help to ensure the countryside is protected from gradual encroachment on the edge of settlements, and guard against incremental growth in unsustainable locations. They also provide a degree of certainty to all involved in the planning process, including the local community. It is proposed to continue the approach in the current Local Plan, whereby development envelopes are drawn around all settlements, except for the smallest hamlets.
The Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document will identify the development envelopes. It should be noted that property boundaries will be taken into account in defining development envelopes. However, sometimes the envelopes cut across large gardens on the edge of villages. This happens where part of the garden relates more to the countryside that the built-up framework, in particular, in locations where urban
44 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 development is the key characteristic of that part of the village; or to limit the potential for further residential development in smaller villages with few facilities and poor public transport. This indicates that such locations are suitable for frontage development only and that backland development will not be appropriate. Also excluded are groups of dwellings isolated in the countryside or detached from the main built-up framework of a village.
Alternative Options Considered
Development in the countryside
Existing Local Plan policy allows limited infilling within the open countryside under certain circumstances. This was considered but rejected in relation to controlling development in the countryside, as Government policy is clear on this issue.
Development envelopes
Do not define development envelopes around settlements
Development proposals would the need to be assessed against criteria-based policies. This approach was rejected on the grounds that it would fail to provide certainty for all involved and would potentially fail to adequately protect against incremental development on the edge of settlement and in unsustainable locations.
Define development envelopes around a more limited number of settlements
For example, market towns and limited services centres only. Development proposals in a limited number of settlements would need to be assessed against criteria-based policies. This approach was rejected on the grounds that all villages in Fenland are experiencing intense pressures for growth, and it would potentially fail to adequately protect against incremental development on the edge of settlements and in unsustainable locations. It would also fail to provide certainty for all involved.
Designations for Proposals Map
Development envelopes of the settlements will be shown on the Site Specific Proposals Maps.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 45 3 Core Policies
3.4 CP4 Comprehensive Development
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that development of a site should not be permitted where it:
would result in a piecemeal, unsatisfactory form of development forms part of a larger site where there would be requirements for infrastructure provision if developed as a whole would prejudice the development of adjacent land or another nearby site.
Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS1; PPG3; Consultation draft PPS3 RPG6 Policy 3 Existing Local Plan Policy IMP3 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Building communities with decent homes, a sense of place and purpose', 'Community cohesion' and 'Access to information and services for all'
Reasons for Preferred Option
The piecemeal development of a site can result in an unsatisfactory form of development, by preventing proper consideration of how various elements fit together – such as landscaping, open space and footpaths – and preventing a holistic approach to design. It is also important that sites make proper contribution to the infrastructure needs arising from the development. Many triggers for the provision of infrastructure are based on size thresholds – therefore if development is permitted in small parts the full requirements of a site would not be met.
46 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Government guidance in PPS3 places an emphasis on making the best use of land. Development schemes which would prevent adjacent land or other nearby sites from coming forward – for example, by impeding access – should be avoided.
Alternative Options Considered
None. This approach is required by government guidance.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
3.5 CP5 Infastructure Requirements
Consultation Outcomes
41% considered trigger points for residential development should be standardised at 10 dwellings of more 39% considered even less in villages
Developers and agents had concerns over the flexibility of contributions especially impact on viability. Environmental bodies, community groups, and the general public, supported greater contributions.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 47 3 Core Policies
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that:
development proposals should contribute towards the cost of providing infrastructure, and of meeting social and environmental requirements, where this is necessary to make a scheme acceptable in planning terms. This will be secured through a planning obligation. the nature, scale and phasing of contributions sought from developers will be relate to the form of the development and its potential impact on the surrounding area, and the need for contribution towards affordable housing requirements, which is dealt with separately, see Policy H3. on development proposals, in particular residential development of 10 or more dwellings in the market towns and 3 or more dwellings in the villages, the Council will seek appropriate contributions towards some or all of the following: contributions may be necessary towards some or all of the following: Education (including nursery and pre-school care) Public open space, sport and recreational facilities Health and social care facilities Other community facilities, for example, meeting halls, libraries and cultural facilities Environmental improvements (e.g. biodiversity and landscaping) Town/village centre improvements (including crime prevention Improvements for pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, highways and public and community transport Drainage/flood prevention Waste/recycling facilities Public art Depending on the nature of the service and facilities, contributions may also be sought for maintenance and/or operating costs, for a limited period or in perpetuity. Standards and the basis for calculating infrastructure contributions and maintenance contributions will be set out in a Supplementary Planning Document.
48 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars Circular 05/2005 ‘Planning Obligations’ Draft RSS Policies IMP2 and CSR5 Structure Plan Policy P6/1 and P9/8 Existing Local Plan Policies IMP2, H13, R4 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Building communities with decent homes, a sense of place and purpose' and 'Access to information and services for all' Other sources ‘Planning Gain Supplement: a consultation’ HM Treasury (Dec. 2005)
Reasons for Preferred Option
Development proposals can create additional demands for services and infrastructure, as well as having impacts on the environment. Planning obligations between developers and the Council can be used to secure improvements to services or facilities, or to secure compensatory provision for any loss or damage created. Planning obligations may also be necessary for wider planning objectives to be secured – for example, the provision of affordable housing where this is justified.
The proposed option highlights the general principles relating to the use of planning obligations, and accords with Government guidance in Circular 5/05. The threshold of 10 corresponds with the Government’s definition for major development and will be mainly applicable in the market towns where the majority of new development will take place. Lowering the threshold to 3 in the villages corresponds with the recommendation from the Housing Needs Survey in terms of consistency, and in order to secure an appropriate level of planning obligations in the rural areas. The detailed framework for calculating and negotiating obligations will be set out in a Supplementary Planning Document which will be updated on a regular basis. It should be noted that the Government are currently in the process of reviewing the legislation and procedures
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 49 3 Core Policies
relating to planning obligations – and there may be some significant changes to the system. For example, there are proposals to introduce a ‘Planning Gain Supplement’ which will operate like a Government tax on development, and will limit planning obligations to specific on-site requirements such as access and open space, plus affordable housing. Any changes will need to be incorporated into the draft Core Strategy.
The Chatteris area of Fenland is located within the Cambridge Sub-region and the District Council will need to take account of wider planning objectives for this sub-region. Therefore some contributions will be strategic in nature, and may need to be pooled where appropriate. In such cases the nature and scale of contributions sought will be related to the size of the scheme and the extent to which it places additional demands on the area.
The Council will adopt a flexible approach in areas requiring regeneration such as Wisbech and Whittlesey central areas.
Alternative Options Considered
Higher site threshold of 15 in urban areas and keeping threshold for rural areas of 3. This would improve site viability in areas where land values are lower than the district average such as parts of Wisbech. It would, however, reduce the amount of planning obligations likely to come forward. There is the further option of applying the higher threshold only in Wisbech town. This may have benefits in terms of regeneration of parts of the town.
Lower the threshold to just a single dwelling. This would be a more equitable option and raise considerable commuted sums for planning obligations in line with draft Government proposals for ‘Planning Gain Supplement’. However, the policy would be difficult to implement and costly to administer under current arrangements.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
50 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 4 Housing
4.1 H1 Windfall Housing Sites
Consultation Outcomes
67% of respondents considered we should permit infill housing development in the open countryside.
There were strong objections to any policy that encourages housing in the countryside from the County Council and Government Office. Developers favoured a more flexible approach based on the existing local plan.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the plan will limit the scale of housing development on unallocated sites, according to the following hierarchy:
Settlement Hierarchy designation Scale of development
Chatteris, March, Market towns Major, minor and infill Whittlesey and Wisbech
Doddington and Key Service Centres Major, minor and infill Wimblington
As in CP2 Limited Service Centres Minor and infill
As in CP2 Smaller villages Infill
Elsewhere Open Countryside Limited and specific types of housing, as provided for elsewhere in the DPD, see Policies H4, H7 – H10
It is proposed that the definitions of scale will be:
Major 10 or more dwellings (but no more than 25 in key service centres) Minor up to 9 dwellings Infill up to 2 dwellings
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 51 4 Housing
Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS3 ‘Housing’ 2006; PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ RPG6 Policies 4 & 22 Draft RSS Policies SS1, SS9, H2, CSR1 and GPSR1 Structure Plan Policies P1/2, P5/5, P9/4, P10/3 Existing Local Plan Policies H4 – H11, H15 Sustainable Community Strategy Building communities with decent homes, a sense of place and purpose Best practice guidance ‘Planning for Sustainable Development’ (DETR 1998)
Reasons for Preferred Option
The preferred option accords with national policy and draft RSS by directing larger-scale housing development to the market towns which benefit from a range of services, shops, employment opportunities and public transport. Applying the proposed hierarchy will promote more sustainable patterns of development, and help to reduce the need to travel and improve people’s quality of life.
It should be noted that it is proposed to remove the current Local Plan Policy H15 whereby proposals for infill development in the open countryside may be permitted. This exception does not accord with national policy guidance in PPS7 which seeks to restrict residential development in the countryside, particularly in locations remote from settlements.
Furthermore the Council has sought to identify brown-field sites and sites for affordable housing only, in sustainable locations. This includes sites that will exceed the scale of development set out in the above hierarchy.
52 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Alternative Options Considered
Permit larger scale development in more settlements For example, limited service centres and smaller villages. However, this would deviate from national and regional planning guidance, which is to ensure that the most sustainable settlements are a focus for growth, in order to make use of existing services and facilities and minimise the need to travel. There is no evidence to suggest that allowing large amounts of development in medium and smaller villages can be help to ensure the retention or enhancement of village facilities – there are other overriding influences, including commercial pressures. Permit smaller scale growth in fewer settlements For example, only allow major scale developments in the market towns, or only allow infill development in the limited service centres. However, this approach would appear to be unduly restrictive, as limited development in many villages may support their sustainability – and other settlements have the range of services and facilities to sustainably accommodate the scale of growth proposed in the preferred option (following identification of services in the Council’s Settlement Hierarchy Paper).
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
4.2 H2 Phasing of Housing Development
Consultation Outcomes
There were comments from those concerned with developments on Issue 2 and Q3b on the phasing of specific sites. This included the need to take account of site constraints.
Preferred Option
Policy
The release of land for housing will be phased to take account of the overall target for housing delivery. The phases and timings of release will be set out in the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 53 4 Housing
Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS3 ‘Housing’ 2006 RPG6 Policy 4 Draft RSS Policy H3 Structure Plan Policy P5/1 Existing Local Plan Policy H2 Sustainable Community Strategy Building communities with decent homes, a sense of place and purpose Best practice guidance ‘Planning to deliver: the managed release of sites (DTLR) 2001 Draft Practice Guidance ‘Housing Land Availability Assessments’ (ODPM) December 2005
Reasons for Preferred Option
National policy and regional policy require a plan, monitor, and manage approach to housing delivery. The draft RSS Panel Report sets out Fenland’s housing requirement in 4 phases. The proposal indicates that build rates should be highest in the first phase with less in the latter phases. The planned release of housing will be monitored through the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report against the target for house-building and use of brown field land. The AMR for 2005-6 shows that Fenland is meeting its housing delivery target. The Site Specific Proposals DPD will address the site specific elements of land release including constraints on sites.
Alternative Options Considered
54 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 None. Managing the release of sites is required by national and regional guidance. Any changes in the forthcoming RSS will be reflected in the submission stage of Core Strategy.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
4.3 H3 Affordable Housing
Consultation Outcomes
27% of respondents considered we should increase the proportion of affordable housing 37% of respondents considered we should lower site size thresholds for affordable housing 62% of respondents considered we should seek affordable housing from employment development 40% of respondents considered we should allocate land in villages only for affordable housing
Some developers did not think that data existed to justify the high proportions being proposed. The Council has therefore undertaken an update of its Housing Needs Assessment to ensure it reflects the latest information.
In general most developers considered that a combination of high targets and low thresholds would make sites unattractive to develop. However more developers supported lower thresholds rather than higher targets as this would be a more even spread of the cost burden.
Preferred Option
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 55 4 Housing
Policy
Policies in the plan will:
Define affordable housing as non-market housing for identified affordable housing needs with adequate subsidy available to first and future occupiers Set the target of affordable housing provision at a minimum of 174 units each year Seek 35% affordable housing units on market housing developments of 10 or more in urban areas and 3 or more dwellings in rural villages subject to viability. Identify the Council’s preference for rented units, on the proposal site. The developers’ contribution is to be based on a minimum of free-land. The Council will determine the detailed contribution and amount of intermediate housing through an SPD. State the design, layout, and mix of types will be determined in an SPD in accordance with the need for mixed communities, public funding priorities, and the Housing Corporation’s Scheme Development Standards
Policy Sources
56 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS3 ‘Housing’ 2006 RPG6 Policy 10 Draft RSS Policy H2 Structure Plan Policy P9/1 Existing Local Plan Policy H14 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Building communities with decent homes, a sense of place and purpose' and Community cohesion' Other Sources Fenland/Regional Housing Strategy, 2003 Housing Needs Assessment and 2006 Update; Housing Market Assessment 2007
Reasons for Preferred Option
The Council undertook a Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) for the district in 2003. An Update was carried out in 2006 to take account of new information and revised estimates of affordable housing need accordingly. The 2006 Update found that house prices had increased by 111% since 2000. Since 2003 the price of two-bed property has gone up faster than the price rises of all other types. As a result market housing in the District is not affordable for many local people. The 2003 Housing Needs study identified a requirement for 174 affordable units each year. The 2006 Update shows that the annual need for affordable housing has now risen to 560 units a year. It is therefore a priority of the Core Strategy to increase the supply of affordable housing in the District.
The scale of provision has been set at 174 as a minimum with an aspiration for a higher target of up to 560. To deliver 174 units a year requires a proportion of 35% on available sites. This proportion also reflects;
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 57 4 Housing
the funding available to the Council for the provision of affordable housing through the planning system allowing intermediate housing on more difficult to develop sites to address site viability.
To increase the supply further would require either a greater target of affordable housing on sites or a lower site threshold to bring in more sites. A large increase in the proportion of affordable housing would place viability in question and make mixed communities difficult to achieve. PPS3 suggests a flexible approach to site thresholds where there are high levels of need for affordable housing. The 2006 Update states that lower thresholds would be justified by the high level of need. The Sustainability Appraisal suggests the most sustainable approach to affordable housing supply is to reduce site size thresholds.
The preferred threshold reflects;
site viability in areas where land values are lower than the district average the scale of need for affordable housing the supply of sites available to meet the need especially smaller sites stakeholder comment that it may be better to spread the burden evenly large number of small sites that are now coming forward and otherwise would make no contribution to affordable needs. Level of thresholds in neighbouring local authorities
The 2006 Update found that the Wisbech area had the lowest average house prices although no specific viability issues were identified in this respect. The rural north area that surrounds the town had the highest average prices.
Circular 05/05 and PPS12 suggest that thresholds may also be pursed though SPD in parallel with the Core Strategy where this is important to the strategy of that document.
Any changes resulting from PPS3 will be reflected in the Submission stage of Core Strategy.
Alternative Options Considered
Lower/Vary site threshold but keeping the proportion of affordable housing at 35%. The HNA states that the overall target should remain constant across the district. However given that need is more acute in the March and Chatteris areas a threshold below the rest of the district could be justified in these areas. In the neighbouring local authorities of South Holland and East Cambridgeshire thresholds of 3 dwellings have been applied on the basis of demand for affordable housing. This approach would maximise the supply of sites for affordable housing in areas where they are
58 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 most needed, spread more evenly the burden of costs, while minimising viability issues. The Sustainability Appraisal finds this a sustainable option. Lower target for proportion of affordable housing. The Draft RSS Panel report proposes that 35% is to be expected in LDD’s although this should be considered in respect of the Housing Needs Assessment and wider information where this is relevant. Both the 2003 HNS and its 2006 Update confirm that at least 35% is required to meet needs. The scale of need is a priority in the Housing Strategy and recognised by the Housing Corporation through its level of funding. A lower target would fail to meet needs, agreed objectives, and agreed funding arrangements. Lower the threshold to just a single dwelling. This would lead to many commuted sums or off-site gain. As land values have risen such sums offer less certainty of acquiring land and producing affordable housing. The approach would be difficult to implement and costly to administer. PPG3 is currently against a blanket approach to sites stipulating a threshold approach in favour of larger sites that contribute to mixed communities. Any changes in PPS3 on this matter will be considered if these arise. Higher proportion of 40-50% affordable with higher threshold of 15 in urban areas. This proportion would increase the amount of affordable housing on sites that were viable which is justified by the level of need. However the highest adopted proportion in the County is currently 40% for Cambridge City and reflects the high land values in that City. For Fenland it would make sites less viable and would not create mixed communities. Apply to employment uses. There was some support for such a policy from the public and some House-builders on the grounds that it would help spread the burden of contribution. However employment uses generate much lower land values than housing and few sites would be viable. They would also generate commuted sums difficult to recycle as built affordable housing units.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
4.4 H4 Affordable Housing Rural Exceptions
Consultation Outcomes
71% of respondents considered the proposed criteria for affordable housing were appropriate 39% of respondents supported rented affordable housing as the first preference 40% of respondents considered we should allocate land in villages only for affordable housing
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 59 4 Housing
There was wide support for rural affordable housing including parish councils and rural housing enablers. The need for more than 10 dwellings in some villages was raised in comments. It was suggested by housing developers / agents that local connection was important for acceptance of the policy.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the plan will sets out criteria against which applications for rural affordable housing exception schemes can be assessed as follows; A local need for affordable housing can be demonstrated for each scheme The housing should be affordable to those in need now and in the future The affordable housing to be available to those with a local connection and have a cascade approach to availability The scheme consists of mostly rented affordable housing with intermediate housing mix approved by the Council. The scheme be secured by involvement of a Registered Social Landlord (RSL) and through a planning agreement Such schemes be within or at least on the edges of villages in order that development be accessible to adequate local facilities by public transport development be acceptable in terms of impact on the landscape Schemes should be capable of long-term management The scheme be of a size that is in proportion to the size/character of the settlement but generally no bigger than 25 dwellings in the key service centres, 15 dwellings in the limited service centres, and 10 in the smaller villages No market housing units are allowed in the scheme Take account of Council guidance on bringing rural exception schemes forward The Council will also propose a small number of allocations for only affordable housing using the above criteria in its Site Specific Proposals DPD.
60 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS3 ‘Housing’ 2006 RPG6 Policy 10 Draft RSS Policy H2 Structure Plan Policy P9/1 Existing Local Plan Policy H15 Sustainable Community Strategy Building communities with decent homes, a sense of place and purpose Best practice guidance Fenland/Regional Housing Strategy, Housing Needs Survey 2003 and 2006 Update. Affordable Rural Housing Commission Report (2006)
Reasons for Preferred Option
It is a priority of the Core Strategy to increase the supply of affordable housing in the District for the reasons set out above. In rural villages the existing stock of entry level market housing for first time buyers is smaller than the market towns and there are fewer sites available. There is an urgent need for additional affordable housing across Fenland to meet local housing needs. National government requires a policy that allows affordable housing schemes on land adjoining villages as an exception to the normal policy of restraint in these locations. These developments known as rural exception schemes are developed for the community by Registered Social Landlords. Such sites should normally be small in order to protect the existing character of settlements. However given national policy does not permit any market housing on such sites (to subsidise the affordable housing) they should be of sufficient scale to allow sites to come forward. The Council has produced detailed guidance on how sites should be brought forward in order to;
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 61 4 Housing
Involve Parish Council’s and rural housing enablers Show landowners what land values they can expect Ensure the most sustainable site is selected within or next to villages
To assist the rural exception policy the Council will also allocate a small number of sites in villages solely for affordable housing. This will be where there is likelihood of the site coming forward over the plan period.
Alternative Options Considered
Allocate more sites for only affordable housing. This approach is as yet untested in the district or county. It relies on the landowner being willing to forego the hope of full development value in exchange for a reduced albeit more reliable return. A report by the Affordable Rural Housing Commission (2006) suggests this requires a long term investment in resources as was the case for Wealden District Council. If any of the recommendations made by the Commission are taken up in PPS3 then these will be taken into account for the submission stage of the Core Strategy.
Designations for Proposals Map
Allocations of sites in Site Specific DPD
4.5 H5 Housing Density
Consultation Outcomes
54% of respondents considered the proposed minimum density of 40 dwellings per hectare for market town centres as appropriate
There was general support for implementing a requirement of 30 dwellings per hectare from public organisations and some developers. Rural Parish Council’s were concerned over applying the 40dph to rural villages. There was concern over the flexibility of the approach expressed by developers
62 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the plan will indicate that housing schemes should; Have a net density of 30 dwellings per hectare Have a net density of at least 40 dwellings per hectare when in or close to the centres of market towns and locations with good public transport access On all sites achieve the highest net density possible that is consistent with; The character of the site and its surroundings The settlement hierarchy The need to accommodate other land uses and facilities
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 63 4 Housing
Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS3 ‘Housing’ 2006 RPG6 Policy 3 Draft RSS Policy SS16 Structure Plan Policy P5/3 Existing Local Plan Policy H2 Sustainable Community Strategy Making communities safer and stronger
Reasons for Preferred Option
National and regional policy requires the most efficient densities on housing land to help protect the countryside and foster urban renaissance and regeneration. The density of housing developments in Fenland has been low in the past reflecting the demands of people moving into the area for larger properties. The proposed policy approach seeks to avoid densities below 30 dwellings per hectare on all schemes. However it is accepted that there may be exceptional circumstances where this cannot be achieved due to the character of the site and its surroundings. However such exceptions should be justified by demonstrating lack of alternatives.
Alternative Options Considered
None. This approach is required by national and regional guidance. However PPS3 proposes that local authorities set appropriate density ranges for different types of locations across the district possibly with regard to national indicative density ranges. Any such changes will be reflected in the Submission stage of the Core Strategy.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
64 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 4.6 H6 Housing Mix
Consultation Outcomes
41% of respondents considered that policy should specify a minimum proportion of 1 and 2 bedroom property 35% of respondents considered that policy should encourage a minimum proportion of 1 and 2 bedroom property 52% of respondents considered that policy should leave the proportion of 1 and 2 bedroom property to the market
There was general support for a better housing mix but concerns over rigid control of house type. Rural Parish Council’s were concerned over high densities in rural villages. There was concern over the flexibility of the approach expressed by developers. Some developers suggested that the policy be only applied to larger sites of 50+ dwellings. Other developers that supported the approach suggested a policy that sets a limit on just larger properties as a possible solution.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the plan will indicate that general market housing schemes of 3 units or over should provide the following mix; 60% of homes up to 3 bedrooms, and general market housing schemes of 10 units or over should additionally provide the following mix; At least 40% of homes with 1 or 2 bedrooms
Policy Sources
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 65 4 Housing
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS3 ‘Housing’ 2006 RPG6 Policy 10 Draft RSS Policy H2 Structure Plan Policy P5/4 Existing Local Plan Policy H14 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Building communities with decent homes, a sense of place and purpose' and Community cohesion'
Reasons for Preferred Option
National and regional policy requires the provision of a range of house sizes to meet local needs. The Housing Needs Assessment shows that 89% of market need is for two bedroom properties. However the AMR shows that this type accounts for 33% of housing completions. This is because there is strong demand for larger properties from those migrating into the district. The policy takes account of this demand maintaining a choice of sizes is available whilst contributing to the target required by the HNA. The site threshold reflects the need to maintain viability of developments including the need to provide affordable housing.
Alternative Options Considered
Lower threshold for villages. The threshold could be lowered to 3 dwellings to reflect the smaller number of sites available in rural villages. However this would make sites less able to provide affordable housing which is a priority for these areas.
Leave mix to open market. This would continue the existing trend of mostly larger house sizes being built and fail to meet the under-supply of two bedroom property.
66 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Designations for Proposals Map
None.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 67 4 Housing
4.7 H7 Replacement or Alteration of Rural Housing
Consultation Outcomes
64% of respondents considered that replacement dwellings in the countryside should reflect the size and height of the original dwelling 71% of respondents considered that the same approach be applied to extensions or alterations
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the plan will indicate that proposals to alter, extend, or replace an existing dwelling in the countryside should;
where the building is of historic or architectural merit state renovation and alteration to take place as opposed to demolition and replacement not increase the size of dwelling by more than 30% of the original dwelling size not significantly alter the height of the dwelling or its roofline not involve dwellings that have been abandoned or are in such a state of disrepair to the extend that they can only be demolished not involve temporary or mobile structures not adversely affect the character or appearance of the building and its setting any replacement to follow the original footprint of the building or be as close to as possible permitted development rights will be removed
68 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS3 ‘Housing’; PPS7 ‘Rural Areas ‘ RPG6 Policy 12 Draft RSS Policy H2 Structure Plan Policy P5/4 Existing Local Plan Policy H18 Sustainable Community Strategy Building communities with decent homes, a sense of place and purpose
Reasons for Preferred Option
National and regional guidance requires policy to restrict the number of new dwellings in the open countryside and prevent the extension of existing ones. A replacement of a rural dwelling is regarded here as a new dwelling. Limits need to be placed on the replacement of what were often farmsteads no longer associated with agriculture and isolated dwellings located within open landscapes. The restriction for both replacements and extensions to 30% of the original dwellings is well established in informal guidance and should logically be applied to extensions or rural dwellings as well as any replacement. Rural buildings that are locally important or blend in well with their rural surroundings should be retained. Any replacement should follow the historic footprint or be in closest reasonable proximity to it.
Alternative Options Considered
Permit significant increases in scale and height of existing dwellings and permit the development of abandoned dwellings. This would not comply with PPS7 that seeks a sustainable pattern of development in rural areas and the protection of rural character. In particular the development of new dwelling in the open countryside should be strictly controlled with such development in existing settlements.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 69 4 Housing
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
4.8 H8 Conversion of Rural Buildings to Residential
Consultation Outcomes
83% of respondents agreed that residential conversion of rural buildings only be allowed where the building is of architectural or historic merit 84% of respondents agreed that residential conversion of rural buildings only be allowed where business use is not viable 90% of respondents agreed that residential conversion of rural buildings only be allowed where there is no business demand 78% of respondents agreed that residential conversion of rural buildings only be allowed for business use where this would not generate a significant traffic problem in an isolated area
There was broad agreement that rural commercial buildings need to be kept for business opportunities.
Preferred Option
Policy
The plan will include a policy for the reuse and conversion of non-residential buildings in the countryside for residential purposes where;
the existing business use is not viable and it can be demonstrated that there is no business demand or where business use would create traffic problems no substantial alterations or construction is required
and the proposal;
respects existing architectural and historic character minimises intrusion into the countryside is of an appropriate scale to its rural surroundings in terms of visual impact on the landscape respects the need for biodiversity has permitted development rights removed
70 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS3 ‘Housing’; PPS7 ‘Rural Areas ‘ RPG6 Policy 12 Draft RSS Policy H2 Structure Plan Policy P5/4 Existing Local Plan Policy H18 Sustainable Community Strategy Building communities with decent homes, a sense of place and purpose
Reasons for Preferred Option
National and regional policy requires that appropriate business use be given priority in the re-use of rural buildings. Fenland has a large number of rural buildings some being attractive agricultural barns of historic and architectural value. There is pressure in Fenland to convert these to residential uses. However this has to be restricted in order to support the rural economy and provide local employment opportunities. The Preferred approach is therefore to limit residential conversion to buildings where business use is not viable or would create traffic problems. In such cases there is a need to protect locally important buildings from conversions that would harm the character of such buildings. In particular large scale alterations including new openings and extensions out of scale with the building should be avoided.
Alternative Options Considered
Prevent all residential conversions. This would be inflexible and lead to;
Inappropriate conversions Traffic problems Derelict rural buildings
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 71 4 Housing
Allow residential reuse. This would result in;
Inappropriate conversions Spread of residential uses and characteristics within open countryside Reduce the already limited stock of buildings for business use
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
4.9 H9 Dwellings for Rural Workers
Consultation Outcomes
78% of respondents agreed that farmers should be allowed to diversify
There was general agreement that farms need to diversify and that low impact uses appropriate to a rural area would be acceptable
Preferred Option
Policy
The plan will include a policy that allows new housing for full time workers in agriculture, horticulture, and other land based activities to be permitted provided that it can be demonstrated that; the dwelling is essential to the requirements of the business the business is financially sound there is no alternative accommodation on the holding or nearby that exists or could be made available a dwelling on the holding has not recently been sold on the open market without an agricultural or other occupancy condition the dwelling is of modest scale in keeping with the business the dwelling is of an appearance that is in keeping with its rural surroundings and is well landscaped In the case of new businesses that cannot yet show they are financially sound a temporary dwelling may be acceptable provided that the other criteria are met.
72 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS3 ‘Housing’; PPS7 ‘Rural Areas ‘ Draft RSS Policy H2 Structure Plan Policy P5/4 Existing Local Plan Policy H16 Sustainable Community Strategy Building communities with decent homes, a sense of place and purpose
Reasons for Preferred Option
National policy recognises the requirement for certain workers to live in close proximity to their place of work. The approach proposed seeks to address the requirements of rural land-use activities where the nature of their work makes it essential for workers to live at the premises or very close to it. This usually relates to agricultural or stud uses where the business has round the clock requirements. The proposed criteria should ensure that new dwellings are restricted to cases of essential need. This will have to be more than security reasons or those that make the business more convenient to run and there are no other options for housing in the locality.
Alternative Options Considered
None. The approach is in line with PPS7
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
4.10 H10 Gypsies and Travellers
Consultation Outcomes
85% of respondents agreed with the approach to selecting gypsy traveller sites
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 73 4 Housing
It was noted by public bodies that criteria did not comply with recent national policy. Best practice was identified for any criteria based policy. Sustainability criteria were thought to be required by developers / agents. Some Parish Council’s asked to be kept informed regards proposed allocations for gypsy sites.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the plan will indicate that sites for gypsies and travellers may be appropriate in the countryside provided that; the Traveller Needs Assessment identifies such a need there is identified need for additional sites that cannot be met on the sites allocated for such purposes in the Site Specific Proposals DPD the intended occupants meet the definition of gypsy and travelling showpeople the development of the site on its own or taken with those nearby do not have an adverse effect on the rural character of the area the site has a safe and convenient access to the highway network the site is reasonably located for local facilities or accessible by public transport The Council will allocate sites for gypsies and travelling showpeople in its Site Specific Proposals DPD based on the above criteria to meet shortfalls in need.
Policy Sources
74 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS3 ‘Housing’; PPS7 ‘Rural Areas ‘Circular 1/2006 Gypsy and Traveller sites and 22/91 “Travelling Showmen” RPG6 Policy 10 Structure Plan Policy P5/4 Existing Local Plan Policy H21 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Building communities with decent homes, a sense of place and purpose' and 'Community cohesion' Other Sources Cambridge Sub-region Traveller Needs Assessment 2006
Reasons for Preferred Option
National and regional policy requires the number of pitches set out in RSS to be translated into site specific allocations through a Site Specific Proposals DPD. The Cambridge Sub-region Traveller Needs Assessment assesses the accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers residing in the district as required by national guidance. Fenland has the second highest count figure in the study area. The Assessment identifies a need in Fenland from 2005-10 for 160 permanent caravan pitches and a further 45 to meet potential needs from unauthorised sites. This demand should be met through the provision of small owner-occupied sites for traveller pitches.
National policy requires this housing need to be met though sites in a Site Specific Proposals DPD. The Core Strategy should have criteria for the location of gypsy sites to guide allocations and meet unexpected demand. However to ensure certainty for local people and gypsies such windfall criteria must not be used as an alternative to allocations.
The 2006 Traveller Needs Assessment found that some needs were being catered for through small unauthorised sites. This provision was found to be less problematic in Fenland than in other districts. This was because the sites were usually small and
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 75 4 Housing
family-run so avoiding the transit problems that have occurred in other districts. Any such site with an existing continuous use for more than 10 years and no evidence of enforcement on the site will be treated as having authorised use.
The criteria are intended to ensure the most sustainable locations are selected in the Site Specific Proposals DPD. The proposed approach includes criteria that will guide the location of allocations for gypsy sites as well as criteria for future windfall sites.
Alternative Options Considered
None. The approach to meeting gypsy accommodation needs is a requirement of national policy.
Designations for Proposals Map
Site Specific Proposals DPD.
76 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 5 Economic Growth and Prosperity
5.1 GP1 Location and Scale of Employment Development
Consultation Outcomes
67% of questionnaire respondents supported the Business Park ‘areas of search’ identified in the Issues and Options Paper. The areas of search (in the Core Strategy Issues and Options Document) can be seen below:
Table 4 BUSINESS PARKS AREAS OF SEARCH
The following areas of search were considered:- Town Area of Search CHATTERIS Tithe Barn Farm, South East of Chatteris MARCH North of Mill Hill Roundabout West of The Avenue - off A141 By-pass between Burrowmoor Road / Knights End Road Opposite Hostmoor WISBECH Cromwell Road West Wisbech
The Government Office for the East of England has, however, objected to the inclusion of the areas of search in the Core Strategy, advising that this level of detail should be in the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document. Consideration of this level of detail therefore will take place in the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 77 5 Economic Growth and Prosperity
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the plan will support employment uses concentrated within the Employment Allocations / Business Zones and Town Centres of Fenland as defined on the Proposals Map. Proposals received outside of these areas, but within Development Area Boundaries, will be acceptable providing:
New large scale employment development (minimum of 500 square metres or 0.5 hectares in area) is located within the market towns and key/limited service centres, with priority given to sites within the market towns; There is minimal impact upon the amenity of surrounding users and residents, see Policy B2; Minimal impact upon the road network of the development, including access, parking for staff and deliveries; The development would not be out of place within the area or would be a non-conforming use, see policy B1/B8. The limited expansion of existing businesses beyond the Development Area Boundaries will be judged against the above criteria plus: The effect on the openness and character of the countryside, see Policy N1; The availability of sites in more suitable locations; The development of new businesses within the open countryside will not be permitted unless the proposals related directly to agriculture, horticulture or rural diversification as set out in Policies GP4 and 5.
78 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPG4, PPS6 and PPS7 RPG6 Policies 6, 12 and 23 Draft RSS Policy E2, E3 and GPSR1 Structure Plan P2/1, P2/2, P2/5, P2/6 Existing Local Plan EMP1, EMP3, EMP4, EMP6, EMP8 Sustainable Community Strategy Helping people into work and encouraging innovation and enterprise
Reasons for Preferred Option
National and strategic guidance requires local authorities to locate large-scale new business uses in urban areas to reduce the need to travel and to promote the use of public transport. Smaller scale businesses may be acceptable in rural areas to help provide local jobs. In the case of office developments, PPS6 clearly states that town centre locations should be the priority, in order to reduce the need to travel and promote a healthy town centre with a mix of uses.
Alternative Options Considered
Site size threshold
The threshold could be increased to at least 1000 square metres, or 1 hectare. However, this would result in developments of a significant scale within smaller settlements, which would detrimentally affect the rural character by virtue of traffic generation, scale of buildings and impact on the locality.
Development outside of Development Area Boundaries
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 79 5 Economic Growth and Prosperity
No. PPS7 clearly states that new business uses unrelated to agriculture, horticulture or forestry will not be permitted.
Development inside Development Area Boundaries
New development could only be acceptable in market towns however, this approach would restrict rural areas where smaller scale employment developments would help to provide local jobs and assist with the local economy.
Designations for Proposals Map
Any employment allocations and business zones will be made through the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document will be shown on the Proposals map.
5.2 GP2 Protecting Employment Land
Consultation Outcomes
73% of questionnaire respondents agreed to support the general strategy of protecting existing employment sites against change of use, unless there are residential amenity benefits, or a surplus of suitable sites available nearby.
Some Agents suggested that existing rural employment uses should be protected in order to safeguard local employment opportunities and avoid commuting.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the plan will protect allocated employment sites or sites within business zones. Proposals for non-business / employment uses will be resisted unless the following criteria apply:
The site is no longer needed for business use, as demonstrated through the Council’s Employment Land Review A marketing exercise proves that there is no realistic demand for the site The development of the site for residential would not undermine the housing strategy The development would not impact upon the amenity of surrounding users and residents, see Policy B2 The development would not be out of place within the area or would not be a non-conforming use, see policy B1.
80 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPG4 and PPG3 RPG6 Policies 6 and 23 Draft RSS Policy E3, E5 and GPSR1 Structure Plan P2/1 Sustainable Community Strategy Helping people into work and encouraging innovation and enterprise
Reason for Preferred Option
The Spatial Strategy for employment sets out that the economy of Fenland can only expand and diversify if there is sufficient quantity and quality of employment land. The preferred policy approach aims to protect the employment areas, which have been identified to meet the business requirements for the plan period. The policy does, however, allow some flexibility to take into account sites that may no longer be suitable as demonstrated by the Council’s up to date Employment Land Review or through a marketing exercise.
Alternative Options Considered
No restrictions on loss of employment land
Allowing allocated, or zoned, employment land to be lost, without restriction, would undermine the economic strategy for the District.
Considering sites outside of employment areas
The policy could be written to protect existing business sites, outside of allocated sites and business zones, above a certain threshold. This approach would aim to protect existing employment sites and jobs; however it is the allocated land which will deliver the projected growth for the District.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 81 5 Economic Growth and Prosperity
Designations for Proposals Map
Any employment allocations and business zones will be made through the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document will be shown on the Proposals map.
82 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 5.3 GP3 Wisbech Port
Consultation Outcomes
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the plan will support proposals for the development of industrial and business uses within the Wisbech Port Area providing the development is related to Port Activities.
Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPG4 RPG6 Policies 6 Draft RSS Policy E4 and GPSR1 Structure Plan P2/1 and P8/11 Existing Local Plan TR8 Sustainable Community Strategy Helping people into work and encouraging innovation and enterprise
Reason for Preferred Option
Wisbech Port is an important economic asset of the District. To enable it to develop, a sufficient supply of land needs to be available, within close proximity, to the Port, as port related uses require direct access to the river frontage. Port development land is defined as land for the purposes of shipping or for use in connection with the embarking, disembarking, loading, discharging or transport of passengers, livestock or goods at a
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 83 5 Economic Growth and Prosperity
dock pier or harbour, or with the movement of traffic by canal or inland navigation or by any railway forming part of the undertaking. (Taken from GPDO, Part 17). Priority will be given to the use of brown-field land that meets mitigation measures
Alternative Options Considered
The Council could allow any business use within the port area; however this would adversely effect the future development and economic prosperity of the Port.
Designations for Proposals Map
The Port Area will be designated through the Site Specific Development Plan Document and shown on the Proposals map.
5.4 GP4 Re-use and Redevelopment of Rural Buildings
Consultation Outcomes
61% of questionnaire respondents were of the opinion that diversification should be limited to low-key activities that minimize the impact on the countryside and could not reasonable be expected to locate in towns or industrial areas.
79% of questionnaire respondents were of the opinion that the Council should encourage a wide range of uses that promote the local economy.
84 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the plan will support the re-use of rural buildings for business purposes providing the following criteria apply:
The proposal will not harm the character of the building, see Policy B1 The proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the landscape character, see Policy N1 The proposal will not have a detrimental impact on protected sites and/or species, see Policy N4 The proposal will not have a detrimental impact on highway safety, see Policy T1. Proposals for the redevelopment of rural buildings for business purposes will be acceptable, providing the above criteria are met, and providing the following criteria apply: The existing building is not abandoned or allowed to fall into a state of dereliction and disrepair. The proposed redevelopment does not increase the floor area by 30% above the original floor area, measured externally. The building to be altered is not of architectural or historical merit. The proposal will not have a detrimental impact on highway safety, see Policy T1.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 85 5 Economic Growth and Prosperity
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS7 RPG6 Policy 12 Draft RSS Policy SS9 and E5 Structure Plan P2/1 and P2/6 Existing Local Plan EMP3 Sustainable Community Strategy Helping people into work and encouraging innovation and enterprise
Reason for Preferred Option
Business purposes in this case refer to industry, warehousing and tourism. This policy is not associated with retail use; reference should be made to Policy GP9. The re-use and redevelopment of rural buildings for business purposes can bring benefits to the local economy. However, care must be taken to ensure the conversion or redevelopment enhances and is in keeping with the countryside.
Proposals for the redevelopment of buildings must be sympathetic to the size and scale of the original building. The original building must not be abandoned or in a state of disrepair.
Alternative Options Considered
A criteria for the protection of productive farm-holdings could be included before re-use is permitted. However the re-use and redevelopment of farm buildings, for business developments, is supported through national guidance providing certain criteria are met. A more restrictive approach be difficult to implement and would harm farm diversification.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
86 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 5.5 GP5 Farm Diversification
Consultation Outcomes
61% of questionnaire respondents were of the opinion that diversification should be limited to low-key activities that minimize the impact on the countryside and could not reasonable be expected to locate in towns or industrial areas.
79% of questionnaire respondents were of the opinion that the Council should encourage a wide range of uses that promote the local economy.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 87 5 Economic Growth and Prosperity
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the plan will support proposals for farm diversification, related to an existing working farm, providing the criteria below are met:
Existing buildings are re-used where possible, and if not possible a replacement building may be acceptable, see Policy GP4;
New development is on scale with the surroundings and located within an existing group of buildings;
The proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the local amenity and landscape, see Policies N1 and B2.
Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS7 RPG6 Policy 12 Draft RSS Policy SS9 and E5 Structure Plan P2/1 and P2/6 Existing Local Plan EMP3 Sustainable Community Strategy Helping people into work and encouraging innovation and enterprise
Reason for Preferred Option
Farming makes an important contribution to the local economy. However, farmers
88 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 increasingly have to diversify into other activities in order to supplement their incomes in order to retain the viability of the farms. Examples of diversification could include, farm-based food processing and manufacturing, craft workshops, equestrian businesses and farm shops. New buildings on undeveloped sites will be discouraged, unless all options for the re-use of existing have been considered and the criteria set out in Policy GP4 are met.
It is important that farm diversification schemes bring long-term benefits to the existing farm and the wider rural area. The submission of farm business plans with applications can help justify this.
Alternative Options Considered
A more lenient approach to farm diversification
The policy could allow new buildings of any scale, and remove the requirement to explore the re-use first. However, this would result in an increased amount of built development in the open countryside and therefore detract from the character and openness of the landscape.
A more restrictive approach to farm diversification
The policy could reject a proposal for any new buildings, which would reduce the visual impact on the open countryside. However, this approach would be inflexible and could prevent schemes coming forward which would benefit farms and the rural economy.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
5.6 GP6 Tourist Attractions
Consultation Outcomes
86% of questionnaire respondents felt we should do more to encourage visitors to the district to stay longer.
Several ideas were suggested to improve tourism within the District. Better accommodation was suggested by Agents, Parish Council and Environmental Bodies. Improved and more brochures was suggested by Parish Councils, Agents and The Wildlife Trust. Better footways and improved habitats were suggested by Agents and Environmental Bodies. Improved waterways were suggested by Parish Councils, Agents
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 89 5 Economic Growth and Prosperity
and The Wildlife Trust. More village pubs and increased farm diversification was suggested by Parish Councils. The County Council suggested that a wider strategy was needed.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the plan will support new tourist facilities / visitor attractions in, or close to, urban areas and rural villages. New facilities proposed in the countryside will be supported providing the proposed facilities involve the re-use, or replacement of an existing farm building. See Policies GP4 and 5 .Extensions or additions to existing tourist attractions / visitor facilities will be supported providing the following criteria are met:
The facilities are accommodated in existing or replacement farm buildings, see policies GP4 and 5; Where new buildings are proposed, justification must be submitted to demonstrate the need for the building and that there are no suitable existing buildings or developed sites available for re-use. The new building must not result in unacceptable harm to the local amenity and landscape, see Policies N1 and B2.
90 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS7, PPG21 RPG6 Policies 12 and 62 Draft RSS Policy SS9, E5 and E12 Structure Plan P2/1 and P2/6 Existing Local Plan T1 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Helping people into work and encouraging innovation and enterprise' and 'Promotion of Fenland's uniquely distinctive character'
Reason for Preferred Option
Fenland has a range of tourist attractions, including Peckover House and Garden (National Trust), Elgoods Brewery and Garden, Museums, also the waterways for boating and fishing.
It is important that new and existing facilities are supported, in a sustainable manner, to benefit the local economy and community. Government guidance states that local authorities should identify the need for new tourist development, and plan and provide for this growth. Larger settlements need to be a focus for major tourist development, with smaller scale facilities provided in or close to villages.
It is important that a business plan is submitted for new proposals to help justify the development.
Alternative Options Considered
A more lenient approach to tourist facilities / services
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 91 5 Economic Growth and Prosperity
The policy could allow new facilities of any scale, and remove the requirement to explore the re-use first. However, this would result in an increased amount of built development in the open countryside and therefore detract from the character and openness of the landscape.
A more restrictive approach to tourist facilities / services
The policy could reject a proposal for any new tourist facility outside of urban areas, which would reduce the visual impact on the open countryside. However, this approach would be inflexible and could prevent schemes coming forward which would benefit the rural community and economy.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
5.7 GP7 Tourist Accomodation
Consultation Outcomes
86% of questionnaire respondents felt we should do more to encourage visitors to the district to stay longer.
Several ideas were suggested to improve tourism within the District. Better accommodation was suggested by Agents, Parish Council and Environmental Bodies. Improved and more brochures was suggested by Parish Councils, Agents and The Wildlife Trust. Better footways and improved habitats were suggested by Agents and Environmental Bodies. Improved waterways were suggested by Parish Councils, Agents and The Wildlife Trust. More village pubs and increased farm diversification was suggested by Parish Councils. The County Council suggested that a wider strategy was needed.
Preferred Option
92 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy
Policies in the plan will support proposals for hotel development providing the following criteria are met:
The site is located within a market town. Where development cannot be accommodated within the market towns, a sequential approach should be followed starting with edge of centre, out of centre, limited service centres. Extensions will be supported providing the proposal would not adversely affect the local amenity, see Policy B2. In all cases, the proposal must be of an appropriate scale and enhance the built environment and preserve the character of the locality, see Policy B1.Proposals for camping and caravanning will be acceptable providing the following criteria are met: The site is located within identified development area boundaries, or close to existing settlements. Proposals for new sites outside of defined boundaries need to be justified through a Business Plan, demonstrating an identified need in the District. The proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the local amenity and landscape, see Policies N1 and B2. The proposal will not have a detrimental impact on highway safety, see Policy T1. Proposals for self-catering holiday accommodation (for example, holiday cottages will be limited to: Sites within Development Area Boundaries; The re-use, or redevelopment, of existing farm buildings. See Policy GP4; New buildings will only be acceptable as part of farm diversification schemes. See Policy GP5. Self catering accommodation in the open countryside shall be restricted to short term holiday lets, through the use of planning conditions.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 93 5 Economic Growth and Prosperity
Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS7, PPS6 and PPG21 RPG6 Policies 12 and 62 Draft RSS Policy SS9, E5 and E12 Structure Plan P2/1 and P2/6 Existing Local Plan T1, T2 and T3 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Helping people into work and encouraging innovation and enterprise' and 'Promotion of Fenland's uniquely distinctive character'
Reason for Preferred Option
Fenland has a range of tourist attractions, including Peckover House and Garden (National Trust), Elgoods Brewery and Garden, Museums, also the waterways for boating and fishing.
Hotel development is identified in national planning guidance as being a key town centre use which can add to the vitality and viability of centres. Concentrating hotel development in sustainable town centre locations close to shops, services and public transport can also help reduce the need to travel and promote the use of public transport. The policy approach seeks to ensure that hotel development is located in sustainable locations, adopting a sequential approach when identifying and assessing sites.
Camping and caravanning sites will be acceptable close to existing settlements, where an identified need can be demonstrated and providing there is no adverse impact on the local environment.
It is important that new tourist accommodation is supported, in a sustainable manner, to benefit the local economy and community, but also to encourage visitors to visit the District and stay longer. Government guidance states that new tourist accommodation
94 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 should be located in, or close to existing towns or villages. New accommodation outside of defined settlements will be acceptable where it involved the re-use or replacement of farm buildings, or where it forms part of a larger farm diversification scheme.
It is important that a business plan is submitted for new proposals to help justify the development.
Alternative Options Considered
Hotels
The policy could allow new hotels in any settlement, without a sequential approach, however national and strategic guidance requires local authorities to locate developments which generate large number of vehicular trips to be located in urban areas to reduce the need to travel and to promote the use of public transport.
The policy could restrict hotels to market towns however, this approach would constrain rural areas where smaller scale employment and tourist developments would help to provide local jobs and assist with the local economy.
Camping and Caravanning
The policy could restrict hotels to just market towns however, this approach would constrain rural areas where smaller scale employment and tourist developments would help to provide local jobs and assist with the local economy.
Self-catering Accommodation
The policy could allow new self-catering accommodation in the open countryside without any restrictions; however this would be contrary to the sustainable development objectives and would have a detrimental impact on the open countryside.
The policy could restrict self-catering units to just market towns and limited service centres, however this approach wouldbe inflexible and could prevent schemes coming forward which would benefit farms and the rural economy.
Designations for Proposals Map
None. This approach is required by national and strategic guidance.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 95 5 Economic Growth and Prosperity
5.8 GP8 Location of Retail and Leisure Development
Consultation Outcomes
68% of questionnaire respondents were of the opinion that the Local Development Framework should try and protect the shopping function of the market towns by restricting the change of use of shops to other uses.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the plan will adopt a sequential approach to site selection for retail and leisure proposals in the town centres (as defined on the Proposals Map) of the four Market Towns, unless the proposal is for small developments serving a local catchment. Where retail and leisure development cannot be accommodated in the town centres, the proposal must demonstrate that:
There is a need for the development There is no sequentially preferable site which is suitable and available The development would not adversely affect the viability or vitality of the town centre. The site offers access by means of public transport, foot and cycle. Retail and leisure proposals will be acceptable within defined boundaries of villages providing they would meet the day to day needs of the rural catchmentIn all cases, the proposal must enhance the built environment and preserve the character of the locality, see Policy B1.
96 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS6 RPG6 Policy 13 Draft RSS Policy SS9 and E10 Structure Plan P3/2, P3/3 and P3/4 Existing Local Plan S1, S2, S6, S7, S8 and S9 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Helping people into work and encouraging innovation and enterprise' and 'Access to information and services for all''
Reason for Preferred Option
The most suitable sites for retail and leisure developments is in the town centre, where the sites are easily accessible and will contribute to the vitality and viability of the centre. The adopted sequential approach comes from Government guidance and sites outside of the town centre will need to be justified in terms of need and demand.
Small scale developments to serve rural communities will be acceptable, providing they are in scale to the size and function of the settlement. This will help to reduce trips to the Market Towns and preserve the local community and economy.
Alternative Options Considered
None. This approach is required by national and strategic guidance.
Designations for Proposals Map
The town centre boundaries will be identified through the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document and shown on the Proposals Map.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 97 5 Economic Growth and Prosperity
5.9 GP9 Primary Shopping Frontages
Consultation Outcomes
68% of questionnaire respondents were of the opinion that the Local Development Framework should try and protect the shopping function of the market towns by restricting the change of use of shops to other uses.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the plan will identify Primary Shopping Frontages within the town centres of Chatteris, March, Whittlesey and Wisbech (as defined on the Proposals Map) proposals for the introduction or expansion of non ‘A1’ retails uses will be resisted.Non A1 uses will be considered if the proposal:
Does not result in a concentration of non A1 uses in and around the proposal site Does not adversely effect the vitality and viability of the town centre Does not adversely effect the building concerned Does not cause unacceptable environmental impact on the surrounding area, see Policy B2
98 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS6 RPG6 Policy 13 East of England Plan Policy SS9 and E10 Structure Plan P3/2, P3/3 and P3/4 Existing Local Plan S3 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Helping people into work and encouraging innovation and enterprise' and 'Access to information and services for all'
Reason for Preferred Option
The town centres of the market Towns are key areas for shopping activity in the District. A primary shopping frontage has been identified in each of the centres to protect and enhance the existing retail function. It is recognised that non A1 can adversely effect the vitality and viability of town centres, and can also result in significant physical changes to the frontage which result in it being hard to reverse the use of the building back to retail.
Alternative Options Considered
None. This approach is required by national and strategic guidance.
Designations for Proposals Map
The town centre boundaries and Primary Shopping Frontages will be identified through the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document and shown on the Proposals Map.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 99 5 Economic Growth and Prosperity
100 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 6 Built Environment
6.1 B1 Design
Consultation Outcomes
71% consider we should seek master plans or development briefs for all housing schemes of 50+ and 15+ houses and design statements for smaller schemes 70% agree this requirement should be extended to non-residential development There was broad support for improving the design quality and the requirement of a design statement. Developers and Agents had concerns over the flexibility of the approach especially for small scale development.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 101 6 Built Environment
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will require that new development is of high quality design in terms of its layout, form and contribution to the character and appearance of the area. Policies will set out criteria for assessing proposals against the above objectives. This will include criteria relating to:
respecting or enhancing the character of a site and its surroundings, through the layout of a scheme, the proportion, orientation, scale and massing of buildings, and the use of appropriate materials and detailed design features providing a good network of pedestrian, cycling and travel routes which link well to adjacent areas providing an accessible environment which can be used by everyone, regardless of age, gender or disability providing structure by making use of existing views, vistas and landmarks and creating new ones providing enclosure to street and spaces through the grouping, positioning and height of buildings and landscape features, and road layouts providing safe and secure development which provide natural surveillance in public areas and privacy for private areas, a clear distinction between public and private areas, and which incorporate appropriate security measures (such as lighting and landscape treatments) ensuring that motor vehicles do not dominate development schemes for example by reducing the amount of land used for roads, and arranging buildings to ‘hide’ off-street parking providing attractive open/green areas and green corridors for recreation and biodiversity providing adequate waste and recycling storage / collection areas Policies will indicate that all development proposals should include sufficient supporting information to show how design-related considerations have been addressed. This should normally take the form of a design statement. For larger or complex proposals a full detailed development brief or master plan may be required.
102 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS1; PPS3 ‘Housing' RPG6 Policies 1, 3, 13 and 37 Draft RSS Policy SS16 Structure Plan Policy P1/3 Existing Local Plan Policies E8, IMP3 Interim Residential Development Guidelines and Checklist 2006 Sustainable Community Strategy Building communities with decent homes, a sense of place and purpose Best practice guidance ‘Places, Streets and Movement’ (DETR 1998). By Design – Urban Design in the Planning system’( DETR/CABE 2000) ‘Better Places to Live – a companion guide to PPG3’ (DTLR/CABE 2001) ‘Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention’ ODPM/Home Office 2003 ‘Planning and Access for Disabled People’ ODPM 2003 ‘Planning for Town Centres: guidance on design and implementation tools’ (ODPM 2005)
Reasons for Preferred Option
Well-designed, safe and attractive new development which respects its surroundings can help to raise the quality of the built environment and the quality of people’s lives who live and work there. The Council is therefore keen to attach a high priority to design, and to promote higher standards of design and layout in all new development schemes.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 103 6 Built Environment
The proposed criteria are based on general design principles reflected in Government and strategic guidance, and should result in schemes which provide attractive, accessible and safe environments, and which respect and enhance local character.
All development schemes have an impact on surroundings, and it is therefore proposed that all proposals should be accompanied by sufficient written and/or illustrative information to show how design has evolved and how design-related considerations have been addressed (Cabinet March 2006). This will enable the Council to assess the impact of a proposal and help to speed up the planning application process. The level of detail necessary will clearly vary between different types and scales of schemes. This will often take the form of a design statement – which, for a small scheme such as a house extension, will probably be relatively short. For large and more complex schemes it is proposed that a more detailed development brief or master plan should be submitted in advance of an application. This will enable the Council to check that key issues are addressed, and will provide an opportunity for engagement of the local community at an early stage. It is not appropriate to be precise about when a development brief may be required, as much depends on the nature of the site and the proposal. Developers will need to discuss the issue with the Council at an early stage in proceedings.
It is proposed that detailed design considerations will be set out in a Supplementary Planning Document on design.
Alternative Options Considered
Design criteria
More or less detailed criteria. A criteria approach is required by Government and strategic guidance. Less detail would mean omitting some criteria such as “appropriate material”. However this is required for an adequate level of control. More detail would mean for “appropriate materials” examples of type such as recycled material. However this would result in a blanket approach potentially ill suited to local circumstance.
Provision of design information
Require information on design from fewer development proposals
For example, only require information in connection with large-scale proposals. However, small developments can have a significant impact on surroundings, and it is considered that the provision of design information for these developments is key in ensuring that design and landscaping issues are addressed. The proposed approach does acknowledge that the level of detail submitted will vary depending on the scale and nature of the development.
104 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Require development briefs above a specific size threshold
This approach would provide certainty for developers and the community. However, imposing a specific threshold such as 50+ or 15+ dwellings for master plans or development briefs is considered to be overly rigid. There may be schemes below the threshold which would merit a development brief due to the nature of the site and the proposal – for example, schemes which affect Listed Buildings or Conservation Areas, or controversial / complex schemes. A flexible approach is therefore preferable.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
6.2 B2 Amenity
Consultation Outcomes
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that development proposals should not have an unreasonable impact on current and future land users (within or near the site), in terms of:
Noise and disturbance Overlooking and privacy Access to daylight and sunlight Pollution (e.g. air, light) Safety and security (crime prevention) The operations of current businesses
Policy Sources
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 105 6 Built Environment
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPG23; PPG24 RPG6 Policy 37 Draft RSS Policy SS16 Existing Local Plan Policy E8 Sustainable Community Strategy Making communities safer and stronger Best practice guidance See under B1
Reasons for Preferred Option
The Council is committed to securing and maintaining a high level of general amenity for residents and workers in the district. The proposed policy sets out the key issues against which proposals will be assessed, and should ensure that schemes which adversely affect neighbours are not permitted. The proposed policy also recognises that there may be situations where development proposals could potentially restrict the operations of existing adjoining businesses, and seeks to avoid this; for example, if a residential use is proposed in an established industrial area, and concerns are later raised by residents about noise pollution. It is proposed that further details will be set out in a Supplementary Planning Document on design.
Alternative Options Considered
None. Protecting amenity, including crime prevention, is a key function of the planning system.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
106 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 6.3 B3 Shop Fronts and Advertisements
Consultation Outcomes
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that
proposals for new or altered shop fronts should respect the character of the building itself and the street scene, and use high quality materials traditional shop fronts should be retained wherever possible, particularly in Conservation Areas the visual impact of security equipment (for example, cameras and shutters) should be minimised, through careful siting and design Policies in the Plan will indicate that advertisements should only be permitted if: in terms of their design, size, siting and illumination they are in character with the building and surrounding area individually and cumulatively they would not adversely affect the visual amenity of an area; and they would not pose a safety hazard to the public and highway users
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 107 6 Built Environment
Policy Sources
PPSs/PPGs/Circulars PPS1; PPS6; PPG19 ‘Outdoor Advertisement Control’ RPG6 Policies 13 and 37 Draft RSS Policy SS16 Existing Local Plan Policy E17, E18; SPG ‘Shopfronts, Signs and Advertisements Sustainable Community Strategy 'Building a sustainable environment' and 'Promotion of Fenland's uniquely distinctive character' Best practice guidance ‘Planning for Town Centres: guidance on design and implementation tools’ (ODPM 2005)
Reasons for Preferred Option
Shopfronts have an important impact on the appearance of buildings and the street scene, and good quality designs can help maintain and enhance the attractiveness and viability of a shopping area. Shopfronts are frequently changed or renewed, and it is important to ensure that they respect local character. The installation of solid security shutters can create fortress-like appearance and impacts on vitality of town centres outside shopping hours – hence it is important to promote more subtle forms of security (such as open grilles inside windows) wherever possible.
Advertisements can have a significant impact on the appearance of an area, and also have the potential to affect safety (either directly, or by causing distraction or confusion). A balance has to be made between commercial needs and the protection of the environment. The Council will have regard to considerations of impact on visual amenity and public safety when considering planning applications for new advertisements.
It is proposed that detailed design principles relating to shopfronts and advertisements will be set out in a Supplementary Planning Document ‘Shopfronts and Advertisements’.
108 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Consideration will be given to the designation of an Area of Special Control for Advertisements for all of the district outside of the town centres. This restricts the type of advertisements that can be displayed with consent and the types of advertisements which the Council can grant consent. It is proposed to identify an Area of Special Advert Control and its extent will be indicated within the Site Specific Proposals Development Plan Document.
Alternative Options Considered
None. This approach is required by national and strategic guidance.
Designations for Proposals Map
Area of Special Advert Control will be shown if considered appropriate.
6.4 B4 Conservation Areas
Consultation Outcomes
44% supported tighter controls over alterations within Conservation Areas
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 109 6 Built Environment
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that proposals within or affecting a Conservation Area should:
be of a particularly high standard of design and materials that will preserve or enhance the historic character of the Conservation Area retain attractive traditional features such as original doors, windows and boundary walls not involve the demolition of buildings unless:
they are of little or no importance to the character or appearance of the area; or they are structurally unsound (for reasons other than deliberate damage or neglect) and beyond reasonable repair, and measures to sustain an existing use or find an alternative use have been explored and failed; and, in all cases detailed proposals for reconstruction or redevelopment have received detailed planning permission
The Council will require the submission of full planning application for the development of sites within or adjoining Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and other important Heritage Sites.
110 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPSs/PPGs/Circulars PPG15 RPG6 Policies 1, 3, 13, 37 and 40 Draft RSS Policy ENV5 Existing Local Plan Policies E10 – E14 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Building a sustainable environment' and 'Promotion of Fenland's uniquely distinctive character'
Reasons for Preferred Option
Certain parts of the district are designated as Conservation Areas due to their particular architectural or historic interest. This is on the basis of the overall quality of the area, looking at elements such as the mix and style of buildings, the quality of open spaces and other features. Details of the current Conservation Areas can be seen in the current Local Plan and in adopted Supplementary Planning Appraisal documents. The Appraisal documents for the four market towns are currently under review.
Once designated, special attention must be paid in all planning decisions to ensuring that the character and appearance of these areas is retained and enhanced. Traditional features and designs which are characteristic should be recognised and reflected in development proposals. However, new development does not always have to mimic the past, and high quality designed schemes which provide a successful visual contract with their surroundings may preserve and enhance character.
Demolition of buildings should be resisted as it can damage the character of a Conservation Area. The proposed option sets out two unique situations where demolition may exceptionally be permitted. However, in all cases the demolition of a building should be conditional on plans for the redevelopment of a site having already received detailed planning consent – in order to ensure that the area’s special character will be preserved or enhanced.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 111 6 Built Environment
Alternative Options Considered
Tighter controls over alterations. The Council could choose to introduce tighter controls against which alterations within Conservation Areas by designating Conservation Areas as ‘Article 4 (2) areas. This would help to protect their special character.
Designations for Proposals Map
Conservation Areas will be shown.
6.5 B5 Listed Buildings
Consultation Outcomes
57% supported the inclusion of a policy relating to locally listed buildings
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that: proposals to extend, alter or change the use of a Listed Building will not be permitted where this would adversely affect its historic or architectural interest proposals which affect the setting of Listed Buildings will not be permitted where this would harm its historic or architectural interest proposals to demolish all or part of a Listed Building will not be permitted, other than in very exceptional circumstances where: the building is structurally unsound (for reasons other than deliberate damage or neglect) and beyond reasonable repair; or all possible measures to sustain an existing use or find an alternative use have been explored and failed, and redevelopment would bring wider public benefits; and, in all cases detailed proposals for reconstruction or redevelopment have received planning permission and contracts have been let for the redevelopment of the site. the Council will take action to enforce the repair of Listed Buildings where appropriate.
112 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPSs/PPGs/Circulars PPG15 RPG6 Policies 1, 3, 13, 37 and 40 Draft RSS ENV5 Structure Plan Policy P7/6 Existing Local Plan Policies E15, E16 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Building a sustainable environment' and 'Promotion of Fenland's uniquely distinctive character' Other Sources Heritage Review Paper ODPM 2005
Reasons for Preferred Option
Fenland contains a large number of visually and historically important buildings. The most important of these have been ‘listed’ by English Heritage, in order to protect their fabric and appearance. Development affecting Listed Buildings is strictly con trolled by government legislation and guidance, in order to preserve (and where possible enhance) their special qualities. There is also a strong presumption against the demolition of Listed Buildings other than in very exceptional circumstances. The proposed criteria will ensure that demolition is permitted as a last resort only.
There are other buildings of local importance in terms of the district’s heritage and townscape character, but which do not merit listing. This includes historic buildings which are prominent local landmarks or which add to the character of town and village centres. Government guidance in PPG15 indicates that local planning authorities should identify and designate buildings which merit ‘local listing’, and seek to provide appropriate protection against harm and/or loss. The Government’s Heritage Review Paper 2005
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 113 6 Built Environment
(leading to review of the Planning Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990) indicates that this may eventually become a statutory requirement which all local authorities will be required to undertake. Consideration will be given to the description of locally listed buildings subject to resources to which similar criteria relating to demolition as set out above for listed buildings will apply.
Alternative Options Considered
None.
This approach is required by national legislation and guidance.
Designations for Proposals Map
Listed Buildings will be shown? Locally Listed Buildings may be shown
6.6 B6 Archaeological Sites and Monuments
Consultation Outcomes
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies and Plan will indicate that:
development proposals at all sites of known or potential archaeological interest will require the submission of an archaeological evaluation/assessment by a suitably qualified person. development will not be permitted where proposals would adversely affect nationally important archaeological sites, including Scheduled Ancient Monuments where development is granted at sites of archaeological interest, the insitu preservation of remains is preferred. Where this is not justified or feasible, provision should be made for a programme of excavation, recording and reporting of remains to take place before development starts.
114 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPSs/PPGs/Circulars PPG16 RPG6 Policies 37 and 40 Draft RSS ENV5 Structure Plan Policy P7/6 Existing Local Plan Policies E5 – E7 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Building a sustainable environment' and 'Promotion of Fenland's uniquely distinctive character'
Reasons for Preferred Option
Fenland has a rich archaeological heritage, which is vulnerable to modern development and land use. Known sites of national importance are designated as ‘Scheduled Ancient Monuments’, whilst there are other identified sites with regionally or locally important remains. However, most archaeological remains are below ground and have yet to be discovered, so their extent and significance is not known. It is therefore crucial that sites of potential archaeological interest are fully assessed by a suitably qualified person in conjunction with the County Council’s Archaeological Service.
The proposed approach seeks to resist development which adversely affects remains of known or identified national importance, whilst minimising the impact of development schemes on all types of remains – by requiring either insitu preservation or a programme of excavation and recording of remains. There will usually be a presumption in favour of insitu preservation of remains, in order to allow for improved future recording when technology has improved. However, in some cases insitu preservation may not be feasible or essential, and arrangements for the excavation, recording and reporting of results should be made.
Alternative Options Considered
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 115 6 Built Environment
None. This approach is required by national and strategic guidance.
Designations for Proposals Map
Scheduled Ancient Monuments will be shown ?
6.7 B7 Flood Risk and Drainage
Consultation Outcomes
The Environment Agency suggested specific policies on flooding such as a water efficiency policy, foul water drainage policy, and flood risk areas / assessment.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that development should:
not take place in areas at risk of flooding, unless suitable flood management and mitigation measures can be agreed and implemented not increase the risk of flooding of properties elsewhere (e.g. through additional surface water run-off, or by impeding the flow or storage of flood water) not have a detrimental effect of existing flood defences or inhibit flood control and maintenance work be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) for sites located in areas where there are a 0.1% or greater annual probability of flooding, or where there are particular issues relating to other sources of flooding and/or drainage issues. The FRA should be appropriate to the scale and nature of the development and the risks involved make use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) wherever practicable
116 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circular PPS25 ‘Development and Flood Risk’, RPG6 Policy 44 Draft RSS Policy SS14 Structure Plan Policies P1/2, P6/3 and P6/4 Existing Local Plan Policy PU1 Sustainable Community Strategy Building a sustainable environment
Reasons for Preferred Option
Flood risk is a very important issue for the district, particularly given the context of climate change with related sea-level rises and increased periods of heavy rainfall. Large parts of Fenland are reclaimed fen land, with some areas lying below se-level. Areas close to the major rivers (the Ouse and the Nene) have been subject to periodic flooding in the past, in particular in the Whittlesey and Wisbech areas. Flooding causes significant damage to properties and can potentially harm human life in serious cases – it is therefore essential that new development does not add to the risk of flooding that already exists.
Development proposals should, wherever possible, be directed to areas of low/minimal flood risk (as required by Government guidance in PPS25). However, development in areas at some risk of flooding may sometimes be unavoidable (for example, parts of the district’s market towns lie within such areas). The policy approach requires flood management and mitigation measures to be implemented in these cases, to ensure there is not net increase in risk. The use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems can help to minimise flood risk (and can also benefit biodiversity), as can design and layout measures. A Flood Risk Assessment submitted with development proposals can help to ensure that flood risk and surface water run-off issues are comprehensively considered
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 117 6 Built Environment
and addressed. The FRA should be appropriate to the scale and nature of development and risks involved. The proposed criteria for the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment (see bullet point 4 above) accords with advice in Government guidance in PPS25.
Alternative Options Considered
None. This approach is required by government and strategy guidance.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
6.8 B8 Pollution
Consultation Outcome
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that:
development proposals should be accompanied by sufficient information to enable the Council to assess whether the proposal will result in increased light, noise or vibration or would add to air, land or water pollution development proposals which result in the increased light, noise or vibration or which would add to air, land or water pollution, should only be permitted if they are acceptable in terms of:
human health and safety environment, and general amenity
where pollution is unavoidable, mitigation measures to reduce pollution levels will be required in order to meet acceptable limits
118 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPSs/PPGs/Circulars PPS23; PPG24 RPG6 Policies 37, 51 and 56 Draft RSS Policies SS3, SS16 and ENV7 Structure Plan Policy P7/8 Existing Local Plan Policies Sustainable Community Strategy 'Fenland's future generations' and 'Building a sustainable environment'
Reasons for Preferred Option
Some types of development may cause pollution to the air, water or land. The Council will seek to ensure that levels are kept to a minimum and are acceptable to human health and safety, the environment and the amenity of adjacent or nearby land users.
The council will ensure that the appropriate regulatory organisation is consulted where development is likely to, on its own or cumulatively, result in harmful levels of pollution, or where developments are located within safety consultation zones (for example, areas around pipelines, airstrips, railways, port, sewage treatment plants and waste management sites.
Alternative Options Considered
None. This approach is required by Government and strategic guidance.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 119 6 Built Environment
6.9 B9 Contaminated Land
Consultation Outcomes
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that:
developers should provide sufficient information with an application to enable the Council to asses whether it is likely that contamination has occurred in the past applicants proposing development on or near known or potentially contaminated land will be required to undertake a detailed site investigation and risk assessment and report this to the Council development on or near known or potentially contaminated land should only be permitted where sufficient measures have been put in place to deal with contamination (including remedial treatment and monitoring arrangements).
Policy Sources
PPSs/PPGs/Circulars PPS23 Draft RSS Policies SS16 Structure Plan Policy P7/8 Sustainable Community Strategy Building a sustainable environment
Reasons for Preferred Option
Land contamination is often the result of the legacy of industrial processes on a site, but may also result from accidents, spillages or be caused by elevated levels of naturally occurring substances. Land contamination causes harm to the environment and has
120 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 the potential to affect public health and safety. Unless dealt with it may inhibit the re-use of brownfield sites which may otherwise be suitable for development. Although contamination is subject to pollution control legislation, Government guidance in PPS23 makes it clear that contamination is an important consideration that should be addressed in development plans.
The proposed option seeks to ensure that potential for contamination is identified at the earliest stage in the process, and that appropriate remediation measures are agreed and put in place before development commences.
Alternative Options Considered
None. This approach is required by national and strategic guidance.
Designations for Proposals Map
None
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 121 6 Built Environment
122 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 7 Natural Environment and Resources
7.1 N1 Landscape Character
Consultation Outcomes
English Nature stressed the need for a positive policy that enhances the landscape and its diversity.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that development proposals in the countryside or on the edge of settlements should respect the character and distinctive qualities of the local landscape by:
having regard to characteristic building styles and materials, and the scale, height, density and grouping of buildings preserving important views e.g. of landmark buildings, skylines, roofscapes, or the wider countryside retaining and conserving characteristic vegetation, traditional orchards and historic landscape features such as field patterns, drains and hedgerows.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 123 7 Natural Environment and Resources
Policy Sources
PPSs/PPGs/Circulars PPS7 RPG6 Policies 12 and 37 Draft RSS Policy ENV2 Structure Plan Policy P7/4 Existing Local Plan Policies E1-E3; SPG ‘Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines’. Sustainable Community Strategy 'Building a sustainable environment' and 'Promotion of Fenland's uniquely distinctive character' Other sources ‘The Character of England: landscapes, wildlife and natural features’ (Countryside Agency/English Nature, 1996) ‘Countryside Character Volume 6: East of England’ (Countryside Agency/English Nature 1999)
Reasons for Preferred Option
An attractive and distinctive local landscape can help to raise the quality of the environment and the quality of people’s life, and can also help to support tourism. The quality of landscape in Fenland has been eroded in recent years through the introduction of new land management practices, and as a result of development. It is therefore especially important that the remaining elements of local distinctiveness like the traditional orchards around Wisbech are retained and where possible, enhanced or restored.
The County Council’s ‘Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines’ identifies distinctive landscape character areas within Fenland and has been adopted as SPG by this Council. It provides a more local context to the broad countryside character areas identified by the Countryside Agency in their 1999 publication on the East of England
124 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 (see reference above). The County Council is due to update the landscape guidelines in 2006, and it is proposed to adopt the revised document as a Supplementary Planning Document in the new Local Development Framework.
Alternative Options Considered
None. This approach is required by European, national and strategic guidance.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
7.2 N2 Biodiversity
Consultation Outcomes
English Nature stressed the need for a positive policy that enhances bio-diversity.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the plan will indicate that development proposals should seek to conserve and enhance the biodiversity value of areas which they affect. This will involve:
minimising the loss of or harm to environmental features such as trees, hedgerows, woodland and ponds, and incorporating such features in landscape schemes wherever possible. where harm to environmental features and habitat is unavoidable, providing appropriate mitigation, replacement of features or compensation considering the opportunity for habitat enrichment and creation as an integral part of schemes
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 125 7 Natural Environment and Resources
Policy Sources
PPSs/PPGs/Circulars PPS7; PPS9; Circular 6/05 ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system’ RPG6 Policies 37, 41 and 42 Draft RSS Policies ENV3 and ENV4 Structure Plan Policy P7/2 Existing Local Plan Policies E4, E5; SPG ‘Biodiversity Guidelines for Planners’ Sustainable Community Strategy Building a sustainable environment Other sources Cambridgeshire Biodiversity Action Plan and Biodiversity Checklist 2001
Reasons for Preferred Option
The District Council is committed to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity – which is defined as ‘the wealth of wildlife around us’. Policy Areas N3 and N4 relate to specially protected sites and species – whereas this policy seeks to ensure protection and enhancement of biodiversity in the wider countryside. There are many environmental features throughout the district which provide habitats for wildlife, such as trees, woodlands, ponds and hedgerows – and which do not benefit from special protection. These features are also attractive in their own right, and often add to the character and appearance of the local area. The retention of these features should therefore be secured wherever possible, and harm to individual species should also be avoided. Mitigation, replacement or compensatory measures will be required where this cannot be achieved, in order to ensure that there is no loss of environmental value as a result of development.
126 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Development can also bring new opportunities for habitat creation and to manage existing ones. The integration of biodiversity within new developments can aid the sustainability of schemes and should be encouraged in all cases. The Cambridgeshire Biodiversity Action Plan provides further information on species and habitats that are of particular importance in Cambridgeshire.
Alternative Options Considered
None. This approach is required by European, national and strategic guidance, and should help to ensure the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Fenland.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
7.3 N3 Protected Trees and Important Hedgerows
Consultation Outcomes
English Nature suggested that policies should require restoration and new planting as well as retention of existing natural features.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that proposals which harm or involve the removal of trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) or in Conservation Area should be resisted, unless:
it is in the interests of good arboricultural practice; or the proposed development would bring benefits that outweigh any damage to or loss of the trees. Policies in the Plan will indicate that development proposals which would harm or involve the loss of important hedgerows (as protected by the Hedgerow Regulations) should be resisted, unless the proposed development would bring wider benefits that outweigh any damage to or loss of the hedgerow.Where consent is given for removal of trees protected by a TPO or important hedgerows, the Council will require the planting of replacement trees or hedgerow in acceptable form.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 127 7 Natural Environment and Resources
Policy Sources
PPSs/PPGs/circulars PPS7; PPS9 RPG6 Policy 37 Draft RSS Policy ENV4 Structure Plan Policy P7/2 Existing Local Plan Policy E3 Sustainable Community Strategy Building a sustainable environment Other sources British Standard BS5827 ‘Trees in relation to construction’ Hedgerow Regulations (DoE 1997)
Reasons for Preferred Option
Cambridgeshire is the least wooded county in England, and has suffered a considerable loss of trees as a result of mechanised patterns of agriculture and development pressures. The Council has served Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs)
on trees of particular importance for their contribution to the landscape, local amenity, or which are at risk. In addition, it is recognised that trees in Conservation Areas can have an important effect on the character and appearance of such areas. Legislation requires that permission is sought from the Council for any works to or for the removal of protected trees or trees in Conservation Areas – and in addition the Council will not normally allow development schemes which would damage or involve the removal of such trees. The proposed policy option seeks to safeguard protected trees against harm or loss unless there are overriding reasons for the work to go ahead.
128 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Hedgerows often play host to a range of wildlife and plant/tree species, are attractive features in the landscape and in some cases have historical value (e.g. hedgerows which were planted in the 1700s to enclose common land). The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 allow local authorities to serve ‘Hedgerow Retention Notices’ on hedgerows which are considered important for historical, landscape or wildlife reasons, in order to protect against their loss. This only applies to hedgerows adjoining agricultural land, common land, land used for breeding/keeping horse, nature reserves or Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). The proposed policy approach seeks to support this legislation by safeguarding important hedgerows against development proposals which cause harm or loss, unless these are overriding reasons for the work to go ahead.
Alternative Options Considered
None. A criteria-based policy along with TPO legislation should ensure that important trees and hedgerows are protected against harm or loss.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
7.4 N4 Protected Sites and Species
Consultation Outcomes
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that:
development which harms sites of international and national importance for wildlife or geology should not be permitted, unless there are exceptional overriding reasons of public interest that outweigh the conservation value of the site itself and the policy to safeguard the network of such sites development which harms County Wildlife Sites, Local Nature Reserves, Ancient Woodland or important species¹should not be permitted, unless the need for and benefits of development in that location outweigh the potential harm to nature conservation interests. where harmful development is permitted, provision should be made for appropriate mitigation measures, reinstatement of features, and/or compensatory work that will enhance or recreate habitats on or off-site.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 129 7 Natural Environment and Resources
¹species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England, as defined by government (DEFRA) in the ‘Habitat Lists’ (see DEFRA website at www.defra.gov.uk)
Policy Sources
PPSs/PPGs/Circulars PPS7; PPS9, Circular 6/05 ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system’. RPG6 Policies 37, 38 and 39 Draft RSS Policy ENV3 Structure Plan Policy P7/2 Existing Local Plan Policies E4, E5 Sustainable Community Strategy Building a sustainable environment
Reasons for Preferred Option
The District contains a range of sites which are of international, national or local importance for their biodiversity or geological value. Internationally designated sites include the Ouse Washes and Nene Washes which are wetland RAMSAR sites, Special Areas for Conservation, Special Protection Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). These sites benefit from statutory protection, and therefore Government guidance advises that specific policies in respect of these sites should not be included in Local Development Documents. However, the sites will be identified on the Proposals Map.
There are a number of nationally important sites across the district including 2 designated SSSIs at Bassenhally Farm and Adventurers Land. Non-statutory sites of local importance include Country Wildlife sites of which there are over 30 in the district (as
130 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 identified in the Country Wildlife Site Register 2005). Of particular note are the Lattersey and Ring’s End Local Nature Reserves and the Kings Dyke Quarry Regionally Important Geological Site. See Appendix 2 ‘ County Wildlife Sites’.
Government guidance requires that policies are included in development plans to protect nationally and locally important sites against harmful development, and requires that these policies are included in development plans to protect nationally and locally important sites against harmful development, and requires that these policies distinguish between the different biodiversity / geological value of sites, giving a higher level of protection to national sites. The policy option seeks to achieve this.
Some animals and plants are also protected in their own right by national and European legislation. This protection makes it an offence to ill-treat or kill these species, or to destroy or obstruct their place of habitat. As these species have statutory protection, Government advises that specific policies relating to these species are not required in development plan documents. However, the Government has also identified a number of non-statutory species which are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England (as set out in the ‘Habitat Lists’ on DEFRA’s website), and states that these species should be protected by appropriate planning policies.
Alternative Options Considered
None. This approach is required by national and strategic guidance.
Designations for Proposals Map
Sites of international, national and local importance for nature conservation will be shown. This will include: Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) Special Protection Areas (SPAs) National Importance Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Local Importance County Wildlife Sites Local Nature Reserves
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 131 7 Natural Environment and Resources
7.5 N5 Renewable Energy
Consultation Outcome
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that:
proposals for new renewable energy schemes will be supported in principle, but should: minimise any adverse impacts on the environment and amenity through careful siting and design not adversely affect sites of international nature conservation importance (RAMSAR sites and Special Protection Areas) unless there are no alternative sites and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest not adversely affect sites of national conservation importance (RAMSAR sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments) unless the integrity of the area will not be compromised, and any significant adverse effects are outweighed by wider social, economic and environmental benefits make provision for the removal of facilities and reinstatement of the site, should the facilities cease to be operational Proposals over 500m²or with 10+ dwellings will be expected to: include technology for renewable energy, in order to provide at least 10% of their predicted energy requirements; or achieve an energy efficiency level whereby the amount of CO²emissions are 10% lower than the Building Control Regulations target rate
132 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy Sources
PPSs/PPGs/Circulars PPS22 RPG6 Policy 60 Draft RSS ENV8 Structure Plan Policies P1/3 and P7/7 Existing Local Plan Policy PU2 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Building a sustainable environment' and 'Fenland's future generations' Other sources Energy White Paper ‘Our energy future – creating a low carbon economy’ 2003 ‘Sustainable Energy by Design’ (Town and Country Planning Association 2006), ’ Best practice guidance ‘Planning for Renewable Energy – a companion guide to PPS22’ (ODPM 2004)
Reasons for Preferred Option
Fossil fuels, when combusted, emit carbon dioxide (CO²) and other greenhouse gases which are contributing to heating the earth’s atmosphere and causing climate change. They are also a finite resource. The Government is committed through the Kyoto Agreement to reducing CO² emissions, and is keen to increase our reliance on ‘greener’ renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro-power, biomass and geothermal technologies.
Government and strategic guidance require the inclusion of policies in the LDF which encourage renewable energy schemes, including the incorporation of small-scale renewable energy technology within all types of large development (e.g. solar panels,
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 133 7 Natural Environment and Resources
micro-scale wind power systems and geothermal heating). The proposed criteria should ensure that appropriate renewable schemes come forward and that we help to meet the Government’s CO² reduction targets.
The proposed site size threshold above which on-site renewable technologies is sought is lower than the 50+ dwelling threshold proposed in draft RSS. This is because there are very few developments that come forward each year above this threshold, and a policy seeking from these schemes only would have little impact on the Government’s renewable energy targets. A site size threshold of 10+ dwellings is therefore proposed. This threshold would appear to be a reasonable amount, taking account of viability and deliverability issues – and it accords with Government’s definition of ‘major’ schemes.
Alternative Options Considered
Increase the site size threshold above which on-site provision of renewable energy is sought
For example, the Council could seek on-site provision on schemes of 50+ dwellings, as advised in draft RSS. However, a higher threshold would be unlikely to deliver any significant benefits, due to the low number of very large schemes coming forward in the district.
Lower the site size threshold above which provision is sought
This would achieve a significant increase in the amount of renewable energy production in the district, and aid Government targets. However, it is considered that a threshold of 10 dwellings is reasonable,
Do not include the alternative option of reducing CO² emissions to 10% below target
Excluding this option would reduce flexibility for developers
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
134 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 7.6 N6 Wind Turbine Development
Consultation Outcome
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that: Proposals for wind turbines, together with any ancillary buildings and additional infrastructure, will be permitted, except where: the proposal would adversely affect international, national and local nature sites of conservation importance. the scale, siting or cumulative effect of the proposal would have an adverse impact on the visual quality of the open landscape. And subject to: the proposal making provision for appropriate habitat creation within the site where appropriate, and adequate provision being made for the protection and retention of features of archaeological or historic interest, including scheduled ancient monuments, listed buildings and the settings of these features, where appropriate, and there being no adverse effect upon the amenities of neighbouring occupiers due to noise emission, visual intrusion, shadow flicker, rejected light or electronic disturbance, and the design, colour, layout and scale of turbines and ancillary structures (including electrical connections to the national grid) being sympathetic with the surroundings so as to minimise any adverse impact, and measures being included to limit the degree of disturbance and potential danger caused by the construction and decommissioning stages and the inclusion in the proposal of an acceptable restoration scheme for the after use of the site.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 135 7 Natural Environment and Resources
Policy Sources
PPSs/PPGs/Circulars PPS22 RPG6 Policy 60 Draft RSS ENV8 Structure Plan Policies P1/3 and P7/7 Existing Local Plan Policy PU2 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Building a sustainable environment' and 'Fenland's future generations' Other sources Energy White Paper ‘Our energy future – creating a low carbon economy’ 2003 ‘Sustainable Energy by Design’ (Town and Country Planning Association 2006), Best practice guidance ‘Planning for Renewable Energy – a companion guide to PPS22’ (ODPM 2004)
Reasons for Preferred Option
Fossil fuels, when combusted, emit carbon dioxide (CO²) and other greenhouse gases which are contributing to heating the earth’s atmosphere and causing climate change. They are also a finite resource. The Government is committed through the Kyoto Agreement to reducing CO² emissions, and is keen to increase our reliance on ‘greener’ renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro-power, biomass and geothermal technologies.
Government and strategic guidance require the inclusion of policies in the LDF which encourage renewable energy schemes, including the incorporation of small-scale renewable energy technology within all types of large development (e.g. solar panels,
136 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 micro-scale wind power systems and geothermal heating). The proposed criteria should ensure that appropriate renewable schemes come forward and that we help to meet the Government’s CO² reduction targets.
Wind power is a significant renewable energy resource within the District due to the open, flat landscape. This has lead to the submission of 34 turbines within the District from 2001 – February 2006 and so far 30 turbines have received planning permission and 17 turbines built. The desirability of utilising this clean, renewable energy resource needs to be balanced primarily against the visual impact of the turbines on the landscape. The Council therefore consider it appropriate to include a specific wind turbine policy given the industry pressure.
Alternative Options Considered
None. This option and criteria is required by national guidance.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
7.7 N7 Energy Efficiency
Consultation Outcomes
31% agreed that energy efficiency levels in new buildings should be higher than Building Regulations.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that all development proposals should aim to maximise energy efficiency through sustainable design and construction, with appropriate consideration given to siting and orientation of buildings, internal design, use of materials, insulation and heat recovery.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 137 7 Natural Environment and Resources
Policy Sources
PPSs/PPGs/Circulars PPS1 RPG6 Policy 59 Draft RSS ENV8 Structure Plan Policy P1/3 Community Strategy 'Helping people into work and encouraging innovation and enterprise' and ' Fenland's future generations' Other sources Energy White Paper ‘Our energy future: creating allow carbon economy’ (2003) ‘Proposals for introducing a Code for Sustainable Homes (ODPM 2005) ‘Sustainable Energy by Design’ (TCPA 2006), Good practice guidance ‘Sustainable Construction in Cambridgeshire a good practice guide’ (Cambridgeshire Horizons and Cambridgeshire County Council 2006)
Reasons for Preferred Option
The efficient use of energy can help to reduce CO² emissions, and help to meet Government targets. It is therefore appropriate that all development schemes maximise energy efficiency. However, Government and strategic guidance only permits local authorities to ‘encourage’ developers to achieve this – we cannot require, for example, that all development schemes exceed minimum Building Regulation standards.
Alternative Options Considered
None. This approach is required by national and strategic guidance.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
138 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 8 Community Services and Facilities
8.1 S1 Requirements for Growth
Consultation Outcomes
Preferred Option
Policy
The Plan will make provision for further education, schools, health facilities, strategic leisure and sport facilities to meet the needs of a growing population. The identification and allocation of land for new community services and facilities will be explored through the production of the Site Specific Proposals DPD. Any new provision (at least 500 square metres floorspace or 0.5 hectares in area) will be located in or adjoining the market towns and key/limited service centres, with priority given to sites in/adjoining market towns.
Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS7and PPG17 RPG6 Policies 21, 63 – 65 Structure Plan Policies P3/1, P3/2 and 4/1 Existing Local Plan Policies CF1 – 3 Sustainable Community Strategy Building communities with decent homes, a sense of place and purpose
Reasons for Preferred Option
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 139 8 Community Services and Facilities
The expansion of Fenland can only be assured if there is sufficient provision of quality community services and facilities. Government and strategic guidance emphasises that this is an essential requirement for the creation of balanced sustainable communities.
The expansion of the Isle College and College of West Anglia will retain both Post 16 education in Wisbech and provide a new further education establishment in March serving the whole of Fenland. The District Council will continue to work with the County Education Authority to maintain adequate provision for education in Fenland’s settlements. New primary schools in Chatteris, March and Wisbech are likely dependent on scale of growth (see H2) The District Council will work with the new Cambridgeshire PCT to secure adequate provision of health facilities in Fenland, in particular new health centres in Chatteris and Wisbech to complement recent new provision in March and Whittlesey.
Alternative Options Considered
None. Government and strategic guidance requires the Council to make adequate provision for community services and facilities over the Plan period.
Designations For Proposals Map
Any allocation identified through the Site Specific Proposals DPD will be shown on the Proposals Map.
8.2 S2 Retention of Local Services and Facilities
Consultation Outcomes
83% respondents want to continue to try and prevent shops, pubs and post offices from closing in all villages. Only 22% supported limiting closure only in the smaller villages (under 1000 population)
140 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that:
there will be a presumption that key village services and facilities (including local shops, post offices, pubs, petrol filling stations, community meeting places and health care facilities) should be retained, unless there is evidence that the use is not viable nor likely to become viable. in market towns, the loss of key services and facilities will not be appropriate if this results in an unacceptable reduction in the availability of these services/facilities. The following factors will be key in assessing whether the impact is unacceptable:
The presence of other alternative services/facilities in the settlement/neighbourhood in equally accessible locations The contribution of the facility to the vitality and viability of the town centre/neighbourhood and to the social amenity of an area
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 141 8 Community Services and Facilities
Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPS6 and PPS7 RPG6 Policy 12 Draft RSS Policy SS9 Structure Plan Policies P3/3 and P3/4 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Helping people live healthy, independent lives' and 'Access to information and services for all'
Reasons for Preferred Option
The loss of services and facilities in villages can have a significant impact on the local community, in terms of the availability and access to services (particularly for those without a car), and on the social and economic vitality of the village as a whole. The loss can also impact on the environment by increasing the need to travel. National guidance in PPS7 emphasises the need to ensure the retention of village shops and services, and this is reflected in the proposed option.
The loss of services and facilities in market towns can also have an impact on the local community, even where the facility is not the last one in the settlement. The reduction of available services and facilities can impact on the health of town centres / neighbourhoods, and can affect people living in the wider rural area served by the market town, as well as local inhabitants. The proposed option seeks to prevent the loss of market town services and facilities where a demand for them still exists.
Alternative Options Considered
None. National planning guidance in PPS6 and PPS7 requires LDFs to include policies which support the retention of key local services and facilities.
142 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Designations for Proposals Map
None.
8.3 S3 Protection of Open Space and Recreational Facilities
Consultation Outcomes
72% supported the protection of important open space through a criteria based policy. However 69% also considered the identification of all important open spaces would help their protection
Sport England supported the use of both criteria and designation policies. A separate policy on the protection of playing fields should be included based on PPG 17.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that proposals resulting in the loss/reduction of existing open space and recreational facilities, whether public, private or educational, should be resisted, unless:
they would be replaced by an area/facility of equal or improved quantity and quality, and in an accessible location the site/facility is surplus to identified current and future recreation requirements, and not important in visual, strategic or nature conservation terms
Policy Sources
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 143 8 Community Services and Facilities
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPG17 RPG6 Policy 37 Draft RSS Policies C4 and C5 Structure Plan Policy P4/3 Existing Local Plan Policies R5 and R6 Sustainable Community Strategy Helping people live healthy, independent lives
Reasons for Preferred Option
Open spaces and recreational facilities provide a vital resource for the local community, and help to define the character and quality of an area. They can also provide a haven for wildlife and biodiversity. Open spares and recreational facilities includes parks, village greens, allotments, play areas, playing fields and built sporting facilities.
The proposed policy approach seeks to protect these facilities, irrespective of ownership, against loss or reduction, unless appropriate alternative arrangements can be provided, or the facility is not required and has no other recognised value to the local community. This should help to maintain the quality of people’s lives and the quality of the natural and built environment.
Alternative Options Considered
Identify all facilities which are required for recreational purposes or are important to retain for visual /strategic /nature conservation reasons
This would be an alternative to a criteria-based approach. However, it would be an extremely time-consuming exercise, and there is the risk that sites may be missed. The criteria-based approach proposed above will enable facilities to be assessed as they come forward, and should provide appropriate protection.
144 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Designations For Proposals Map
None
8.4 S4 Telecommunications
Consultation Outcomes
All respondents (100%) supported the following proposed telecommunications criteria
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that proposals for telecommunication development should: be located and designed to minimise its impact on the character and appearance of an area demonstrate that the potential to share masts or other sites has been explored provide evidence of operational need for the proposed development If approved, should include conditions requiring the removal of equipment and reinstatement of the site to its former condition when it becomes surplus to operational requirements
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 145 8 Community Services and Facilities
Policy Sources
PPSs/PPSs/Circulars PPG8 Draft RSS Policy E6 Structure Plan Policy P6/5 Existing Local Plan Policy PU2 Sustainable Community Strategy 'Helping people live healthy, independent lives' and ' access to information and services for all'
Reasons for Preferred Option
Effective telecommunications (for example, mobile phones and Broadband IT) are of benefit to the economy and the local community. They can enable businesses to participate in e-commerce and operate in a global market, and help reduce the need to travel for work, shopping and information/learning. It is government policy to promote the growth of telecommunication systems, whilst keeping the environmental impact to a minimum. The proposed approach seeks to achieve this by setting out criteria to guide the location, siting and design of equipment. Conditions to remove redundant equipment can also help to ensure that unnecessary environmental intrusion is avoided.
Alternative Options Considered
None. This option is required by national and strategic guidance.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
146 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 9 Transport
9.1 T1 Managing the Need to Travel
Consultation Outcomes
Stakeholders suggested that consideration needed to be given to the following issues:
Policies need to address public transport & smarter choice measures There is a need to address the issues of reducing the need to travel References to demand management measures should be included There is confusion between managing and reducing the need to travel The policy must take account of mitigation measures There is not enough integration between the transport policies and strategy and the wider LDF and Core Strategy
A review of the original policy also determined that too many issues were being covered within one policy and that for clarity it was better to separate each area. Matters relating to design and local character will now be covered through Policy B1 Design. This policy has also been re-titled and a new policy on Reducing the Need to Travel has been added below.
Preferred Option
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 147 9 Transport
Policy
Policies in the plan will indicate that development proposals should consider managing travel behaviour and offering travel by all modes through:
providing an appropriate network of walking & cycling routes including cycle parking as set out in policy T3
being accessible by public transport or community transport, within a 30 minute journey time
consider the movement of freight by road, rail and the port at Wisbech including supporting infrastructure such as lorry parks to manage these networks effectively.
making safe, efficient & convenient use of existing transport networks including walking, cycling, public transport and roads, whilst recognising that applications which would exceed the capacity of local networks should be refused.
being accompanied by a Transport Assessment where a development scheme is likely to have significant transport implications. For all other development proposals there should be an accompanying Transport Statement
being accompanied by a Travel Plan for non-residential major development or development that is likely to have significant transport implications.
where appropriate take account of the developments’ transport impact on a neighbouring authorities transport infrastructure including roads, cycleways and footpaths.
Policy Sources
148 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPG13, Guidance on Transport Assessment RPG6 Policies 27 and 33 Draft RSS Policies T1, T8, T10, T12 and T13 Structure Plan Policies P8/1, P8/2, P8/3 P8/4 and P8/8 Sustainable Community Strategy ‘Fenland’s Future Generations’ ‘helping people live healthy, independent lives’ ‘Making Communities safer & stronger’ ‘access to information and services for all’
Reasons for Preferred Option
There is a need to manage how we travel to reduce congestion, pollution and to improve quality of life for local people in ways such as better air quality and reduced noise levels. The transfer of journeys from cars to public transport and/or walking and cycling are very significant for managing how we travel. Managing the journeys we make and the mode of transport that we use will also maximise the potential and make best use of the existing transport infrastructure available.
Ensuring that there are good quality public transport networks and walking and cycling infrastructure is essential for encouraging people to travel by a range of transport modes. This vision is shared by the Fenland Strategic Partnership, the overall sustainable development principles set out in CP1 and the Local Transport Plan (LTP).
The Cambridgeshire LTP 2006 – 2011 was prepared in partnership with the District Council’s and other transport stakeholders. It sets out the following six objectives which are supported by this policy:
To create a transport system that is accessible to all To protect and enhance the built and natural environment To develop integrated transport and to promote public transport, walking, cycling and other sustainable forms of transport To make travel safer To maintain and operate efficient transport networks To provide a transport system that supports the economy and the growing population of the County.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 149 9 Transport
The Council supports the transfer of freight from roads to the railways and ports (see also policy GP3 on Wisbech Port). There is potential to build on recent developments in this area including the delivery of Network Rail’s Rail Infrastructure Depot at Whitemoor Yard in March and the Port at Wisbech, which would encourage more sustainable growth of freight. It is important however to recognise the contribution of road freight within Fenland and to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure provision for this sector, ensuring there are enough lorry parks and associated provision needs to be addressed. Consideration will be given to allocations for a lorry park in the south and north of the district as part of the LDF Site Specific Proposals.
In managing the need to travel the traffic and transport impact of new developments is a key consideration. Transport impact information provided by applicants should help the Council to determine the impact of proposals. For large and complex schemes this information should take the form of a detailed Transport Assessment, setting out full impacts and potential mitigation measures. For smaller schemes a transport statement will be sufficient setting out potential trip levels and any other local transport schemes.
Non-residential schemes which have potential to generate significant transport impacts will also be required to submit a Travel Plan. This can enable options for sustainable travel and reduction in car use to be explored.
This option also assists with issues that are raised in the Transport Evidence Base Report around poor public transport in rural areas, the need to improve and promote walking and cycling, and making efficient use of existing transport infrastructure, travel to work issues and cross boundary issues.
Alternative Options Considered
None. This option is required by national and strategic guidance.
Designations for Proposals Map
None. Allocations for the lorry parks will form part of the Site Specific Proposals.
9.2 T2 Reducing the Need to Travel
Consultation Outcomes
Please see the consultation outcomes for Policy T1 Managing the Need to Travel above.
Preferred Option
150 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Policy
Polices in the Plan will indicate that development proposals should:
for major housing and employment allocations be located in sustainable locations and comply with council policy on broad locations (see spatial strategy above) and policy GP1 on employment
for other developments ensure they are located near to existing services and facilities for local needs taking account of the scale of the development & the Settlement Hierarchy as determined by policy CP2
they comply with policy S2 concerning the retention of local services & facilities
consider opportunities to incorporate home working and internet provision to assist with the provision of services such as home shopping. This will ensure access to goods and services beyond those provided locally for every day needs.
Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPG13 RPG6 Policies 12, 27 and 29 Draft RSS Policies E6, E9 & T1 Structure Plan Policies P3/3, P3/4, P6/5, P8/1, P8/8, P8/9 Sustainable Community Strategy ‘Fenland’s Future Generations’ ‘helping people live healthy, independent lives’ ‘Making Communities safer & stronger’ ‘access to information and services for all’
Reason for Preferred Option
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 151 9 Transport
Whilst Policy T1 considers the development of a range of transport choices together with the management of the existing network, there also needs to be consideration of whether there is a need to travel at all. The purpose of Policy T2 is about creating opportunities that reduce the need to travel.
The spatial strategy approach to broad locations and GP2 on the location and scale of employment development are concerned with ensuring that major new locations for developments are within sustainable settlements and are close to existing services and facilities.
The Transport Evidence Base shows that over 6% of the Fenland working population already work from home. Work with the Fenland Strategic Partnership to deliver Parish Plans has also shown the popularity of internet use, access to broadband and the potential for and use of internet shopping. Policies to encourage further use of home internet services for work purposes or for the purchase of goods and services beyond those of everyday needs, will reduce the overall numbers of journeys being made. As employers continue to develop family friendly and flexible working policies greater opportunities should be available for people to work from home on a permanent basis or part-time. The potential for part-time working from home could make a significant difference to overall volumes of traffic on the road network.
Key to the success of reducing the need to travel is the potential for accessing goods and services for every day needs within local communities. Access to services such as local shops and post offices within walking distance of people’s homes is crucial for reducing travel. Policy S2 concerning the retention of local services and facilities is therefore important for the overall viability of Policy T2.
Alternative Options Considered
None. National and strategic guidance requires consideration of reducing the need to travel.
Designations for Proposals Map
None.
9.3 T3 Car and Cycle Parking
Consultation Outcomes
There is wide ranging support for the inclusion of cycle parking standards and disabled car parking standards. This confirms previous consultation responses where residents were asked to determine which types of development schemes should have cycle parking. They concluded that cycle parking should be included
152 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 at Shops (67%), Leisure & Community Facilities (96%), Health Facilities (78%) and Green Spaces (72%). Concerns have been raised about the suggested policy of increasing residential parking standards from 1.5 spaces per dwellings to 2 spaces in non town centre locations. In a previous consultation, 54% of respondents felt this policy was appropriate.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that:
development proposals should limit the amount of car parking to levels set out in the Council’s proposed parking standards in Appendix 3 ‘ Car and Cycle Parking Standards’ development proposals should provide adequate levels of parking for people with impaired mobility , and cycle parking, as set out in the Council’s proposed parking standards in Appendix 3 ‘ Car and Cycle Parking Standards’ public parking provided in development schemes should be shared with other users, where the location and patterns of use allow
Policy Sources
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 153 9 Transport
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPG13, PPG3, Consultation Draft PPS3 (December 2005) RPG6 Policy 27 Draft RSS Policy T16 Structure Plan Policies P8/5 Sustainable Community Strategy ‘Fenland’s Future Generations’ ‘helping people live healthy, independent lives’ ‘Making Communities safer & stronger’ ‘access to information and services for all’
Reasons for Preferred option
Limiting the amount of parking can encourage more sustainable forms of transport and reduce car use. It can also help to minimise densities and make better use of land. This is especially the case in non-residential development in urban locations where there is a reasonable choice of public transport. However, an appropriate level of car parking needs to be provided within a scheme to reflect local circumstances. In rural parts of the district there are often few alternatives to the car and parking policies need to avoid causing congestion on nearby streets and roads.
The proposed policy option seeks to ensure that an appropriate level of car and cycle parking is provided. The proposed car parking standards in Appendix 3 ‘ Car and Cycle Parking Standards’ are based on national guidance in PPG3 and PPG13 are maximum standards. However, it is noted and welcomed that PPS3 does not include the 1.5 spaces per dwelling standard set out in PPG3. It is considered that for larger properties (3 or 4 bedrooms) in very rural areas, where public transport may not be available and residents have to rely on private vehicles, this standard can cause on-street congestion and detract from the environmental quality of residential developments.
In non-residential schemes, parking for people with impaired mobility will be sought to levels advised by the Department for Transport. It is also important to provide adequate cycle parking in order to encourage more sustainable forms of transport.
Encouraging development schemes which provide public car parking to share this facility should help to reduce the overall number of car parking spaces required in an area, and make better use of land.
154 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Alternative Options Considered
None. This option is required by national and strategic guidance.
Designations for Proposals Map
None
9.4 T4 Walking, Cycling and Public Rights of Way
Consultation Outcomes
There was general support for the principles of the policy and the need to encourage more walking and cycling. Key issues still needing to be addressed are:
The policy should consider wheelchair access and the need to enhance the benefits of walking and cycling The consideration of the gaps in the network and how these will be overcome The need for more encouragement for Safe Routes to Schools and cycle path initiatives.
Preferred Option
Policy
Policies in the Plan will indicate that development proposals should:
protect existing public rights of way, roadside paths and other routes with established access
provide walking and cycling opportunities to enhance or extend the existing network of rights of way and other public routes, and to provide new links – particularly where this would improve access to key services and facilities (including safer routes to schools), employment areas or the open countryside
ensure that all routes are built to a high quality standard and designed to enable access for all and to maximise opportunities for the network to deliver wider benefits, or assist initiatives such as walking for health schemes and Safe Routes to Schools
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 155 9 Transport
Policy Sources
PPGs/PPSs/Circulars PPG13, Manual for Streets RPG6 Policy 27 Draft RSS Policies T12 and T13 Structure Plan Policies P8/1, P8/2, P/4 and P8/8 Sustainable Community Strategy ‘Fenland’s Future Generations’ ‘helping people live healthy, independent lives’ ‘Making Communities safer & stronger’ ‘access to information and services for all’
Reasons for Preferred Option
A significant number of journeys are less than 3km distance and could therefore be made by foot or cycle – however, the lack of suitable routes often prevents this. Similarly, a lack of suitable routes limits the amount of recreational activity that takes place, including access to the countryside for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders. It is important that development schemes protect and enhance existing links (including public rights of way, roadside paths, other permissive routes, bridleways and the national cycle network), and look for opportunities to provide new links. Improving access to services and facilities is important in helping to reduce car use and benefit the environment, whilst increased opportunities for leisure and recreation, particularly access to the countryside, can benefit human health and people’s quality of life.
The protection of existing routes should involve preventing closure or diversion, unless suitable alternative routes can be provided. Alternative routes should ensure that they do not inconvenience users by providing longer or more difficult journeys.
The Transport Evidence Base identifies the need for a better understanding of the walking and cycling networks that exist within Fenland. The Transport Strategy and Policy Document will set out a programme including promotion and publicity of the network that will aim to identify gaps and issues in the network which should be addressed. The implementation of Policy T4 will assist with address gaps and creating new links in the network.
156 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Ensuring that networks are provided close to services and facilities and where people live will encourage their use especially for short journeys. This will also make the network more useable and better able to assist practitioners to implement schemes aimed at encouraging or more walking and cycling and improve people’s health. Walking and cycling infrastructure should be located where its potential can be maximised for both utility and recreational journeys.
Alternative Options Considered
None. This option is required by national and strategic guidance.
Designation for Proposals Map
None
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 157 9 Transport
158 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Appendix 1 Maps Identifying Broad Locations
Map 1.1 Broad locations for Chatteris
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 159 Appendix 1 Maps Identifying Broad Locations
Map 1.2 Broad Locations for March
160 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Map 1.3 Broad locations for Whittlesey Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 161 Appendix 1 Maps Identifying Broad Locations
Map 1.4 Broad location for Wisbech
162 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Appendix 2 County Wildlife Sites
Block Fen Gravel Pits
Fortrey’s Hall Heronry
Forty Foot Drain (East)
Langwood Hill Pit
Sutton Mepal Pumping Station Drains
Goosetree Heronry
Guyhirn Reed Bed
Leverington Gull
Bedlam Hill Pit
Manea Pit
Gault Bank Pollard Willows
Norwood Nature Reserve
Whitemoor Pit and Nature Reserve
Whitemoor Marshalling Yard
North Level Main Drain at Tydd Gote
Aliwal Road Pollard Willows
Common Wash
East Delph Pollard Willows
Eldernell Gravel Pits
Funtham’s Pit
Lattersey Local Nature Reserve
Long Gravel Pit
Nene Washes Counter Drain (East)
Nene Washes Counter Drain (West)
Pit southeast of Bassenhally Pit
Railway Lakes
Stanground Gullet and Bradley’s Pit
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 163 Appendix 2 County Wildlife Sites
Block Fen Gravel Pits
Wimblington Common Gravel Pits
River Nene (FDC)
164 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Appendix 3 Car and Cycle Parking Standards
Proposed Car Parking and Cycle Parking Standards
Guidance in draft PPS3 requires that local planning authorities develop parking policies for their plan area with local stakeholders and local communities, having regard to expected car ownership for planned housing in different locations, the efficient use of land and the importance of promoting good design. This follows from previous guidance in PPG3 and PPG13 to reduce the amount of parking to that which is needed rather than adhering to rigid minimum parking standards in order to make best use of land and encourage more sustainable development and the use of other modes of travel. In the light of that guidance non-residential developments have been considered on their own merits, and residential planning applications have in recent years been determined using a rule of thumb of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling. However, in non town centre locations it is proposed this is increased to 2 parking spaces per dwelling.
The availability of car parking can have a significant impact on choice of travel. Limiting car parking spaces in new developments, together with the encouragement of more sustainable transport methods can help reduce car use and associated fuel consumption, congestion and pollution. The proposed parking standards aim to ensure that developments provide adequate off-street parking to accommodate the needs they generate, whilst protecting surrounding areas and development. The standards will apply as maximum levels of provision, except for the provision of disabled parking, and unless a higher level of parking need can be demonstrated by the applicant, as a special case. Shared use of parking will be encouraged, particularly in town centres and as part of major proposals, for example offices and leisure users may be able to share parking provision as their peak levels of use would not coincide.
Cycle parking standards are also proposed to encourage more sustainable travel patterns. These are set as a minimum , as the availability of secure cycle parking is a key factor in determining whether people chose to cycle or not. Cycle parking for employees should, wherever practicable, be covered and in a convenient and secure location. Short stay parking for shoppers and leisure users should be located as near as possible to the entrance of the building and covered by natural surveillance of CCTV.
The proposed parking standard take into account current guidance in PPG3, PPG13 and draft PPS3 and standards used by local authorities with a similar rural character to Fenland. They are set out in the same format as the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Amendment) Order 2005.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 165 166 Appendix Core Table 5 Maximum Car Parking Provision
Strategy (Measurements of floor space refer to gross areas, unless otherwise stated) Use class and nature Staff / residents Public / visitors Minimum cycle Notes of activity parking provision and
Retail & Financial services 3 Development
A1: Retail (food) Allowance included in Up to 1 car space per 1 cycle space per The car parking Car standard for public and 14m2 25m2 standards apply to
visitors all sizes of and scheme, but for A1: Retail (non-food) Allowance included in Up to 1 car space per 1 cycle space per 2
2 2 those up to 100m Cycle
Policies standard for public and 20m 50m (gross) a higher visitors level of provision
A2: Financial and Allowance included in Up to 1 car space per 1 cycle space per may be allowed in Parking 2 2 Preferred professional services standard for public and 25m 30m locations that do visitors not have good access by walking, cycling or Standards
Options public transport 2 (Measurements of floor space refer to gross areas, unless otherwise stated) Use class and nature Staff / residents Public / visitors Minimum cycle Notes of activity parking provision Food and Drink A3, A4, A5: Allowance included in Up to 1 car space per 1 cycle space per Roadside Core Restaurants & cafés, standard for public and 5m2 20m2 restaurants/ pubs/bar & hot food visitors transport cafes
Strategy takeaways will require lorry parking provision A: Sui Generis Up to 7 spaces per 10 Allowance included in On merit on merit (including retail staff members standard for staff and warehouse clubs, launderettes, Development taxi/vehicle hire premises, amusement centres) A: Sui Generis Up to 1 car space per Up to 1 car space per On merit (including motor vehicle staff member 45m2 of display area, Policies sales, motor repair 1 per 35m2 for motor garages, petrol filling service centre, 1 per stations) 20m2 retail floor area Preferred (at petrol stations) Options 2 167 168 Appendix Core (Measurements of floor space refer to gross areas, unless otherwise stated)
Strategy Use class and nature Staff / residents Public / visitors Minimum cycle Notes of activity parking provision Business and
B1: Business Up to 1 car space per Allowance included in 1 cycle space per 3 The car parking 3 Development 30m2 standard for staff staff members standards apply to all sizes of Car B2: General industrial Up to 1 car space per Allowance included in 1 cycle space per scheme, but for 50m² standard for staff 50m² B1 proposals up and B8: Storage and Up to 1 car space per Allowance included in On merit to 2,500m² (gross) Cycle
Policies Distribution 100m² standard for staff a higher level of provision may be allowed in
locations that do Parking Preferred not have good access by walking, cycling or
public transport Standards Options 2 (Measurements of floor space refer to gross areas, unless otherwise stated) Use class and nature Staff / residents Public / visitors Minimum cycle Notes of activity parking provision Communal accommodation C1: Hotels Up to 1 car space per Up to 1 car space per 1 cycle space per 3 Additional car
Core staff bedroom, plus up to guest bedroom staff members working parking can be 1 space for every 2 at the same time provided for bars,
Strategy non-resident staff restaurants and members other facilities available to the public, using the and relevant
Development standards for those uses. C2: Residential Up to 1 car space for Up to 1 car space per 1 cycle space per 3 Staff car and Institutions each resident staff 4 residents members of staff cycle parking member, plus up to 1 relates to the total
Policies space for every 2 number of non-resident staff workers required members on staff at particular times Preferred (including overlapping shifts) C3: Dwellings (town 1 car space per dwelling Up to 1 car space per 1 cycle space per Cycle parking for
Options centres) (average per 6 units bedroom dwellings can be development) accommodated within garages, 2 169 170 Appendix Core (Measurements of floor space refer to gross areas, unless otherwise stated)
Strategy Use class and nature Staff / residents Public / visitors Minimum cycle Notes of activity parking provision C3: Dwellings (other 1.5 - 2 car spaces per Up to 1 car space per 1 cycle space per provided there is and locations) dwelling (average per 4 units dwelling room for both car development dependant and cycle parking 3 Development
on mix and urban / rural Car location) and Cycle Policies Parking Preferred Standards Options 2 (Measurements of floor space refer to gross areas, unless otherwise stated) Use class and nature Staff / residents Public / visitors Minimum cycle Notes of activity parking provision Community facilities D1: Non-Residential Up to 1 car space for Up to 1 car space per 1 cycle space per 5
Core Institutions (museums, each staff member 30m² staff members, plus at libraries, galleries, least 1 space per
Strategy exhibition halls) 150m² D1: Non-residential Allowance included in Up to 1 car space per 1 cycle space per 8 Institutions (public halls standard for 4 seats, or up to 1 seats or at least 1 and and places of worship) public/visitors space per 15m² space per 20m²
Development D1: Non-residential Up to 1 car space for Up to 1 car space per Creche/Nurseries: 1 Institutions (schools, each member of staff class, up to a limit of space per 2 staff crèches/ nurseries) 8 spaces members working at the same time. Primary schools: 6 cycle spaces per Policies class; Secondary schools: 12 spaces per class Preferred D2: Assembly and Allowance included in Up to 1 car space per 1 cycle space per Leisure (cinemas and standard for 5 seats 50m² or at least 1 conference facilities) public/visitors space per 8 seats
Options D2:Assembly and Allowance included in Up to 1 car space per 1 cycle space per Leisure (other uses) standard for 22m² 30m² of net public/visitors 2 171 172 Appendix Core (Measurements of floor space refer to gross areas, unless otherwise stated)
Strategy Use class and nature Staff / residents Public / visitors Minimum cycle Notes of activity parking provision floor area and 1 space and per 15 spectator seats 3 Development Car and Cycle Policies Parking Preferred Standards Options 2 In addition to the above, a minimum number of car parking spaces for the disabled will be required at the level recommended by the Department of Transport (see Inclusive Mobility, 2002). It should be noted that this does not guarantee that the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act would be met. Under the Act it is the responsibility of the site occupiers to ensure that adequate provision is made for the needs of the disabled. Spaces must be of a size to meet current Building Regulations, and clearly marked.
Table 6 Minimum Disabled Parking Provision
Nature of activity Staff Public/Visitors Notes
Existing business At least 1 space for each At least 2% of car park premises disabled employee capacity (minimum of 1 space)
New business premises At least 5% of car park Allowance included in capacity (minimum of 1 standard for staff space)
Shopping areas; leisure At least 1 space for each At least 6% of car park Additional spaces and recreational disable employee capacity (minimum of 1 may be required for facilities; other places space) hotels and other open to the public places that cater for large number of disabled people.
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 173 Appendix 3 Car and Cycle Parking Standards
174 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 Appendix 4 Glossary of Terms
Term Description Annual Monitoring Assesses the implementation of the LDS and extent to which Report (AMR) the policies in LDDs are being achieved. Community Strategy The Local Government Act 2000 requires local authorities to prepare a Community Strategy. It sets out the broad vision for the future of the local authority’s area and proposals for delivering that vision. Core Strategy (CS) Sets out the long-term spatial vision for the local planning authority area and the strategic policies and proposals to deliver that vision. It also includes criteria-based policies which are required to ensure that all development within the area meets the vision and strategy set out in the core strategy. Development Plan Spatial planning documents that are subject to independent Document (DPD) examination. There will be a right for those making representations seeking change to put this to an independent examination on the DPD. Local Development Comprises a portfolio of local development documents which Framework (LDF) will provide the framework for delivering the spatial planning strategy for the area. Local Development Documents setting out land use policy prepared under Document (LDD) Planning legislation. Can either be a Development Plan Document or a Supplementary Planning Document. Local Development Sets out the program for the preparation of the local Scheme (LDS) development documents. The first LDS must be submitted to Secretary of State for approval within six months of the commencement date of the Act. Local Strategic Non-statutory, non-executive body bringing together Partnership (LSP) representatives of the public, private and voluntary sectors. The LSP is responsible for preparing the Community Strategy. Proposals Map A map based representation of the Spatial Plan identifying areas for protection and sites for particular uses of land and
Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2 175 Appendix 4 Glossary of Terms
Term Description development proposals. The Proposals Map is revised when each new Development Plan Document is adopted. Spatial Planning Policy planning that goes beyond traditional land use matters and deals with wider issues such as general policy priorities and resources. Supplementary Formally known as Supplementary Planning Guidance - Planning Document SPG) these contain policy guidance to supplement the (SPD) policies and proposals in Development Plan Documents. Site-specific policies Policies referring to land allocations for specific or mixed uses or development. Policies will identify any specific requirements for individual proposals. PINS Independent Planning Inspectorate responsible for binding reports on Development Plans.
176 Core Strategy and Development Policies Preferred Options 2