Upload
hoangtuong
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan
Results of Consultation on the Proposed Submission Local Plan
Summary of representations and key issues
Published by South Cambridgeshire District Council
© Published March 2014
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Contents Page i
RESULTS OF CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSED SUBMISSION LOCAL PLAN CONTENTS
1 Chapter 1: Introduction
1 Paragraph 1.1 – 1.2
( Background to the plan, the evidence base and the consultation undertaken to
prepare it)
2 Paragraphs 1.9 – 1.12 ( What the plan does and how it is prepared)
3 What happens next (Paragraph 1.15)
4 Paragraph 1.17
What comprises the Development Plan for South Cambridgeshire
5 Chapter 2: Spatial Strategy
5 Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.11: Introductory paragraphs
5 Paragraphs 2.12 and 2.13: Duty to Cooperate
6 Paragraphs 2.14 to 2.17: Joint Spatial Approach to Cambridge and South
Cambridgeshire
7 Paragraphs 2.18 to 2.19: The Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South
Cambridgeshire
8 Comparing the Development Strategy to 2031 with the Structure Plan (paragraphs
2.20 and 2.23)
8 S/1 Vision (and paragraphs 2.24 and 2.25)
9 S/2 Objectives of the Local Plan (and paragraph 2.26)
11 S/3 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development (and paragraph 2.27)
12 S/4: Cambridge Green Belt (and paragraphs 2.28 to 2.33)
15 S/5 Provision of New Jobs and Homes (and paragraphs 2.34 to 2.41)
19 S/6 The Development Strategy to 2031(and paragraphs 2.42 to 2.46 and Figure 1
Key Diagram for South Cambridgeshire and Figure 2 Key Diagram for Cambridge
and South Cambridgeshire)
22 S/7 Development Frameworks (and paragraphs 2.48 to 2.49)
25 S/8 Rural Centres (and paragraphs 2.51 to 2.54)
26 S/9 Minor Rural Centres (and paragraphs 2.55 to 2.57)
28 S/10 Group Villages (and paragraph 2.58)
29 S/11 Infill Villages (and paragraph 2.59)
31 S/12 Phasing, Delivery and Monitoring (and paragraphs 2.60 to 2.67 and Figure 3
Housing Trajectory)
32 Paragraphs 2.68 to 2.70 Monitoring and Figure 4 Monitoring Indicators
33 Chapter 3: Strategic Sites
33 Paragraphs 3.1 – 3.3: Introductory Paragraphs
33 SS/1 Orchard Park (paragraph 3.5)
34 SS/2 North West Cambridge - Land between Huntingdon Road and Histon Road
(paragraphs 3.14, 3.16, 3.18, and 3.19)
36 SS/3 Cambridge East (paragraph 3.25)
37 SS/4 Cambridge Northern Fringe East and land surrounding the proposed
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page ii Contents
Cambridge Science Park Station (paragraphs 3.30 and 3.31)
39 Figure 5: Illustration of Major Development Areas at West Cambridge, NIAB, North
West Cambridge and Orchard Park
39 SS/5 Waterbeach New Town (paragraphs 3.34, 3.35, 3.36, 3.37 and 3.39)
43 SS/6 New Village at Bourn Airfield
46 SS/7: Northstowe Extension (paragraph 3.49)
47 SS/8: Cambourne West (paragraphs 3.51, 3.55, 3.56, 3.60)
51 Chapter 4: Climate Change
51 Paragraphs 4.1 – 4.5: Introductory Paragraphs
51 CC/1 Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change (and paragraphs 4.6 - 4.12)
52 CC/2 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation (and paragraphs 4.13 –
4.15)
54 CC/3 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy in New Developments (and paragraphs
4.16 – 4.17)
56 CC/4 Sustainable Design and Construction (and paragraphs 4.18 – 4.21)
57 CC/5 Sustainable Show Homes (and paragraphs 4.22 – 4.23)
58 CC/6 Construction Methods (and paragraphs 4.24 – 4.26)
59 CC/7 Water Quality (and Paragraphs 4.27 to 4.30)
59 CC/8 Sustainable Drainage Systems (and Paragraphs 4.31 to 4.33)
60 CC/9 Managing Flood Risk (and Paragraphs 4.34 to 4.37)
63 Chapter 5: Delivering High Quality Places
63 HQ/1 Design Principles (and paragraphs 5.1 – 5.9)
64 HQ/2 Public Art and New Development (and paragraphs 5.10 - 5.13)
65 Chapter 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment
65 Key Facts ( and paragraphs 6.1- 6.4)
65 NH/1: Conservation Area and Green Separation at Longstanton (and paragraph
6.5)
66 NH/2 Protecting and enhancing Landscape Character (and paragraphs 6.6 - 6.11)
66 NH/3 Protecting Agricultural Land (and paragraphs 6.12 - 6.14)
67 NH/4 Biodiversity (and paragraphs 6.15 - 6.18)
68 NH/5 Sites of Biodiversity or Geological Importance (and paragraphs 6.19 – 6.26)
68 NH/6 Green Infrastructure (and paragraphs 6.27 - 6.31)
70 NH/7 Ancient Woodlands and Veteran Trees (and paragraph 6.32 – 6.33)
70 NH/8 Mitigating the Impact of Development in and adjoining the Green Belt (and
paragraph 6.34 – 6.35 )
71 NH/9 Redevelopment of Previously Developed Sites and Infilling in the Green Belt
(and paragraph 6.36)
72 NH/10 Recreation in the Green Belt ( and paragraphs 6.37 – 6.38)
73 NH/11 Protected Village Amenity Areas
74 NH/12 Local Green Space
79 NH/13 Important Countryside Frontage
81 NH/14 Heritage Assets (and paragraphs 6.43 – 6.58)
83 NH/15 Heritage Assets and Adapting to Climate Change (and paragraphs 6.59 –
6.63)
85 Chapter 7: High Quality Homes
85 H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages (and paragraphs 7.5 and
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Contents Page iii
7.6) (Excluding allocations H/1a to H/1h)
87 Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages
Site reference H/1a Sawston, Dales Manor Business Park
90 Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages
Site H1/b – Sawston, land north of Babraham Road (in Babraham Parish)
93 Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages
Site H1/c – Sawston, land south of Babraham Road (part in Babraham Parish)
97 Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages
Site H1/d – Histon & Impington, land north of Impington Lane
98 Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages
Site H1/e – Melbourn, land off New Road and rear of Victoria Way
99 Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages
Site H1/f – Gamlingay, Green End Industrial Estate
100 Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages
Site H1/g – Willingham, land east of Rockmill End
101 Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages
Site H1/h – Comberton, land at Bennell Farm (in Toft Parish)
102 H/2 Bayer CropScience Site, Hauxton
103 H/3 Papworth Everard West Central
103 H/4 Fen Drayton Former Land Settlement Association Estate
103 H/5 South of A1307, Linton
104 H/6 Residential Moorings
104 H/7 Housing Density
105 H/8 Housing Mix (paragraphs 7.26, 7.28 and 7.29)
106 H/9 Affordable Housing
107 H/10 Rural Exception Site Affordable Housing (paragraphs 7.36, 7.39)
108 H/11 Residential Space Standards for Market Housing (Figure 10: Residential
Space Standards)
109 H/12 Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside
109 H/13 Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside
109 H/14 Countryside Dwellings of Exceptional Quality
110 H/15 Development of Residential Gardens
110 H/16 Re-use of Buildings in the Countryside for Residential Use
111 H/17: Working at Home
111 H/18 Dwellings to Support a Rural-based Enterprise
111 H/19 Provision for Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople (table of
needs, paragraphs 7.61, 7.62 and 7.65)
112 H/20 Gypsy and Traveller Provision at New Communities (paragraphs 7.66, 7.67,
7.68, 7.69)
113 H/21 Proposals for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Sites on
Unallocated Land Outside Development Frameworks (paragraphs 7.70 to 7.77)
114 H/22 Design of Gypsy and Traveller Sites, and Travelling Showpeople Sites
(paragraphs 7.78.7.86, 7.87)
115 Chapter 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy
115 Paragraphs 8.1 to 8.11
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page iv Contents
115 E/1 New Employment Provision near Cambridge – Cambridge Science Park (and
paragraphs 8.12 to 8.14)
116 E/2 Fulbourn Road East (Fulbourn) (and paragraph 8.15 to 8.16)
117 E/3 Allocations for Class B1 Employment Uses (and paragraph 8.17)
117 E/4 Allocations for Class B1, B2 and B8 Employment Uses
117 E/5 Papworth Hospital (and paragraphs 8.18 to 8.22)
118 E/6 Imperial War Museum at Duxford (and paragraphs 8.23 to 8.24)
118 E/7 Fulbourn and Ida Darwin Hospitals (and paragraphs 8.25 to 8.36)
119 E/8 Mixed-use development in Histon & Impington Station Area (and paragraphs
8.37 to 8.43)
120 E/9 Promotion of Clusters (and paragraphs 8.44 to 8.48)
121 Local Development Order
121 E/10 Shared Social Spaces in Employment Areas (and paragraphs 8.49 to 8.50)
121 E/11 Large Scale Warehousing and Distribution Centres (and paragraph 8.51)
122 E/12 New Employment Development in Villages (and paragraph 8.52)
122 E/13 New Employment Development on the Edges of Villages (and paragraph
8.53)
123 E/14 Loss of Employment Land to Non Employment Uses (and paragraphs 8.54
and 8.55)
123 E/15 Established Employment Areas (and paragraphs 8.56 to 8.58)
124 E/16 Expansion of Existing Businesses in the Countryside (and paragraphs 8.59 to
8.60)
124 E/17 Conversion or Replacement of Rural Buildings for Employment (and
paragraph 8.61)
125 E/18 Farm Diversification (and paragraphs 8.62 and 8.63)
125 E/19: Tourist Facilities and Visitor Attractions (and paragraphs 8.64 and 8.65)
126 E/20 Tourist Accommodation (and paragraph 8.66)
126 E/21 Retail Hierarchy (and paragraphs 8.67 to 8.70)
126 E/22 Applications for New Retail Development (and paragraphs 8.71 to 8.74)
127 E/23 Retailing in the Countryside (and paragraph 8.75)
129 Chapter 9: Promoting Successful Communities
129 Key facts and paragraph 9.1 – 9.3
129 SC/1 Allocation for Open Space (and paragraph 9.4 – 9.5)
132 SC/2 Health Impact Assessment (and paragraphs 9.6 – 9.8)
132 SC/3 Protection of Village Services and Facilities (and paragraph 9.9)
133 SC/4 Meeting Community Needs ( and paragraph 9.10 – 9.15) excludes
paragraphs relating to sub-regional facilities including Community Stadium
135 Paragraph 9.16- 9.18 Consideration of Sub-regional facilities including Community
Stadium and Sawston Stadium.
137 SC/5 Hospice Provision (and paragraph 9.19)
137 SC/6 Indoor Community Facilities (and paragraphs 9.20 – 9.22)
138 SC/7 Outdoor Play Space, Informal Open Space and New Developments (and
paragraphs 9.23 – 9.30 including Figure 11)
139 SC/8 Open Space Standards (and paragraph 9.31 – 9.33)
139 SC/9 Protection of Existing Recreation Areas, Allotments and Community Orchards
(and paragraph 9.34 – 9.37)
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Contents Page v
140 SC/10 Lighting Proposals (and paragraph 9.38 – 9.43)
141 SC/11 Noise Pollution (and paragraphs 9.44 – 9.53)
141 SC/12 Contaminated Land (and paragraphs 9.54 – 9.56)
142 SC/13 Air Quality (and paragraphs 9.57 - 9.62)
143 SC/14 Hazardous Installations (and paragraphs 9.63 -9.65 )
143 SC/15 Odour and other fugitive emissions to air (and paragraphs 9.66 -9.69)
145 Chapter 10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and
Infrastructure
145 Paragraphs 10.1 - 10.8
145 TI/1 Chesterton Rail Station and Interchange
145 TI/2 Planning for Sustainable Travel
147 TI/3 Parking Provision (paragraphs 10.23-10.25 and Figure 12)
148 TI/4 Rail Freight and Interchanges
148 TI/5 Aviation-Related Development Proposals
149 TI/6 Cambridge Airport Public Safety Zone
150 TI/7 Lord’s Bridge Radio Telescope
150 TI/8 Infrastructure and New Developments (and paragraph 10.36)
151 Paragraphs 10.45 & 10.46 Waste Infrastructure
152 TI/9 Education facilities
152 TI/10 Broadband
155 Appendix A Supporting Studies and Evidence Base &
Appendix C – Glossary
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page vi Contents
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 1: Introduction Page 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Paragraphs 1.1 – 1.2
Introductory paragraphs: The background to the plan, the evidence base and the
consultation undertaken to prepare it
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 15
Support: 5
Object: 10
Main Issues Support
Guilden Morden and Haslingfield Parish Councils support
for the plan.
Comments from previous consultations have been taken into
account.
Suffolk County Council supports the plan and seeks
on-going co-operation to ensure that the A14 and A1307
remain safe and support growth throughout the region.
Linton Parish Council comments that the SHLAA
procedure was thorough and well argued.
Object
Consultation
After Issues & Options 1 the Council announced that Bourn
Airfield would not be pursued as a development site but
would be consulted on purely for a stadium. Bourn Airfield
was reintroduced into the Local Plan at the Proposed
Submission stage without further consultation. This is
undemocratic, unsound and possibly illegal.
Changes made to documentation during consultation - led to
confusion and brings into question whole process. Hastily
prepared to meet government housing targets over-riding
local views.
Is there any evidence of changes made as a result of the first
consultation?
The consultation has little meaning as much of the plans is
already a reality.
Complete fullness and transparency should be maintained
throughout this consultation period and during the period of
presentation of the plan to the Inspector.
Lack of liaison with transport planners, proposals to toll the
A14 will increase traffic using the A428.
The following definition must be made clear to the public in
the new consultation period and before the plan is submitted
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 2 1: Introduction
to the Inspector:
o The availability of previous minutes.
o Newly emerging aspects of appendages to plan.
o The 5 year land supply plan.
o The meetings preceding this plan.
Evidence
SHLAA and economic estimates are flawed.
Sites & Strategy
Object to scale of development and lack of capacity of
services and infrastructure.
Method of selecting sites simply relies on developers putting
forward ones they have options on and not providing homes
where needed.
Council failed to properly investigate suitability of other sites,
in particular to South of Cambridge that would have been
more sustainable and nearer the need.
Council needs to address waste issues, and protect the
countryside.
Decisions
Council did not put final plan to committee, only portfolio
holders decided, other councillors were issued with fait
accompli that did not accord with views expressed in
workshops that were not even open to public scrutiny.
Format
The Wildlife Trust comments that the policies map contains
too much information – separate into a number of themed
proposals maps.
What the plan does and how it is prepared: (Paragraphs 1.9 – 1.12)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 2
Support: 2
Object: 0
Main Issues Support
The Wildlife Trust supports commitment to protect and
enhance the natural environment.
Oakington & Westwick Parish Council supports the Local
Plan taking forward Parish Council proposals which do not
conflict with the strategy.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 1: Introduction Page 3
What happens next (Paragraph 1.15)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 16
Support: 0
Object: 16
Main Issues Object
Consultation Process
The Council isn’t listening.
Advance notice of proposals should have been posted to
objector’s address.
Exhibitions not held at times convenient for all, e.g. rail
commuters.
Poor availability of evidence documents.
Making representations
Problems with the online consultation system.
Difficulties logging into the online system – paper representation
sent instead.
Form is the same structure you used for previous consultations
and was complained about at the time.
Form is excessively long and complicated to convey simple
messages.
Questions are biased to receive the response you wish for self-
justification.
Form is clearly designed to discourage members of the public
from submitting views different from your own.
Consultation fails to conform to the "plain English" policy
adopted by all local government organisations.
Any comment from a member of the public has to be legally
justified for their representation to be registered.
Not qualified to comment whether the Local Plan has been
lawfully prepared.
Structure of your consultation prevents the free expression of
views in that it expects comments paragraph by paragraph
rather than by overall topic.
No opportunity to respond to the plan as a whole in a single
place.
Authors of all representations will be made public, which is
unreasonable in itself, and a threatening message in red is
displayed each time a comment is made.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 4 1: Introduction
Paragraph 1.17
What comprises the Development Plan for South Cambridgeshire
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 1
Support: 0
Object: 1
Main Issues Object
Cambridgeshire County Council seeks correction to
references the date of adoption of its Minerals and Waste
plans.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 2: Spatial Strategy Page 5
Chapter 2: Spatial Strategy
Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.11: Introductory paragraphs
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 8
Support: 2
Object: 6
Main Issues Support
Support for strategy.
Object
Paragraph 2.8 indicates phase 1 of Northstowe has
planning permission, but the S106 has yet to be signed so
this is misleading.
Enforce collaboration between South Cambs and
Cambridge and actively work to save green belt areas.
In the plan a completely unrealistic estimate of employment
opportunities has been made. The vast majority of people
who might live on Bourn Airfield site would be commuting
into Cambridge NOT being employed locally.
Evidence base on employment is flawed, need for new
employment land on edge of Cambridge (Cambridge
South).
Paragraphs 2.12 and 2.13: Duty to Cooperate
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 13
Support: 1
Object: 12
Main Issues Support
North Hertfordshire District Council – No strategic
issues requiring detailed discussion.
Object
Central Bedfordshire Council – Raise potential unmet
housing need in the area and the possible role for South
Cambridgeshire in accommodating some of that need.
Currently intend to meet Gypsy and Traveller need within
district, but if cannot would seek to work collaboratively with
adjoining districts.
Hertfordshire County Council - Concerned that dialogue
regarding transport issues has not taken place and
therefore remains concerned about the potential
implications of the Local Plan on the Hertfordshire
transportation network.
Bourn Parish Council - SCDC did not consult strategically
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 6 2: Spatial Strategy
with all relevant local authorities. Views of local people
have been ignored.
Papworth Saint Agnes Parish Meeting – Important to
work with Huntingdonshire District Council, and other parts
of subregion, particularly on transport measures.
Memorandum of Understanding seeks to export Cambridge
housing need to Peterborough, which is unsustainable. Not
clear how the 2500 extra dwellings can be retrofitted into
Peterborough’s plan. Unrealistic that they will deliver
sufficient housing.
Cooperation has not resulted in an effective joint strategy.
South Cambs has used different employment forecasts
from Cambridge City, which impacts significantly on the
plan.
Cambridge and South Cambs did not cooperate fully, as
South Cambs have not explored all brownfield
development opportunities.
No evidence of cooperation on the A14 plans.
SHMA shows no evidence of cooperation with cooperation
with Bedford, Hertfordshire or Essex.
Important to work with surrounding areas when assessing
needs.
Paragraphs 2.14 to 2.17: Joint Spatial Approach to Cambridge and South
Cambridgeshire
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 10
Support: 1
Object: 9
Main Issues Support
Support policies which protect existing village frameworks.
Object
There has not been joined up planning. Cambridge city
sprawl is being exacerbated by the intention to build on
Green Belt sites. There are other options e.g. Barrington
Cement Works.
Green Belt development should be the last resort. No
reason given why edge of Cambridge is considered most
sustainable.
Development at West Cambourne and Bourne Airfield is
completely unsustainable.
Green Belt should not be the determinant of planning
strategy. Cooperation should have lead to the most
sustainable strategy. Does not address imbalance of
homes and jobs in Cambridge. Transport strategy has been
led by planning strategy rather than the other way round.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 2: Spatial Strategy Page 7
A Sustainability Assessment of Harbourne (North of
Cambourne) in comparison with Bourn Airfield has not
been carried out, the SEA is therefore flawed.
Paragraphs 2.18 to 2.19: The Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South
Cambridgeshire
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 17
Support: 3
Object: 14
Main Issues Support
Cambridgeshire County Council - The development
strategy set out in the Local Plans, with growth primarily
focused on Cambridge, Waterbeach Barracks, West
Cambourne and Bourn Airfield leads to more sustainable
transport patterns overall than options with more dispersed
growth across South Cambridgeshire.
Highways Agency - The evidence reviewed to date gives
some level of comfort and it is recognised that a lot of work
has been undertaken to consider local and strategic
transport impacts, as well as identify potential schemes that
could address these impacts. Noted that there is currently a
significant funding shortfall.
Object
English Heritage – Transport infrastructure could be
damaging to the historic environment. Status of the
transport plan should be clarified. Should make
commitment to consider impact on historic environment,
and seek enhancement.
Harlton Parish Council – Inadequate links in the plan to
the transport plan.
Transport strategy only published with the submission plan.
Decision to build homes was made without a strategy in
place.
Only assesses the scope to mitigate transport implications
of plan content. Does not assess scope to deliver good
transport.
Green Belt development exacerbates road problems in
Cambridge.
Edge of Cambridge sites have better transport options than
Bourn Airfield, and result in better modal share of cycling
and walking.
Need more investment in Cycle lanes.
Large funding gap for transport measures proposed.
Evidence base in respect of highway and traffic impact is
incomplete. No transport modelling of concentrating
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 8 2: Spatial Strategy
development on edge of Cambridge. Decisions taken in
advance of testing the impacts of the strategy.
Strategy fails to take account of existing transport
infrastructure e.g. at Trumpington.
No evidence to demonstrate Bourn Airfield is more
sustainable than Cambourne North proposal.
Comparing the Development Strategy to 2031 with the Structure Plan (Paragraphs
2.20 and 2.23)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 5
Support: 2
Object: 3
Main Issues Support
Steady increase in homes in built up areas welcomed.
Object
Not clear how much development is in Green Belt, or on
Previously Developed Land.
Tables illustrating comparison with structure plan double
count the same urban extensions.
Policy S/1: Vision (and Paragraphs 2.24 and 2.25)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 12
Support: 7
Object: 5
Main Issues Support
North Hertfordshire District Council - overarching vision
of your plan seems to be well considered.
Environment Agency – Support vision of a green
environment
Natural England – Generally welcome this section.
Important to balance demands of development with the
quality of existing environment.
Object
‘continue to be the best place to live, work and study’ is a
subjective statement.
Growth can never be sustainable given planet of finite
resources. Should not be trying to get more people to live
here.
Development strategy west of Cambridge conflicts with the
vision.
Plan will not provide sufficient support for high tech
industries. Vision should refer to meeting the need for
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 2: Spatial Strategy Page 9
development for continued economic and social success of
district.
Policy S/2: Objectives of the Local Plan (and Paragraph 2.26)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 116
Support: 65
Object: 51
Main Issues Support
Environment Agency – Support objectives, particularly b.
Natural England – Welcome policies which seek to ensure
that development will protect and enhance the natural
environment
Sound objectives which will benefit current and future
residents.
New developments must take into account the community
that is already in place.
Object
Cambridgeshire County Council – Should reference
meeting infrastructure needs of existing communities as
well as new developments.
Bourn Parish Council - SCDC has been inconsistent in its
response to consultation feedback and has failed to
capture local aspirations in the draft Local Plan. Fails to
deliver the localism agenda.
Objectives should highlight role of previously developed
sites.
Objectives not met by Bourn Airfield.
Objective A
Support
Supports South Cambs’ strengths.
Object
Should reference making land available for these
industries.
Objective B
Support
Wildlife Trust – support
Built and natural heritage should be protected.
Object
English Heritage – should reference the historic
Environment.
Protecting the Green Belt should have its own objective.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 10 2: Spatial Strategy
Local Plan does not protect the Green Belt.
Should emphasise that development should enhance the
character of the area.
West Cambourne and Bourn airfield will not achieve this
objective.
Encouragement should be given to developing previously
developed land.
Objective C
Support
Need affordable housing.
Sustainability is the key word.
Object
Will not be met as insufficient development is planned in
villages. It unnecessarily constrains development in
sustainable villages.
Fails to consider inter-dependency between villages.
Will not deliver sufficient sites in sustainable locations i.e.
the edge of Cambridge.
West Cambourne and Bourn airfield will not achieve this
objective.
Should refer to meeting identified housing requirements.
Objective D
Support
Support objective to deliver high quality.
Object
Should support the delivery of renewable energy
Seek more variety of homes, more parking, larger gardens
Objective E
Support
Cambridgeshire County Council - the location of new
development in relation to services and facilities is
important in ensuring jobs and key services are available to
all.
Important. New development should not be built if it places
a strain on facilities.
Object
Cambridgeshire County Council – include libraries in list
of facilities.
RSPB – add word 'appropriate' before local open space
and green infrastructure, accompanied by an explanation in
the supporting text that open and green space should be
appropriately planned to avoid indirect recreational
disturbance impacts to sites of importance for nature
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 2: Spatial Strategy Page 11
9conservation.
Should refer to existing development as well as new
development.
Should refer to pubs.
Facilities in Cambourne are full.
Objective F
Support
An important consideration.
Object
Add horse riding.
Dispersal strategy of the plan will not meet this objective.
Bourn Airfield and Cambourne have no public transport
provision. Focus development where there are the best
transport links.
Employment sites in Cambourne have been removed.
Policy S/3: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development (and Paragraph
2.27)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 30
Support: 22
Object: 8
Main Issues Support
Support for sustainable development.
Object
Bourn Parish Council - agrees that future development
should focus on re-use of previously developed land in
sustainable locations, where land is not of high
environmental value, but needs to be clearer when
brownfield site is predominantly farm land.
Policy could be used as a lever for inappropriate
development. Should clarify only applies when proposals
conform to local plan and its objectives.
Does not fully reflect NPPF paragraph 12, that applications
for planning permission that conflict with an up-to-date plan
should be refused.
Policy adds additional caveats to NPPF paragraph 14
which should be deleted. It refers to "material
considerations indicate otherwise" - not part of NPPF test.
Two tests in NPPF will be "[taken] into account", suggesting
importance will be downplayed.
Policy should also include a commitment to approve
planning applications without delay, so as to be consistent
with proposed policy for the Cambridge Local Plan.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 12 2: Spatial Strategy
Development should always be sustainable. The wrong
sites have been chosen in the plan.
Policy S/4: Cambridge Green Belt (and Paragraphs 2.28 to 2.33)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 220
Support: 70
Object: 150
Main Issues Support
Natural England – Welcome this policy.
English Heritage - supports the commitment to ensuring
that the setting and special character of Cambridge is
protected.
Harlton PC, Barton PC, Fulbourn PC – support for
continuation of protection of the Green Belt.
Fen Ditton PC – Green Belt in and around village should
remain.
Haslingfield PC - Should be no further encroachment into
Green Belt to west of Hauxton Road on either side of M11.
Oakington and Westwick PC – Green Belt land should
not be used for development.
Green belt land needs to be protected, important for
character of the City and the economy.
Should be no development in the Green Belt around Fen
Ditton.
Should be protected around Fulbourn.
Support the retention in the Green Belt of the small parcel
of land in Home End, Fulbourn.
Development should only be in exceptional circumstances.
Support conclusion that community stadium does not
provide this exception at Trumpington Meadows.
Support for the extension of the Green Belt between
Waterbeach village and the New Town site.
Object
Great Shelford PC – pleased that no sites identified
around village, but policy should be strengthened to
provide greater protection.
Wildlife Trust – Object to lack of emphasis on
enhancement of the Green Belt.
Policy needs to be elaborated on to present a more positive
context.
Save the Cambridge Green Belt - No further development
in the Green Belt. Petition of 2,242 signatures requests that
both South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City Councils
withdraw all sites in Green Belt proposed in the Plans. .
Exceptional circumstances to review the Green Belt do not
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 2: Spatial Strategy Page 13
exist because alternative sites are available.
Plan will cause urban sprawl, merging villages with
Cambridge.
Make use of Brownfield before using Green Belt. Council
has not searched for all available sites before proposing
Green Belt development.
The use of criteria based on quality or value against which
to assess sites is not supported by the NPPF.
No clear and compelling case presented as to why the
Impington site has been selected for development.
Further development between Huntingdon and Histon
Roads will compromise separation to Girton.
Use poor greenbelt between NIAB and the A14 to a much
greater extent that proposed
The purposes of the Cambridge Green Belt should be
changed to accord with those in the NPPF:
Choose the best sites to build new developments
regardless of the green belt.
Green Belt has been incorrectly treated as an absolute
constraint.
Insufficient evidence that impact on sustainability has been
considered when reviewing the Green Belt.
No Green Belt review carried out for the rural area.
Review is needed if sustainability objectives are to be met,
and critical supporting infrastructure to the city is to be
delivered.
Green Belt boundary in the plan will not offer permanence
due to future development needs. A proper safeguarding
assessment has not been undertaken.
Safeguarded land should be available for development,
and the airport is not.
Cambridge Airport should be returned to the Green Belt.
Can be reassessed if becomes available in the future.
WATERBEACH – Objection to Proposed extension to
Green Belt north of Bannold Road. Land does not
contribute to Green Belt purposes. Barracks are already
linked to village by built development. No mention of Green
Belt at Issues and options, which identified sites with
development potential.
Edge of Cambridge Green Belt strategic objection sites:
CAMBRIDGE SOUTH – Development could take place
without significant harm to the purpose of including land in
the Green Belt. Hauxton Road, the M11 and the River Cam
corridor would provide boundaries that will endure and be
permanent.
CAMBRIDGE SOUTH EAST – Review green belt to
facilitate development.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 14 2: Spatial Strategy
LAND NORTH OF BARTON ROAD – Land previously
released on edge of Cambridge equally sensitive in
landscape terms. Remove from Green Belt and allocate for
development.
LAND TO SOUTH OF BARTON ROAD – Land previously
released on edge of Cambridge equally sensitive in
landscape terms. Remove from Green Belt and safeguard
for development after 2031.
LAND WEST OF HAUXTON ROAD, TRUMPINGTON -
should be released from the Green Belt, and along with
land at the Abbey Stadium, Newmarket Road (in
Cambridge City Council’s area) be allocated to meet the
need for new homes and sports facilities. Needed to deliver
critical infrastructure identified in supporting studies.
FEN DITTON - Land should be released from Green Belt to
accommodate development.
Other Green Belt objection sites:
BABRAHAM RESEARCH CAMPUS - capacity to deliver
new specialist research and development floorspace at
Babraham. Land should be removed from Green Belt.
GIRTON – Girton College should be released from the
Green Belt.
GIRTON - South side of Huntingdon Rd – area no longer
performs green belt functions (also seeking change to
Development Framework).
GIRTON - Land at Howes Close/Whitehouse Lane - should
be released from the Green Belt and allocated to meet
Anglia Ruskin's need for student residential
accommodation. Can be development without significant
impact on approach to City.
GREAT ABINGTON - Former A11/A505 junction area –
should be reviewed to correct historic anomaly.
GREAT SHELFORD – Scotsdales – Does not warrant
Green Belt status (also seeking change to Development
Framework).
HARSTON - Land at Royston Road – Green Belt does not
follow natural boundaries.
HARSTON - Harston south west area - bounded by River
Rhee, Haslingfield Road / Church Street and Mill Road,
infilling will not impact on Green Belt principles (also
seeking change to Development Framework).
HARSTON – North of Haslingfield Road – builders yard
should be removed from Green Belt (also seeking change
to Development Framework).
HARSTON - Button End – existing development forms part
of the village (also seeking change to Development
Framework).
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 2: Spatial Strategy Page 15
HORNINGSEA - Notcutts Garden Centre site – Does not
warrant Green Belt status (also seeking change to
Development Framework).
LITTLE ABINGTON - land beside old A11 – Land does not
perform Green Belt purposes.
MILTON - Land East of A14 Milton Interchange - site does
not significantly meet the key functions of the Green Belt.
WHITTLESFORD - Wren Park – remove boundary
anomaly.
WHITTLESFORD – Syngenta – Remove employment area
from Green Belt, and include as Established Employment
Area.
Proposals also seeking Housing Allocation at policy H/1:
FULBOURN - Land at Court Meadows House off Balsham
Road (SHLAA 213)
FULBOURN land off Home End (SHLAA 214) –
circumstances have changed since site was designated as
Green Belt.
GREAT SHELFORD - Land south of Great Shelford
Caravan and Camping Club, Cambridge Road (SHLAA
188) – Disagree with the Councils assessment.
GREAT SHELFORD - Land east of Hinton Way, north of
Mingle Lane (SHLAA 207) – Disagree with the Councils
assessment.
GREAT SHELFORD - Land off Cambridge Road (SHLAA
005). Studies have shown area could be removed from
Green Belt.
HARSTON - Land to the rear of 98 - 102 High Street
(SHLAA 266) – Site not visible from the wider landscape.
HISTON - Buxhall Farm (SHLAA 113) – Needed to
accommodate development, SHLAA suggested site was
not constrained.
HISTON - Land to the West of 113 Cottenham Road
(SHLAA 306) – development would not have adverse
impact.
HISTON - Boundary change north of Impington Lane
(Policy H/1 D) – Councils alteration is illogical as it does not
follow physical features. Should allocate a larger area.
Policy S/5: Provision of New Jobs and Homes (and Paragraphs 2.34 to 2.41)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 85
Support: 11
Object: 74
Main Issues Support
Cambridge City Council, Fenland District Council,
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 16 2: Spatial Strategy
St Edmundsbury Borough Council - welcome
commitment to deliver 22,000 additional jobs and 19,000
new homes in the plan period, which is in line with the
apportionment of homes across Cambridgeshire as agreed
in the May 2013 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Memorandum of Co-operation.
We desperately need more homes to increase supply and
keep housing affordable. 19,000 homes is a MINIMUM.
Support planning for the objectively assessed need.
Object
Haslingfield Parish Council – Concerned that targets are
overly large and based on previous growth rates.
Petition of 2,242 signatures entitled Save the Cambridge
Green Belt states that plans are based on out of date
growth forecasts.
Targets based on modelling are unreliable. Replace with a
more flexible market-led approach that is attuned to local
supply and demand.
Over estimates jobs growth, and therefore housing need.
Too much development for the area. Pressure on
infrastructure. Targets should be based on meeting local
needs, rather than focusing on provision of jobs which will
bring even more people to the area.
Should build more housing in other areas of the UK.
There has been no sub-district analysis of where needs are
based.
Sites identified in the plan exceed the need identified, and
make assumptions about need beyond 2031 that might
prove to be totally inappropriate.
Should not assume SHMA assessment should be the
target. Lower levels of growth also have benefits.
Should be clear how much affordable housing will be
delivered.
Not clear how much housing will be for older people.
Targets should be increased to bring forward new
settlements more quickly.
Target based on past trends of under-delivery.
Considerable immediate need for affordable housing based
on historic under-delivery.
Has not used latest census data or data on migration.
Fall in household size has been underestimated.
Housing need should be minimum of 21,500 to meet in full
objectively assessed needs and affordable housing.
o Existing target is a reduction compared to adopted
target.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 2: Spatial Strategy Page 17
o Approach agreed in Memorandum of Cooperation
has not sought to tackle affordable housing needs
of has ignored the findings of the SHMA.
o The housing target will need to be increased above
this level because there would be a shortfall of
7,300 dwellings arising from the Cambridge City
Draft Local Plan 2014.
o Does not meet NPPF requirements to boost supply
of housing.
o Has not used most up to date census information.
o Has not taken account of market signals.
o Occupancy rates not consistent with other
authorities.
o Age structure not properly addressed.
o Ignored historic undersupply.
o No account taken of student housing.
Housing needs should be minimum of 24,500:
o Lack of AH exacerbated by backlog from 2004
Local Plan and Core Strategy.
o Affordability ratio has risen significantly since 2001.
Will not boost housing supply as required by NPPF.
o Flaws in methodology for demographic projections.
Larger household size than national average.
o Affordable housing need is 62% of proposed
housing requirement which is highly unlikely to meet
AH needs in full.
o Aging population not adequately addressed.
o Fails to take account of market signals and strength
of demand.
o Appropriate use of SHMA questioned – updating
chapters one at a time means no up to date and
comprehensive conclusion that draws on full extent
of SHMA taking all chapters together, including all
homes being published before affordable housing
needs so that objectively assessed needs not
informed by up to date AH need.
o Not adequately aligned with jobs requirements and
likely to result in increased commuting from outside
the district and could constrain growth n the local
economy.
o City Council not providing sufficient housing to meet
its OAN and this will have implications for South
Cambs housing strategy
Need for 19,100 dwellings in plan period for Cambridge,
and 25,300 in South Cambridgeshire.
o Would deliver the step change in development.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 18 2: Spatial Strategy
o Support growth potential in local economy.
Need to consider higher growth targets:
o Does not make every effort or respond positively to
wider opportunities for growth as required by NPPF.
o Is 25% lower job creation than in 1991-2011.
Should plan to meet the high growth scenario which
would require higher housing growth.
o City and South Cambs are together planning for
33,000 homes to support 44,000 jobs. Likely to lead
to increased commuting, predominantly by car so
increasing carbon emissions.
o Projection methodology flawed based on
projections of past trends that sought to restrict
housing growth close to Cambridge and house
prices have risen so that so called need is not a
reflection of the real needs of the Cambridge area
but simply a reflection of the restraint policies that
put constraints above housing needs, contrary to
the NPPF. Points to flaw in CCC’s population
forecasting by being based on a given planned
dwelling stock not housing need. Based on under
delivery (shortfall of 4,087 from 2001-2011).
o Affordable housing need of almost 12,000 leaves
7,000 to meet market needs which is unlikely to be
sufficient to sustain economic performance and
would be likely to drive prices higher and force more
people into housing need
Housing target should be increased to 20,600 because of:
o Acute affordability and high migration economic
forecast.
o South Cambs is the logical location for the 2000
shortfall from East Cambs and the target should
therefore be 22,600.
o Delivery of some of the sites proposed in
Cambridge is uncertain.
Insufficient land allocated for employment. An additional
112,700 sq m of employment floor space on 31 ha of land
is needed. This represents an additional 2,700 jobs.
Employment land target will also fail to meet the specific
need for high-tech manufacturing development.
The policy states that 'development will meet' the specified
target, and paragraph 2.36 states that 'the number of jobs
is a forecast and not a target to be met at all costs'. This
inconsistency needs to be resolved.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 2: Spatial Strategy Page 19
Para 2.37 seems to indicate the tone for the strategy in
which the housing figures of 19,000 are the upper limit of
delivery, rather than a target which can be exceeded if
there is a need. Should not be revised down.
Policy S/6: The Development Strategy to 2031 (and Paragraphs 2.42 to 2.46 and
Figure 1 Key Diagram for South Cambridgeshire and Figure 2 Key Diagram for
Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 362
Support: 230
Object: 132
Main Issues Support
Cambridge City Council - broadly supportive of the
spatial strategy
Cambridgeshire County Council - supports the
employment related allocations on the edge of Cambridge
and the new settlement proposals
North Hertfordshire District Council – support as
majority of development located away from south of district.
Barrington Parish Council – Support for rejection of land
at Barrington Quarry.
Ickleton Parish Council, Harlton Parish Council, Barton
Parish Council, Whittlesford Parish Council, Papworth
Parish Council – Support development strategy.
Elsworth Parish Council – Support rejection of North
Cambourne proposal.
Oakington and Westwick Parish Council – Support
focus on new settlements.
Support for retention of the development sequence.
Support decision to rule out further large scale
developments in the Green Belt, which would be harmful to
Cambridge.
New housing on edge of Cambridge is essential for public
transport and cycling.
Support housing in a few new settlements rather than many
rural locations. Smaller villages do not have infrastructure
to serve growth. New settlements offer opportunity to
deliver sustainable infrastructure.
Bourn airfield is an underused brownfield site.
Waterbeach is well placed for further development.
Support rejection of site north of A428 Cambourne (156
representations)
Support rejection of Hanley Grange.
Object
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 20 2: Spatial Strategy
Barrington Parish Council – Plan does not support
sustainability. Should cap scale of development at villages,
do more to protect services and improve transport to
villages.
Bourn Parish Council - Fundamental problem with
development strategy, it fails to align employment areas
with housing areas. Has not considered potential of
sustainable villages, so they can improve their local
services. SHLAA took a passive role.
Cambourne Parish Council, Caldecote Parish Council –
Bourn Airfield and Cambourne West are unviable.
Great Abington Parish Council – Unhappy at the focus
on new communities, leaves Abingtons with no growth.
Great Shelford Parish Council – Putting edge of
Cambridge at the top of development sequence could add
to pressure for Green Belt development.
Horningsea Parish Council – Indirect impact from
Waterbeach new town, including from traffic.
Madingley Parish Council – A1303 already over capacity.
Oakington and Westwick Parish Council – Policy should
state brownfield land first.
Teversham Parish Council - opposes the decision to
carry forward the Cambridge East Area Action Plan and
safeguard airport.
Environment Agency – general support but need to fully
resolve issues regarding wastewater treatment at
Cambourne west.
Wildlife Trust - further formal assessment of the
Waterbeach New Town site is required to prove that this
scale of development is achievable while still being able to
retain significant areas for biodiversity. The Key Diagram
has omitted to show some important ecological networks.
Middle Level Commissioners – Concerned at extra flows
to Uttons Drove waste water treatment works.
Question the need for the level of development.
Will lead to urban sprawl with Cambridge merging with
surrounding villages.
Large scale of development already planned at
Northstowe.
Policy should include requirement to prioritise previously
developed land.
Sites identified until 2050, beyond the remit of the plan.
Remove Bourn Airfield / west Cambourne:
o Insufficient road capacity on A428 corridor.
Madingley Road upgrade inadequate.
o Consider new guided busway.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 2: Spatial Strategy Page 21
o Traffic in Cambourne and surrounding villages.
o Impact on villages in A1198 corridor.
o The area is overdeveloped / spread development
elsewhere.
o No funding available for infrastructure.
o Expensive public transport.
o Small housing developments in the countryside
instead
o Develop on edge of Cambridge instead.
o People moved to Cambourne to be in a village.
o Urban sprawl and loss of village character.
o Lack of local employment. Employment land in
employment allocated for housing.
o A strip of new Green Belt is required to separate
Bourn Airfield from Cambourne.
o Bourn Airfield will end up as a satellite to
Cambourne, reliant on its services.
o Failed to consider development near southern
employment areas.
o SCDC has not sought to proactively identify and
help bring forward any potentially more suitable and
sustainable sites.
Remove Waterbeach:
o Transport impacts, particularly on A10.
o Flood Risk
o focus development on the barracks site and
complete earlier in the plan period.
Bourn Airfield should not be held back unfairly and 5 years
later than Cambourne West.
Waterbeach new town should be moved forward in the
trajectory.
Cumulative delivery impact as all three new settlements are
north of Cambridge.
Policy should differentiate between new town and new
villages, as new villages only as sustainable as Rural
Centres.
Over reliance on a few large sites will lead to under
delivery, particularly due to level of infrastructure required.
Insufficient regard has been given to the potential for
further development on the edge of Cambridge due to
greater weight being given to the protection of the Green
Belt than wider sustainability considerations, in particular
transport related.
Should continue Structure Plan development sequence.
Strategy reverts back to dispersal.
Maintaining Cambridge as a compact city is unjustified as
Cambridge has an important role in the UK economy.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 22 2: Spatial Strategy
Petition of 2,242 signatures calling for withdrawal of sites in
the Green Belt.
Edge of Cambridge Green Belt should be last resort rather
than top of sequence.
Exceptional circumstances for Green Belt review has not
been demonstrated.
Green Belt sites should be developed last, if they are
needed at all.
Should have considered role of market towns around for
meeting housing needs.
Should be more development at villages to meet local
housing needs and utilise and support existing
infrastructure.
Villages should be allowed to choose to have additional
growth.
Planning no development will harm group and infill villages,
making them homes for only richer people.
Scale of restrictions on village development not flexible to
allow development opportunities on Previously Developed
Land to be taken.
Should support growth of villages along the Guided
Busway.
Policy should state that building in villages will only happen
if demand for new homes cannot be met through
development on edge of Cambridge and new settlement
sites.
Non- Edge of Cambridge proposals for new / alternative
strategic sites:
NORTHSTOWE - Land north and east of Northstowe.
(SHLAA Site 274)
LAND NORTH OF CAMBOURNE, Land north of A428,
Cambourne (SHLAA Sites 194 & 265)
LAND AT CAMBOURNE WEST (extend closer to Caxton
Gibbet)
(Proposals for Strategic development on edge of Cambridge
listed under S/4).
Policy S/7: Development Frameworks (and Paragraphs 2.48 to 2.49)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 131
Support: 55 (including 4 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 76 (including 4 from PC)
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 2: Spatial Strategy Page 23
Main Issues Support
The Wildlife Trust – Pleased recognition of need to protect and
enhance features of local ecological importance.
Bassingbourn PC – Support boundaries and rejection of 7
SHLAA sites.
Bourn PC & – Fowlmere PC – Support.
Papworth Everard PC – Strongly support retention to control
and limit expansion of Minor Rural Centres and smaller villages.
Barrington PC – Development on land at Barrington Quarry
(Cemex proposal) would not be compatible with local character.
Comberton PC – Support change (PC3) - white land outside
Green Belt - logical regardless whether Bennell Farm is
allocated.
Fulbourn PC – Support Fulbourn development framework. (16)
Little Gransden PC – Strongly support rejection of expansion.
Unlikely to provide social housing. Infrastructure unsuitable.
Vital to keep development cohesive and sustainable - protects
communities (avoids isolation) & village / countryside character.
Controls development whilst not restricting local growth. Small
villages tend not to have infrastructure for large developments.
Brownfield sites should not be considered just because they are
brownfield – take account of effect on villages.
Criterion 1a - Developments must be small enough to integrate
into village community and effective provision of local services.
Criterion 1c – Strongly agree – doctors, schools, roads.
Criterion 2 – Vital to prevent ‘planning creep’. If no need to
locate in countryside, should be in urban location for access and
infrastructure as much as preservation. ‘Other uses’ vague.
Object
Anglian Water – Include reference to drainage infrastructure.
Cambridgeshire County Council – Support, but could impact
being able to respond to demand for school places. Suggest
change wording to permit key community infrastructure outside.
Bourn PC – Strongly favour maintaining to ensure settlements
don’t coalesce / lose character. Define “previously developed”.
Great Abington PC – Approach leaves smaller villages with
few development opportunities. Local need cannot be met on
exception sites - allow minor amendments to meet needs.
Ickleton PC – Rare occasions where flexibility would be
welcome if proposal clearly backed by the parish council.
Whaddon PC – Want to review boundaries to address future
housing requirements without producing a Neighbourhood Plan.
Approach taken is unduly restrictive. Not consistent with
principle of support for sustainable development in NPPF.
Some parishes would like frameworks changed where it would
meet identified needs, of appropriate size and has local support.
Should require brownfield first in accordance with NPPF.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 24 2: Spatial Strategy
Criterion 2 – At odds with NPPF & Policy H/10. Appropriate to
develop outside for local housing need / more appropriate use
for site. Can deliver / sustain new / improved services.
Objections proposing amendments to framework boundaries
at:
Barrington – Land west of Orwell Road
Bassingbourn – Land north of Elbourn Way
Caldecote - Land to the rear of 18-28 Highfields Road
Caldecote – Mobile Home Park
Comberton - Birdlines Manor Farm, South Street
Cottenham - Land at the Junction, Long Drove and Beach Rd
Croxton - Properties fronting Abbotsley Road and A428
Dry Drayton – Longwood
Duxford - Rear of 8 Greenacres
Eltisley - Caxton End
Fowlmere - Land west of High Street
Fowlmere - Land at Triangle Farm
Fulbourn - Balsham Road and Home End
Fulbourn - 36 Apthorpe Street
Gamlingay – Land at Potton Road
Girton - Southern side of Huntingdon Road
Graveley – Toseland Road
Great Abington - Land east of Great Abington & Land at
Pampisford Road
Great Shelford - Land south of Great Shelford Caravan and
Camping Club, Cambridge Road
Great Shelford - Land off Mingle Lane, Great Shelford
Great Shelford - Scotsdales Garden Centre
Guilden Morden - Land south of 33 Dubbs Knoll Road
Hardwick - Land at Rectory Farm
Harston - Land to the rear of 98 - 102 High Street
Harston - North of Haslingfield Road
Harston – Button End
Harston – various amendments
Histon and Impington - Land west of 113 Cottenham Road,
Histon
Histon and Impington – Land north of Impington Lane,
Impington
Horningsea - Garden Centre, High Street
Ickleton – Land to rear of Old Vicarage, Butcher’s Hill
Linton - Land adjacent to Paynes Meadow
Litlington - Land at Longview, 1 Manor Farm Barns, Crockhall
Lane
Little Gransden - 84 Main Road
Little Gransden - Land to rear of 4 Primrose Hill
Little Gransden - Land at The Drift
Little Gransden - South of Main Road (PC5)
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 2: Spatial Strategy Page 25
Little Gransden - Bounding 6 Primrose Hill, (PC4)
Longstanton - Melrose House
Meldreth - Bury Farm, North End
Meldreth - Land r/o 79 High Street
Orwell - Volac International
Pampisford - Land East of High Street
Pampisford - London Road
Papworth Everard - Land at The Ridgeway
Sawston - Land to the rear of 41 Mill Lane
Toft - Buildings adjacent to Meridian Court
Waterbeach - Bannold Road
Waterbeach - Land off Bannold Road / Bannold Drove
Waterbeach - Land off Gibson Close
Whittlesford - Ryecroft Paddock
Policy S/8: Rural Centres (and Paragraphs 2.51 to 2.54)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 23
Cambourne: Support: 2 Object: 0
Cottenham: Support: 3 Object: 0
Great Shelford and Stapleford: Support: 1 Object: 0
Histon and Impington: Support: 2 Object: 2
Sawston: Support: 1 Object: 0
Other Issues: Support: 4 Object: 8
Main Issues Support
Bourn Parish Council / Gamlingay Parish Council –
Supports inclusion of these villages.
Elsworth Parish Council - - Support existing approach to
hierarchy development limits.
Sawston - provides many key facilities making it an ideal
village for building essential and long overdue housing.
Cambourne – Support recognition Cambourne is a
sustainable settlement.
Cottenham – Local facilities employment, transport, large
vibrant village with capacity for further expansion.
Great Shelford – appropriately recognised as rural centre.
Histon and Impington – Meets criteria and is correctly
identified.
Object
Anglian Water – Reference to infrastructure should include
drainage infrastructure.
Histon and Impington Parish Council - Policy should
make clear that retail and commercial businesses serve a
wider community than settlement itself. Should encourage
small business premises. Developments should not be
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 26 2: Spatial Strategy
encouraged which will relocate employers away from rural
centres.
Cottenham, Great Shelford, Histon and Impington – too few
sites in Rural Centres to meet housing needs. Should
allocate additional sites. H/1 favours sites at Minor Rural
Centres.
Histon and Impington – Infrastructure cannot sustain
additional development.
Add to policy that delivery of infrastructure should be
demonstrated in detail with the planning application.
Policy S/9: Minor Rural Centres (and Paragraphs 2.55 to 2.57)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 298
Bar Hill: Support: 1 Object: 0
Bassingbourn: Support: 0 Object: 2
Comberton: Support: 1 Object: 21
Fulbourn: Support: 31 Object: 3
Gamlingay: Support: 2 Object: 1
Girton: Support: 0 Object: 8 (plus petition of 22 signatures)
Melbourn: Support: 201 Object: 3
Papworth Everard: Support: 1 Object: 0
Waterbeach: Support: 0 Object: 1
Willingham: Support: 1 Object: 0
Other issues: Support 11 Object 10
Main Issues Support
Bourn Parish Council – agree with selection of Minor
Rural Centres
Elsworth Parish Council - Support existing approach to
hierarchy development limits.
Fulbourn Parish Council – Support status as Minor Rural
Centre.
Gamlingay Parish Council – Support status as Minor
Rural Centre.
Papworth Everard Parish Council – Support status as
Minor Rural Centre.
Bar Hill – support for identification as a Rural Centre.
Comberton – ideal for development.
Fulbourn – Support for classification as Minor Rural Centre.
Reflects availability of facilities.
Melbourn – Support for Minor Rural Centre Status.
Willingham – appropriately placed recognising services and
facilities.
Object
Bassingbourn cum Kneesworth Parish Council - The
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 2: Spatial Strategy Page 27
assessment is heavily weighted towards villages having a
Village College, in part because of the facilities provided for
the wider community. Unlike other village colleges,
Bassingbourn Village College provides only very limited
facilities for the wider community. Surrounding villages look
to Royston not Bassingbourn as their centre. Other factors
do not provide an alternative justification.
Comberton Parish Council - Comberton lacks
comparable infrastructure (current/potential) to support a
Minor Rural Centre classification but it does as a 'better
served Group Village'. Reclassification is superfluous since
no practical sites to support further development within
village framework. Majority of residents support no
significant changes.
Girton Parish Council – Object to Minor Rural Centre
status. Full-time Post Office now part-time. School at
capacity. Infrastructure not available to support growth.
Comberton – Does not compare favourably with Minor
Rural Centres. Lacks infrastructure. Village College is in
Toft. No mains gas. No A road. No Sunday buses,
Drainage issues. One small shop. More people travelling to
find work. Development would harm rural character.
Development larger than 8 dwellings unsustainable. No
practical sites. Better described as a Better Served Group
Village. Should focus development on large brownfield
sites.
Fulbourn- object to downgrading of village. Has a good
range of services and facilities. It is one of the largest and
most sustainable villages in the South Cambridgeshire
District. Good access to employment and education. There
is no strategy to make the villages more sustainable. Sites
rejected without consideration of affordable housing needs
of village.
Gamlingay – Fulfils criteria to be a Rural Centre.
Girton – Object to minor rural centre status – does not
perform a wider role as a service centre. GP not full time.
Cashpoint is at garage. Not comparable with other villages.
No scope for larger windfall development.
Melbourn – objection to Minor Rural Centre Status.
Waterbeach - should be reclassified as Rural Centre.
sustainable settlement which is capable of accommodating
new residential development.
Other Issues:
Fulbourn – Object to further development in Fulbourn.
Bassingbourn, Fulbourn, Gamlingay, Linton, Papworth
Everard, Waterbeach – Too few sites allocated, not
planning growth beyond existing commitments, will not
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 28 2: Spatial Strategy
meet affordable housing needs of villages.
Should allow development adjoining frameworks, as they
are tightly drawn development is currently unlikely.
Thresholds are arbitrary. Should be based on ability to
accommodate the individual development on its merits.
Should not be specific limits on scale. Should support other
issues e.g. accommodation for the elderly.
Figures should be referred to as an indicative guide rather
than a limit.
Additional criteria should be added that larger
developments are proposed Parish Councils should have
to agree.
Policy S/10: Group Villages (and Paragraph 2.58)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 73
Barrington: Support: 13 Object: 0
Duxford: Support: 1 Object: 1
Fen Ditton: Support: 0 Object: 1
Fowlmere: Support: 1 Object: 0
Foxton: Support: 1 Object: 0
Great Abington: Support: 0 Object: 1
Hardwick: Support: 0 Object: 2
Highfields Caldecote: Support: 0 Object: 1
Longstanton: Support: 0 Object: 1
Meldreth: Support: 1 Object: 0
Orwell: Support: 1 Object: 0
Over: Support: 0 Object: 2
Whittlesford: Support: 0 Object: 1
Other Issues: Support: 34 Object: 11
Main Issues Support
Bourn Parish Council – agree with classification of Group
villages.
Elsworth Parish Council – Support maintaining numerical
limits.
Fowlmere Parish Council – Support policy.
Small scale development will benefit villages, appropriate
to this scale of community.
Will protect character of small villages.
Support recognition of slightly larger developments on
brownfield sites.
Object
Great Abington Parish Council – Does not allow growth
that the community wants. We have excellent services.
Exception sites should not be the only way to facilitate
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 2: Spatial Strategy Page 29
development in Group villages like the Abingtons. (the
Parish Council have proposed specific development sites,
which are addressed in the Housing chapter)
Duxford – Scores the same as a number of Minor Rural
Centres. Access to employment and rail services. Little
prospect of tackling affordable housing need if remains as
Group village.
Fen Ditton – Should be a Rural Centre. Close to the City.
There is a lack of development at villages.
Hardwick – Has existing facilities, and housing growth
would provide additional facilities.
Longstanton – fails to take into account recent
development, the guided bus, and Northstowe.
Over – Excellent range of services, short distance from the
guided bus.
Whittlesford – Restrictions mean affordable hosing need
not being met. Good transport infrastructure. Village should
be allowed to develop further.
Policy criteria:
Barrington Parish Council – Support scale restriction, but
object to lack of a cap on number of developments. Plan
should specifically prevent housing development on
Barrington Cement Works.
Should be more flexibility in policies for villages.
Barrington, Caldecote – Potential sites rejected. No
assessment of capacity of villages to accommodate
development. Will not meet affordable housing needs of
village.
Fails to ensure village needs will be met. Will cause village
decline. Does not reflect presumption in favour of
sustainable development.
Could prevent efficient use of brownfield land.
Placing an arbitrary limit on the permitted size of
development is unnecessary and restrictive. Sites should
be considered on their merits.
Should allow development adjoining development
frameworks where justified and without adverse impacts.
Scale should only be an indicative guide.
Direct conflict with NPPF, which acknowledges settlements
in rural area often rely on each other for services and
therefore do not individually contain a full range.
Should recognise sustainable group villages like Fowlmere,
and remove or increase development limits.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 30 2: Spatial Strategy
Policy S/11: Infill Villages (and Paragraph 2.59)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 24
Babraham: Support: 1 Object: 0
Graveley: Support: 0 Object: 3
Heathfield: Support: 1 Object: 0
Ickleton: Support: 2 Object: 0
Kneesworth: Support: 1 Object: 2
Pampisford: Support: 0 Object: 1
Papworth St.Agnes: Support: 1 Object: 0
Wimpole: Support: 1 Object: 0
Other Issues: Support: 9 Object: 2
Main Issues Support
Bassingbourn cum Kneesworth Parish Council – agree
with infill status for Kneesworth.
Bourn Parish Council – agree with characterisation of
Infill villages.
Elsworth Parish Council – Support maintaining numerical
limits.
Ickleton Parish Council – agree with infill status for
Ickleton.
Madingley Parish Council – Notes no proposed changes
for the Parish.
Papworth Saint Agnes Parish Meeting – agree with
status of Papworth St.Agnes.
Support for the Infill village policy.
Object
Graveley Parish Council – Small scale development
proposed, which warrants an exception to policy (the
Parish Council have proposed specific development sites,
which are addressed in the Housing chapter).
Kneesworth – should be joined with Bassingbourn. Uses all
Bassingbourn’s facilities. More sustainable than other infill
villages. Would allow further development along the
Causeway.
Placing an arbitrary limit on the permitted size of
development may be unnecessarily restrictive.
Development framework boundaries around villages should
be amended and the size of schemes reviewed so that
housing and affordable housing needs in the Infill Villages
can be met.
Flexibility is lost in paragraph 2.59 which seems to suggest
that development exceeding 8 dwellings will not be
permitted. This is too prescriptive, inconsistent with Policy
S/11 and unjustified.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 2: Spatial Strategy Page 31
Policy S/12: Phasing, Delivery and Monitoring (and Paragraphs 2.60 to 2.67 and
Figure 3 Housing Trajectory)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 64
Support: 4
Object: 60
Main Issues Support
Natural England - Monitoring indicators to assess the
effectiveness of Plan policies are welcomed.
Support the need to delay Waterbeach to avoid adverse
impact on delivery of Northstowe.
Object
Homes and Communities Agency - supports the phasing
of new settlements (e.g. Bourn Airfield and Waterbeach
Barracks) as set out in Policy S/12. Is important to ensure
the timely delivery of new settlements and the continuous
supply of housing. Is also essential to the successful
delivery and establishment of each new settlement. Policy
should be amended to encourage and support the early
delivery of Northstowe as the first priority as each new
settlement must be afforded the time to properly establish
itself as a place where people choose to live. Delivery of
new settlements in parallel with each other would have the
potential to overwhelm the housing market and could
compromise the delivery of future phases of individual new
settlements.
Move forward trajectory of Waterbeach 1 year would mean
no Green Belt development required.
Move Waterbeach forward therefore no need for Bourn
Airfield new village. Plan identifies far more housing than
the identified need.
Increase build rate of new settlements quicker to help
deliver critical mass.
Bourn Airfield should not be held back unfairly and 5 years
later than Cambourne West.
Waterbeach should be allowed to come forward 5 years
earlier.
Policy should prioritise delivery of Northstowe.
Assumptions regarding delivery of new settlements are
overoptimistic due to infrastructure requirements.
Northstowe trajectory is over optimistic, and anticipated
delivery rate is too high.
Over reliance on a few large sites has contributed to
shortfall. Proposed development strategy repeats this.
No positive planning to rely on windfalls. Uncertain that
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 32 2: Spatial Strategy
supply will continue. Only based on most recent five year
period. SCDC now seeks to control development on garden
land.
Contribution of windfalls could be higher than anticipated.
If windfalls were counted as the City Council has done,
there would be an over supply, and no need to allocate
greenbelt sites like Impington Lane.
South Cambs has a persistent record of under delivery.
Economic downturn is no justification. Land supply buffer
should be 20% rather than 5%.
Need to allocate more sites of a variety of scales in a
variety of locations.
Action to bring forward previously developed land should
be part of strategy, not a response to shortfalls.
Trajectory shows not enough housing until 2021. Boost
needed now.
Monitoring( Paragraphs 2.68 to 2.70 and Figure 4 Monitoring Indicators)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 4
Support: 0
Object: 4
Main Issues Object
English Heritage - include an indicator to monitor success
in protecting, and where possible, enhancing the historic
environment.
Natural England - M20 should also consider changes in
the condition of biodiversity sites.
RSPB - monitoring the effects of the Plan on internationally
designated sites should seek to confirm that the amount
affected by development (directly or indirectly) is nil.
Plan should seek independent assessment of large
schemes to review their quality
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 33
Chapter 3: Strategic Sites
Paragraphs 3.1 – 3.3: Introductory Paragraphs
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 9
Support: 3
Object: 6
Main Issues Support
Cambridgeshire County Council – Co-location of services is
best / most cost-effective way to deliver community services -
in community hubs in conjunction with other public and
voluntary sector partners, whilst providing space for residents
for meetings / activities. Importance of Rights of Way for health
and well being of residents, informal recreation.
Support rejection of North of Cambourne SHLAA sites 194 &
265.
Object
Cambridgeshire County Council – Given the size of the
proposed developments, reference should be made to Minerals
and Waste Core Strategy policies that relate to recycling of
construction materials and waste minimisation.
Barratt & North West Cambridge Consortium – Bullet 2
should read “1,200 homes”.
Request review of Green Belt to meet objectively assessed
needs and deliver sustainable development – promoting North
and South of Barton Road.
Reference to Bourn Airfield should be deleted and reference to
a new village north of Cambourne added.
Object to these sites as not enough analysis of advantages
and disadvantages, loss of Green Belt and lack of plans for
public transport between Cambridge and other towns.
Policy SS/1 Orchard Park (paragraph 3.5)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 12
Support: 8
Object: 4
Main Issues Support
Cambridge City Council – Support section 3 concerning
assessments of noise and air quality.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 34 3: Strategic Sites
Natural England – Support strategic sites policies - references
to environmental and ecological issues.
Support the provision of ecological features and open space in
the development.
Object
Cambridge City Council – Support the ongoing development
of Orchard Park, but consider that the final sentence of
paragraph 3.5 should not refer to a landmark building as this is
often used to denote a building of significant height.
English Heritage – Part 2c) and paragraph 3.5 refer to
gateway features and a landmark building. The scale form and
massing of such a building must be appropriate.
The Local Centre should include a public house.
Policy SS/2: Land between Huntingdon Road and Histon Road (paragraphs 3.14,
3.16, 3.18, and 3.19)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 38
Support: 15
Object: 23 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Main Issues Support
Anglian Water – Capacity in the Water Recycling Centre, but
some localised enhancement to network may be required to
receive Foul Water.
Natural England – Support strategic sites policies - references
to environmental and ecological issues.
The Wildlife Trust – Supports production of Countryside
Enhancement Strategy which protects and provides ecological
features. Must also consider connections to wider network.
Support provision of opportunities for enhanced nature
conservation and quiet enjoyment of natural environment.
Welcome reduction in capacity of Darwin Green 2 to deliver
more favourable environment at lower density and residential
only on Darwin Green 3. Green fringe must be maintained.
Support improved countryside access and informal recreation
space. Management strategies should be applied to initial
provision of facilities as well as long-term maintenance.
Masterplan should be developed before piecemeal
development granted. Support Darwin Green 3 delivering
reduced densities.
Bullet 11 – If Green Belt land released, must include
comprehensive landscape enhancement scheme.
Inter-connectivity of green areas for walking, links to amenities,
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 35
leisure, and retention of „pocket parks‟ and trees.
Support using green separation for walking, cycling, leisure,
sports, play, „fit trails‟ for adults of variable abilities, bird
watching and flood attenuation ponds, linked transport routes.
Object
Anglian Water – Bullet 12 – for clarity, amend sub-title to
„drainage‟ as it is not limited to surface water.
Barratt and North West Cambridge Consortium (site
promoters) – Support policy and allocation subject to changes
to allocate a larger site including some commercial uses.
Policy should allocate 1,200 homes in South Cambridgeshire.
Cambridge City Council – Bullet 2b/para. 3.16 – Should refer
to a design code rather than design guides/design codes.
Important to be consistent with design code for NIAB1 – should
be site-wide rather than separate, as implied. Bullet 5/para
3.18 – Refers to provision of off-site services and facilities
within NIAB1 - needs further consideration as limited space in
local centre and revenue funding implications for City Council.
Bullet 13 – Support but concerned about air quality and noise
on quality of life close to A14 – should be fully investigated /
resolved.
Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Object as Green Belt
and not demonstrated „exceptional circumstances‟ for release.
Defence Infrastructure Organisation – Falls within statutory
height safeguarding zone around Cambridge Airport.
Histon and Impington PC – Vulnerable to flooding and
drainage issues – must not put village at risk. Use noise
barriers that do not cause unacceptable noise levels /
reflection. Eastern access too close to Arbury Road junction.
Traffic predictions too low.
Swavesey and District Bridleways Association – Horse
rider needs should be included.
Support that all „necessary‟ services and facilities will be
provided by development but needs defining more precisely.
Include statement that will consider provision across whole site
and work in conjunction with Cambridge City Council.
Bullet 5 - include public house.
Develop more of the Green Belt here – poor quality and more
sustainable for commuting by cycle etc. Takes pressure off
rural hubs.
Green Belt performs important function preventing City
merging with surrounding villages – development
compromises. Take into account cumulative development.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 36 3: Strategic Sites
Policy SS/3: Cambridge East (paragraph 3.25)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 22
Support: 9 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 13 (including 1 from PC)
Main Issues Support
Anglian Water - Capacity in the Water Recycling Centre, but
some localised enhancement to network may be required to
receive Foul Water.
Cambridge City Council – Support the approach taken in
policy SS/3 which complements the equivalent policy in the
City Local Plan.
Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Support safeguarding
for future development. Teversham Green Corridor should be
retained as Green Belt. Park and Ride should relocate east of
Airport Way. If Park and Ride unsuitable for residential –
possible site for stadium for CUFC.
Cambridgeshire County Council – Likely to require
measures to mitigate transport impacts – explore in detail
through Transport Assessment.
Marshall of Cambridge (site promoter) – Intend to bring
forward North of Newmarket Road in plan period. Support
safeguarding of remainder of site for longer-term. Figure 7
should show longer-term proposal to relocate Park and Ride.
Natural England – Support strategic sites policies - references
to environmental and ecological issues.
Oakington and Westwick PC – Support policy.
Object
Defence Infrastructure Organisation – Falls within statutory
height safeguarding zone around Cambridge Airport.
Ely Group of Internal Drainage Boards – Site outside IDB
area but must be consulted (with Environment Agency) on
surface water disposal proposals.
Highways Agency – Policy should be amended to include
requirement for assessment of A14 junctions 34 & 35 in
Transport Assessment, to safeguard strategic road network.
Oakington and Westwick PC – New policy needed to guide
development of Land North of Newmarket Road.
Teversham PC – Green Belt too narrow to perform functions -
if Area Action Plan carried forward, should reduce size of
SS/3(1) to provide larger gap with Teversham and remove
southern section. Building up to Airport Way would have
devastating impact on openness, character, urban sprawl.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 37
Gazelle Way/Yarrow Way should be limit of development.
Traffic noise from Airport Way greater than airport – measures
needed to alleviate.
Object to safeguarding land – not available for residential and
uncertain availability in long-term - cannot be relied upon.
No mention of community facilities - include public house.
Land north of Newmarket Road:
o Taken out of Green Belt on proviso airport relocated –
should be put back as condition not met.
o Roads cannot cope with extra traffic. Risk to pedestrian
safety with rat running.
o Infrastructure cannot cope – schools, nurseries.
o Valuable agricultural land – actively farmed, should be
protected.
o Proximity to airport – previously rejected. Safety risk -
adjacent to fire testing area.
Land north of Cherry Hinton:
o Valuable agricultural land.
o Roads round Cherry Hinton cannot cope with more
traffic. Regular congestion.
o Too near Teversham, increasing risk of coalescence.
o Too near airport – potentially hazardous area.
Policy SS/4: Cambridge Northern Fringe East and land surrounding the proposed
Cambridge Science Park Station (paragraphs 3.30 and 3.31)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 21
Support: 8 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 13 (Including 1 from PC)
Main Issues Support
Anglian Water – Investment plan includes upgrades to water
recycling centre by 2015 – provides capacity for growth to
2031. Should land become available, restrict uses to
compatible, less sensitive development and not residential.
Will advise on, but not fund, feasibility of works to reduce
odour.
Cambridge City Council – Working together to produce
complementary policies. Welcome continued joint working on
production of an Area Action Plan (AAP). As landowner,
support. Working closely with other landowners / stakeholders
on AAP – important to bring forward development in phased
manner to meet demand, enhance new station area and
ensure appropriate infrastructure is in place.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 38 3: Strategic Sites
Cambridgeshire County Council – Preparation of an Area
Action Plan, in partnership, welcomed. Existing and proposed
waste management and transport activities are essential
infrastructure vital to sustainable development.
Oakington and Westwick PC- Support policy SS/4.
Support focus on high quality mixed-use employment-led
development – appropriate given strategic location and
function of site. Good fit with Waterbeach proposals in terms
of balance of employment uses, availability of rail and bus-
based public transport and additional labour new town offers.
New station and interchange will provide strategic
infrastructure to facilitate growth. Logical to maximise
employment in the area. Small scale residential development in
Fen Ditton could be linked through high quality public transport,
cycleways to new station, and employment area.
Object
Brookgate (site promoter) – Not consistent with NPPF or
flexible to allow for changes in market conditions. No regard to
necessary infrastructure or viability. Preparation of an AAP
unnecessary and would slow delivery - agreed masterplan can
guide development. Need a co-ordinated approach between
City and SCDC. Seek inclusion of residential land uses.
Cambridge Past, Present and Future - Crucial development
for future of Cambridge – must be employment-led and could
create major new business district. Option for proposed CUFC
community stadium. Masterplan urgently needed. Eastern
boundary should be extended across railway line to the river.
Cambridgeshire County Council – Para 3.30 – last sentence
should be deleted as ambiguous, it is not clear if it is
suggesting any waste management or transport proposals
need to be compatible with existing uses, or those yet to be
proposed through Area Action Plan (AAP). Para 3.31 -
proposals associated with aggregates railheads and ancillary
uses cannot be made through AAP – must be addressed
through County Council's Minerals and Waste Plan.
Defence Infrastructure Organisation – Land for B1, B2 and
B8 uses falls within statutory height safeguarding zone.
Highways Agency – Appropriate to prepare Area Action Plan
– include reference to involving Highways Agency to ensure
safe and efficient operation of A14 safeguarded.
Lafarge Tarmac - Minerals and waste related operations, rail
sidings and land around station should be safeguarded to
ensure current operations not impacted by proposals. Para
3.31 infers production of noise and dust from existing
operations will be considered in terms of their long-term
viability – viable operating area should be safeguarded.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 39
Milton PC – Expect to be consulted on changes to A10/A14
junction - oppose loss of any recreation space. Infrastructure
must be in place for any new development.
The Wildlife Trust – Omits mention of biodiversity, ecology
and/or green infrastructure. Planning application for station
identified site‟s importance for biodiversity. Mitigation,
compensation and enhancement needed.
Masterplan urgently needed with flexibility to overcome
problem of odour from waste treatment works.
Extend Area Action Plan boundary - include land east of Milton
interchange to help secure strategic highway improvements
which may be needed to access site.
No evidence site will be delivered given history of non-delivery
resulting from viability issues relating to relocation of waste
water treatment works, odour issues, number of landowners
and relocation of existing uses. Complex brownfield site.
Figure 5: Illustration of Major Development Areas at West Cambridge, NIAB, North
West Cambridge and Orchard Park
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 1
Support: 0
Object: 1
Main Issues Object
Barratt and North West Cambridge Consortium – Amend
„NIAB‟ to „Darwin Green‟; Darwin Green Primary School should
be notated with yellow star; northern boundary should be
amended to reflect proposed allocation; red line around City
area of major change should be completed.
Policy SS/5 Waterbeach New Town (paragraphs 3.34, 3.35, 3.36, 3.37 and 3.39)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 473
Support: 42
Object: 431
Main Issues
Support
The Farmland Museum and Denny Abbey – The Abbey and
Museum provide an ideal place for community activities and
events.
RLW Estates / Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)
(promoters) – Support the designation of Waterbeach New
Town. This is consistent with the Cambridge focussed spatial
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 40 3: Strategic Sites
strategy and will enable housing delivery through the plan
period and beyond. The project has significant sustainability
advantages being partly PDL, located close to Cambridge, not
in the Green Belt and with excellent opportunities for public and
other non-car transport accessibility. The New Town proposal
has significant advantages over the other options consulted on
including the small new town, and the barracks only options.
Development would provide a secure long-term future for the
MOD landholding to secure new homes and jobs.
Cambridge Past, Present and Future - Support as a way of
preserving the Cambridge Green Belt subject to dualling of the
A10 with a bus lane to south, new railway station with good
services to Cambridge and Science Park and a dedicated cycle
route.
Cambridgeshire County Council – Support subject to
mitigation of transport impacts requiring some or all of the
following :
*A relocated Waterbeach station to serve the village and the new
town, with platforms (capable of taking 12-carriage trains or 10-
carriage InterCity Express trains.
*A busway link from the station and town centre to north Cambridge
including a fully segregated crossing of the A14 Trunk Road.
*A Park & Ride site on the A10 to intercept traffic from the north of
Waterbeach, served by the new busway link to Cambridge.
*Direct, segregated high quality pedestrian and cycle links to north
Cambridge including to Cambridge Science Park, to Milton,
Cottenham, Histon and Impington, Landbeach, Horningsea, Fen
Ditton, Chittering, Stretham and the Cambridge Research Park.
*Additional capacity for general traffic between the northernmost
access to the new town and the Milton Interchange of the A10 with
the A14 Trunk Road.
*Additional capacity at the Milton Interchange for movements
between the A10 and A14, and the A14 and the A10.
*Delivery or funding of any measures required to mitigate the traffic
impact of the new town on Horningsea, Fen Ditton, Milton and
Landbeach.
*A Smarter Choices package including residential, school and
workplace travel planning.
Natural England - Support references to environmental issues
in the policy.
Oakington and Westwick PC – support.
A large setting for Denny Abbey and Farmland Museum must
be protected.
Community facilities should be provided on a multi-use basis
and be funded by the developer.
The Bannold Road „gap‟ must be protected as Green Belt.
The Station must be easily accessible for village residents
without needing a trip on the A10 as must the facilities and
services of the new town.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 41
Object
A high number of largely identical representations have been
submitted as part of a local campaign opposed to the new town
giving the following reasons:
Objections concerning the railway station. Moving the railway
station is unnecessary and a mistake. It is too far away to
walk, and will generate extra traffic in the village and on the
A10. Any new station needs good road access, car parking
and lighting. Build a second station and keep the existing one
open.
Objections concerning the A10 and A14. Local roads are
already inadequate and congested. It is not possible to widen
them or provide bus lanes. Alternative routes would be harmful
to the environment of Landbeach. Traffic on the roads already
results in noise and pollution to Milton, these impacts need to
be mitigated. Will worsen air quality. Traffic will increase in
Waterbeach, need to avoid creating a rat run through the
village.
Objections concerning viability. The development will not be
able to fund all the required infrastructure and remain viable.
Objections concerning flood risk. Avoid building below the 5m
contour. Will increase water runoff.
Objections concerning employment. Inadequate provision for
local employment. Will be a commuter town for Cambridge
and London.
Objections concerning impacts on the existing village. The
new town will dominate the existing village, the proposed
separation measures will not work and are at risk of housing
development. Landscape impacts. Biodiversity impacts.
Local shops will close.
Loss of agricultural land.
Other objections:
RLW Estates and DIO (promoters) – Setting study shows
development boundary can be slightly larger without harm to
Denny Abbey. Increase capacity to 9,000 to 10,000 homes.
Allow earlier start and 3,500 in plan period
Milton PC – Will oppose any loss of local recreation space to
improve the A10 and the A10/A14 junction.
The Farmland Museum and Denny Abbey - The policy
needs to mention the Farmland Museum and recognise that
access to some areas may need to be restricted. The old
causeway track from the village to the Abbey should be used to
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 42 3: Strategic Sites
allow access by bicycle and on foot. A better road access to
the Abbey and Museum is required and a new and bigger car
park.
The Wildlife Trust – Too large a scale of development to
commit to before formal assessment of whether it can be
accommodated without harm to ecology and biodiversity.
The National Trust - Policy should refer to the need to
maximise the aims of the strategic green infrastructure
allocation of the Wicken Vision. This should be explored in the
AAP in consultation with the National Trust and other
stakeholders.
Cambridgeshire County Council – Plan should ensure
proper use of any excavated sand and gravel. Criteria h)
should refer to a library. Secondary school capacity must be
able to accommodate pupils from the existing village. Policy
should refer to early years and post-16 provision. Operation of
existing waste facility in area must not be compromised.
Environment Agency – Support allocation and phasing.
However a flood risk assessment is needed of residual risks if
flood defences on the River Cam fail. If defences are relied on
the development should contribute to their upkeep.
English Heritage – The setting and significance of Denny
Abbey must not be harmed. Any impacts on significance must
be mitigated. A setting study is required. Policy must require
archaeological evaluation of the site. Under p) add reference
to WW2 structures.
Landbeach PC – Concerns about viability, transport, Denny
Abbey, agricultural land, contamination, landscape impacts,
village impacts, station and flooding.
Anglian Water – Policy should refer to a foul drainage
strategy.
Ely Group of IDB – A robust strategy for disposal of surface
water is required.
Objections supporting a smaller scale of development. Rather
than a large development allow a smaller scale of development
on the barracks over the next few years to help support local
shops and services that have suffered since the barracks
closed. Develop the brownfield land first.
Objections concerning the adequacy of public transport. Public
transport will not be able to cope so people will continue to use
cars.
Development will also impact Landbeach and Milton.
No mention of needs of horse riders. No mention of River Cam
and need to provide good links to it for benefit of the new town
residents.
Objections concerning impact on Denny Abbey.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 43
Barracks and airfield are contaminated and should not be
allocated until level of contamination and costs/timescale of
mitigation are understood.
Needs extra land outside of site boundary.
Site should be developed more quickly.
Site should not have been identified for development ahead of
sites on the edge of Cambridge.
Policy SS/6: New village at Bourn Airfield
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 1839
Support: 22
Object: 1817
Main Issues
Support
Swavesey PC – Support statements regarding foul drainage
and sewage disposal. Increased flood risk to Swavesey must
be avoided.
Cambridgeshire County Council – Support subject to
significant measures to mitigate transport impacts.
Cambridge Past Present and Future – Support subject to
landscaping and public transport improvements.
Natural England - Support references to environmental issues
in the policy.
The Taylor Family and Countryside Properties (the
promoters) – The site is deliverable and viable, as
demonstrated by their concept masterplan. Bourn Airfield will
not give rise to any significant landscape and visual impacts
and will enhance landscape character, restoring lost landscape
features.
Brownfield land, will bring infrastructure improvements, better
public transport, much needed housing, and better services
and facilities.
Object
StopBAD - Planning applications have been previously
considered and rejected - grounds are still valid. Insufficient
local employment. Major employment centres are located in
Cambridge and to north and south. Limited transport links.
Site is too small to accommodate 3,500 houses at density
compatible with Council policies. Bourn Airfield together with
West Cambourne would create a urban swathe of development
stretching nearly 5 miles along A428. Preparation of the Local
Plan deviated from Government good practice for SHLAA.
Plan has not given sufficient weight to NPPF sustainability
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 44 3: Strategic Sites
requirements.
A high number of largely identical representations have been
submitted as part of a local campaign opposed to the new village
giving the following reasons:
o Plan will effectively create a town by stealth by
coalescing villages together- new town will stretch from
West Cambourne to Hardwick.
o Bourn Airfield and West Cambourne developments will
create new traffic that local infrastructure can't support.
o Plan proposes too many houses in small space, which
will inevitability compromise aspects such as
community facilities and separation from existing
settlements, and result in higher densities.
o Plan is unsustainable- lack of local employment
opportunities and sustainable transport links.
o Consultation carried out by the Council was flawed. The
opinions of local people have not been listened to, and
the plans presented were misleading/ incorrect.
North Hertfordshire District Council – Could have traffic
impacts at Royston from commuters using the train station.
The Wildlife Trust - Point m. should read "Provide a high
degree of connectivity to existing corridors and ecological
networks."
Cambridgeshire County Council – A Household Waste
Recycling Centre is needed in the BA/Cambourne area.
Reference to library provision needed. Policy references to
secondary education are positive, but it is critical that there is
sufficient flexibility within the planning of this to ensure that the
new school compliments existing secondary school provision in
the local area. Policy should refer to all phases of education
provision.
Environment Agency – Allocation mostly justified, but a
surface water attenuation strategy is needed.
Anglian Water - Policy should refer to a foul drainage strategy.
English Heritage - English Heritage has no objection in
principle to this proposal. However, we would wish to see
provision made for archaeological evaluation.
Parish Council objections from Bourn, Caldecote,
Cambourne, Caxton, Elsworth, Hardwick, Toft, Madingley,
Kingston – Concerns regarding traffic, flooding, impacts on
surrounding villages and rural character, creation of ribbon
development, pressure on services, too close to Cambourne to
provide a viable centre, relies on delivery of infrastructure and
past experience has shown it Is not always delivered,
significant costs may make it unviable, relies on west
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 45
Cambourne to support and enable development, not enough
space to deliver housing and openspace, flawed consultation,
poor access to railway at St Neots, no reference made to site
governance, better alternatives have not been explored.
Barton PC – Support all housing proposals. Better link to the
M11 required.
Great and Little Eversden PC – Should not be considered
until Northstowe fully developed.
The Taylor Family and Countryside properties (Promoters)
– An AAP is not needed, a Supplementary Planning Document
would be sufficient. No Major Development Area should be
defined by the Local Plan. A north west access using the
Broadway can be achieved with careful design.
Gestamp–Tallent (Owner of part of employment area on site) -
Support inclusion of site as employment allocation; enable
redevelopment to modern standards. Should not be restricted
to B1 uses; approach in keeping with policy E/12, which
provides for B1, B2 and B8 uses in scale with location.
Recognise role in providing employment for new village and
integration with new village and associated green separation
proposals can be considered through Area Action Plan
process. Site also has shorter term role in providing
employment opportunities to meet district requirements and
support local economy generally and can be developed
successfully independently. Development of site should not be
delayed or phased to follow proposed phasing of the Major
Development Area.
MCA Developments (Cambourne developer) – No vehicular
access including for public transport possible from Cambourne
to the Broadway and Bourn Airfield. Unsustainable and not
viable. Ribbon development, landscape impacts.
Martin Grant Homes and Harcourt Developments –
Development north of the A428 (Harbourne) should be
preferred.
Road improvements required as well as public transport
improvements. Public transport proposals inadequate. New
rail link required or guided bus link. Air quality impacts.
Growth at St Neots also affects the route to Cambridge. A428
to St Neots is already inadequate and at capacity. Too far to
cycle to Cambridge. Rat running through villages. Impossible
to put a bus lane in on the A1303 due to houses and the
American Cemetery.
Include a bus link pass just to the north of Caldecote to serve
that village better.
Objections concerning flood risk. Bourn WWTW should not be
expanded.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 46 3: Strategic Sites
Objections concerning landscape impacts. Village separation
will not be effective. Impact on the Broadway. Loss of
biodiversity and nature.
Objections concerning impacts on surrounding villages
Destruction of archaeology
Inadequate provision for schools and other services. Must
include a new supermarket. Will impact on Cambourne
Put the development at Northstowe, Waterbeach, Hanley
Grange, on edge of Cambridge, at Six Mile Bottom, at existing
villages. Too much development in Cambourne area over last
15 years.
Develop the airfield for employment use.
Loss of agricultural land
Add references to making provision for horse riders to the
policy at sections m, v and w
Loss of an airfield and associated use. Historic airfield. Petition
with 99 signatures.
Noisy industry on site will reduce residential area and capacity
A north west access must affect the Broadway
P&R site will reduce housing capacity
No provision of affordable housing for local people
Site has been considered for development in the past and
rejected.
Policy SS/7: Northstowe Extension (paragraph 3.49)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 12
Support: 4 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 7
Main Issues Support
Anglian Water - Infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades
required to serve proposed growth.
Gallagher Estates (site promoter) – Contribution to growth
reaffirmed through SHLAA and SA. Endorsed Northstowe
Development Framework Document refreshes masterplan and
includes extension - comprehensive approach to planning and
delivery.
Oakington and Westwick PC – Support policy SS/7.
Object
Ely Group of Internal Drainage Boards – Must continue
discussions with IDB and Environment Agency through
Technical Liaison Group to cover any extension.
English Heritage – Need for archaeological evaluation should
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 47
be identified in policy or text.
Homes and Communities Agency (site promoter) – Change
9,500 to 10,000 homes for consistency with Northstowe Area
Action Plan. The Northstowe Development Framework
Masterplan and Core Strategy - refers to “up to 10,000”
dwellings.
Identified as reserve land in Area Action Plan. Delays with
delivery mean not required in plan period - no need to allocate
within Local Plan. Remain longer-term strategic reserve site.
Site should not have been identified ahead of suitable sites on
edge of Cambridge which can promote sustainable patterns of
development and transport consistent with NPPF.
3,500 houses should be added to Northstowe to the north of
the guided busway, so infrastructure costs can be aggregated
in one location and maximized to create a more sustainable
and viable development.
Whole Northstowe plan should be rescinded as the local area,
including travel infrastructure, cannot sustain excessive growth.
Damage to countryside and destroying ecology.
Policy SS/8: Cambourne West (paragraphs 3.51, 3.55, 3.56, 3.60)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 566
Support: 18
Object: 548
Main Issues
Support
Cambridgeshire County Council - Development at Bourn
Airfield and Cambourne West is likely to require significant
measures to be provided in mitigation of their transport
impacts.
Natural England - Support references to environmental issues
in the policy.
Anglian Water - Section 14. It is recommended the following is
added: 'A foul drainage strategy should be prepared in liaison
with statutory sewerage undertaker'.
Swavesey PC - Support statements regarding foul drainage
and sewage disposal. Increased flood risk to Swavesey must
be avoided.
Papworth Everard PC – Support section c) of the policy. To
include a cycle and pedestrian bridge over the A428.
Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Support subject to
preparation of a masterplan demonstrating integration with rest
of Cambourne, the Business Park and the Village College. A
landscape enhancement plan is required.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 48 3: Strategic Sites
Cycle and pedestrian links are essential. The A1198 junction
must be improved before development as it is a major barrier
to cyclists and delays car journeys.
Landscaped soil bunds to control traffic noise are a
prerequisite and must be planned in advance.
Object
MCA Developments Ltd (Site promoter) – Support principle.
but site should extend to Caxton Gibbet for 2,200 homes with
extensive green corridors and open space. Object to inclusion
of the Business Park in Cambourne West. It is not under
control of MCA which would constrain delivery, but could be
developed independently, delete paragraph 6. Object to
employment requirements as not based on evidence of need.
Object to transport requirements in section 11 as inflexible and
unjustified and implying that they are the sole responsibility of
the Cambourne West promoters.
Development Securities (Business Park owner) – Support
allocation but object to policy requiring that residential
development only comes forward after the employment
development is secured in Cambourne West as this is
unnecessary and unreasonable. Land south of the access
road should be allowed to come forward quickly. Concerns
about using the Business Park road as a main access to
Cambourne West.
Cambridgeshire County Council - A HWRC is needed in the
BA/Cambourne area.
North Hertfordshire District Council – Could have traffic
impacts at Royston from commuters using the train station.
The Wildlife Trust – Include policy text: "Provide a high
degree of connectivity to existing corridors and ecological
networks."
Objections from Parish Councils, Cambourne, Caxton,
Caldecote, Bourn, Elsworth – Transport impacts including rat
running through villages, inadequate infrastructure, relies on
BA to enable required transport infrastructure, poor public
transport, distant from railway stations, impact on Cambourne,
ribbon development and village coalescence, loss of rural
character, unsustainable location far from jobs, better
alternatives exist that have not been tested, loss of Business
Park (should be retained in its current location even if site
remains in the plan), broken promises. No reference to
governance even though land is within Caxton. Need for youth
provision. Inadequate open space.
Environment Agency - Needs phasing with waste water
infrastructure and policy to reflect this - need to be sure that it
is deliverable within Water Framework Directive limits. Need
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
3: Strategic Sites Page 49
surface water strategy.
English Heritage – The need for archaeological evaluation of
site should be included in the policy.
A high number of largely identical representations have been
submitted as part of a local campaign opposed to the site giving
the following reasons:
o Plan will effectively create a town by stealth by
coalescing villages together- new town will stretch from
West Cambourne to Hardwick.
o Bourn Airfield and West Cambourne developments will
create new traffic that local infrastructure can't support.
o Plan proposes too many houses in small space, which
will inevitability compromise aspects such as
community facilities and separation from existing
settlements.
o Plan is unsustainable- lack of local employment
opportunities and sustainable transport links.
o Consultation carried out by the Council was flawed. The
opinions of local people have not been listened to, and
the plans presented were misleading/ incorrect.
Objections concerning impacts on traffic and local roads and
congestion. Road to St Neots will not be able to cope.
Roundabout at the junction of the A1198 and the A428
inadequate. Inadequate public transport. 4,000 homes
planned at St Neots.
Swansley Wood Farm indents the boundary of the allocation.
Site owner objects and requests that the farm should be
included in the development boundary for residential.
Objections concerning the Business Park. Keep employment
together in one location. Loss of land for employment.
Objections that the location is unsustainable. Poor access to
jobs. Inadequate retail provision. Poor access to railway
stations.
Objections that the infrastructure and services and facilities in
Cambourne will not cope. That Cambourne will become a
town. That development will be too dense and so compromise
delivery of community facilities. Cannot be integrated into the
rest of the village properly. Departs from original concept.
Impact on landscape and setting.
Impact on surrounding villages. Site is located within Caxton
Parish.
Any east–west rail link from Bedford to Cambridge must
service Cambourne and Bourn Airfield with one or more new
stations
Policy should include provision for bridleways in points 6, 11c
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 50 3: Strategic Sites
and 11i.
Consider alternatives such as Hanley Grange, Six Mile Bottom,
Northstowe, on the edge of Cambridge, in the villages.
Will increase flood risk to local villages.
Will not be viable, relies on Bourn Airfield for transport
improvements.
Loss of agricultural land.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
4: Climate Change Page 51
Chapter 4: Climate Change
Paragraphs 4.1 – 4.5: Introductory Paragraphs
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 4
Support: 1
Object: 3
Main Issues Support
Agree with paragraph 4.1.
Object
The science quoted in this section is out of date and can be
shown to be mostly if not entirely invalid.
Actions by the UK will not have a measurable effect on slowing
climate change.
Gamlingay Community Turbine - Paragraph 4.4 should
mention community renewable energy projects as a means of
reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Policy CC/1: Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change (and paragraphs 4.6 –
4.12)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 17
Support: 12
Object: 5
Main Issues Support
Natural England – welcomes chapter and policies requiring
development to demonstrate and embed principles of climate
change and adaptation.
RES Group (UK and Ireland) – supportive of overall aims.
Oakington & Westwick Parish Council – support paragraph
4.12.
Essential if we are to slow climate change down and survive in
future. Without strict measures we will be ill prepared for
changes to our climate.
Crucial aspect of building sustainable developments. New
developments should absolutely be part of the solution, not
contributing to the problem.
Should help promote low energy housing and developments
sympathetic to surrounding environment.
Design and transport policies are vitally important. All
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 52 4: Climate Change
development must be linked to existing settlements by paths,
cycleways, buses etc. not just roads.
Object
Home Builders Federation – unnecessary because
developers are required to meet Building Regulations. This is
not a planning matter.
Environment Agency – support but needs more information
on adaptation. Update plan’s assumptions with summary
effects of climate change and include these in the justification.
Support requirement for Sustainability Statements but need for
clarification of requirements to be included. Prepare an SPD for
Sustainable Design and Construction.
Requirements for zero emissions by 2016 for residential and
2019 for commercial should be incorporated into Policy CC/4.
Policy CC/2: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation (and paragraphs 4.13
– 4.15)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 21
Support: 6 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 15 (including 1 from PC)
Main Issues Support
Natural England – welcomes chapter and policies
encouraging renewable and low carbon energy development.
English Heritage – supports protection given to heritage
assets and their settings.
Oakington and Westwick PC – support bullet point 2.
Good effort as leaves door open to application for two or more
wind turbines less than 2km from dwellings. Any modification to
make planning approval more restrictive should be resisted.
Proof for a shorter separation distance must be stringent.
Object
Cambridge Past, Present and Future – policy too weak in
relation to community consultation. Propose change to (d) to
read: “Developers have consulted effectively with the local
community and can demonstrate that they have responded
positively by amending the proposed development
appropriately.”
Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of University of
Cambridge – should allow renewable and low carbon
generation as an off-site (allowable) solution with direct
connection to associated development or community projects.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
4: Climate Change Page 53
Amend policy to: “b. The development can be connected
efficiently to existing national energy infrastructure, or by direct
connection to associated development or community project, or
for onsite needs.”
Defence Infrastructure Organisation – concerns over
implementation of biomass, solar heating, photovoltaic cells
and wind turbines due to potential impacts on air traffic
operations. Understand requirement to implement carbon
neutral facilities to tackle climate change, therefore MOD wish
to be consulted during the planning consultation process.
Engena Limited, Gamlingay Community Turbine, RES
Group (UK and Ireland) and Gamlingay Environmental
Action Group – no scientific or justifiable basis to implement
arbitrary 2km separation distance. Contradicts NPPF. Planning
Practice Guidance for renewable and low carbon energy (July
2013) rules out local government policies setting separation
distances of this sort. Likely to prevent developments - would
significantly constrain potential land available. Environmental
Impact Assessments establish whether significant effects are
likely and if so, acceptable.
RES Group (UK and Ireland) – decisions on decommissioning
need to be made at end of project life having regard to
circumstances at the time.
Home Builders Federation – policy too prescriptive, not
consistent with proposed changes in Building Regulations and
definition of Allowable Solutions. Delete 1(b).
Bourn PC – in favour of renewable energy generation as long
as it does not lead to cumulative adverse impact on landscape.
Add a criteria on the loss of high quality agricultural land.
The policy is too weak and does not give adequate protection
to local communities from inappropriately sited developments.
New wind farms should only be approved when the actual
energy supply justifies the disruption and impact on local
communities and the landscape. Amend policy and add an
additional criteria: “Planning permission … will be approved
only when the development: a. can demonstrate that the actual
amount of energy provided, as opposed to the theoretical
maximum supply, justifies the impact of the development on
local communities and on the landscape; …”
Policy should be technology agnostic. Important not to be
prescriptive, but ensure flexibility that enables greater use of
allowable solutions to ensure that robust and secure energy
generation is available to residents. Amend policy to seek
detailed assessment of development proposals on a scheme
by scheme basis, with decisions undertaken based upon the
feasibility and viability of each development meeting nationally
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 54 4: Climate Change
adopted standards – and not extended local standards.
Not robust enough – default should be approval of renewable
energy generation both large and small scale unless a very
strong case can be made against it.
‘Provision’ should include full cost allowance for
decommissioning. Amend policy to: “c. Provision is made in the
business plan that supports the proposed development for the
full cost of decommissioning once the operation has ceased
with the removal of all facilities and the restoration of the site,
including a clear statement as to how the funds for the
decommissioning are to be set aside during the productive life
of the facility.”
Wind turbines are extremely inefficient and expensive ways of
generating energy – completely unnecessary whilst creating
audible and visual nightmare. Refuse all planning permissions
for wind turbines.
Policy CC/3: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy in New Developments (and
paragraphs 4.16 – 4.17)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 20
Support: 3 (including 2 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 17 (including 4 from PC)
Main Issues Support
Natural England - welcomes chapter and policies encouraging
renewable and low carbon energy development.
Oakington and Westwick PC – support bullet point 3.
Object
Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of University of
Cambridge – not consistent with Cambridge Local Plan which
proposes change away from Merton-style policy to minimum
standards. University supports in principle City’s change in
approach. Policy should be amended to be consistent with
City.
Defence Infrastructure Organisation - concerns over
implementation of biomass, solar heating, photovoltaic cells
and wind turbines due to potential impacts on air traffic
operations. Understand requirement to implement carbon
neutral facilities to tackle climate change, therefore MOD wish
to be consulted during the planning consultation process.
Home Builders Federation – inconsistent with national policy
and planned changes to Building Regulations. How developers
meet these is a matter for them to decide. Delete policy.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
4: Climate Change Page 55
Bourn PC – in favour of renewable energy generation
becoming integral part of all new developments – scale should
be decided on site by site basis rather than a specific policy.
Should include criteria concerning standards of insulation.
Caldecote and Cambourne PCs – in light of NPPF, reduction
in carbon emissions should be set at 20%.
Oakington and Westwick PC – larger scale development
should have zero carbon standard (Code for Sustainable
Homes Level 5).
Requirement to reduce emissions by 10% compared to
Building Regulations is unworkable and not viable. To achieve
only through on-site technologies is too restrictive. Policy
inconsistent with energy hierarchy. Amend policy to delete
reference to 10% reduction, and replace with reference to
'energy hierarchy' that also includes fabric efficiency and
allowable solutions to ensure compatibility with evolving
national policy. Also amend bullet point 3 to allow use of a
range of technologies including on-site generation, subject to
technical and economic viability.
Inconsistent with requirements in Northstowe AAP and DFD.
Clarity is required in Council’s intentions on whether policies in
Local Plan will supersede those in older policies in AAP and
DFD.
Approach is out of step with Government policy. Should be for
industry to determine how best to comply with Building
Regulations. Site wide solutions only work in city centres or
metropolitan areas.
Policy is an unreasonable burden on development that is not
justified by national policy. Housing Standards Review states
that Government considers that the progressive strengthening
of Building Regulations means it is no longer appropriate for
local plan policies to specify additional standards for how much
of the energy use of new homes should come from onsite
renewables.
Need for flexibility is paramount as technology is moving
rapidly and not all development will be able to achieve 10%
having regard to site circumstances and financial viability.
Amend bullet point 1 of policy to: "Proposals … will be required
wherever possible to reduce carbon emissions (over the
requirements set by Building Regulations) by a minimum of
10% through the use of on-site renewable energy technology,
unless evidence is presented to demonstrate in any individual
case that this is not feasible."
Appreciate that it is preferential for renewable energy
technologies to be accommodated on site, however policy
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 56 4: Climate Change
does not allow for offsite solutions that may be more
appropriate in some cases. Need more flexibility in policy. Add
an additional sentence to end of bullet point 1: “Where an on-
site solution is not considered feasible an off-site solution may
be considered more appropriate.”
Policy CC/4: Sustainable Design and Construction (and paragraphs 4.18 – 4.21)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 13
Support: 2
Object: 11 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Main Issues Support
Natural England - welcomes chapter and policies requiring
development to promote and ensure sustainable construction.
Needs careful monitoring.
Object
Cambridge Past, Present and Future – should include clear
immediate commitment to Level 5 in compliance with changes
to Building Regulations. Amend policy to: “All new
developments will accord with the changes to the Building
Regulations with all new residential developments meeting
CfSH Level 5 by 2016 and all new non-residential
developments meeting CfSH Level 5 by 2019.”
Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of University of
Cambridge – not consistent with Cambridge Local Plan which
proposes policy linked to minimum standards for sustainable
construction, carbon reduction and water efficiency. University
supports in principle City’s change in approach. Policy should
be amended to be consistent with City.
Environment Agency – support policy, but minor updating
needed on water stress status. Amend first sentence of 4.20 to:
"The Cambridge Water company is in an area of water stress
as designated by the Environment Agency."
Home Builders Federation – as policy exceeds Building
Regulations it is necessary for Council to assess cost to ensure
does not jeopardise viability. Once forthcoming changes to
Building Regulations are factored in viability becomes more
precarious. Consider the case for a policy specifying Code 4
not been proven and unnecessary in light of planned changes
to Building Regulations.
Oakington and Westwick PC – all new residential
developments must achieve Level 5 or better water efficiency.
New policy on water neutrality. Area designated as water
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
4: Climate Change Page 57
stressed and lowest rainfall in country. Must ensure that no
more water is abstracted, treated and delivered for business
and/or domestic use than before the new dwellings were built.
In ensuring development is as sustainable as possible, the
Council should look to introduce a fixed percentage of ‘passiv’
design housing. Would like ‘exemplar’ schemes in each major
development with at least 10% ‘passiv’ design.
Control of building sustainability should be restricted to national
standards at time of application / decision making. Higher
levels of water minimisation could be achieved through an
Allowable Solutions or water neutral concept, where existing
homes in the neighbourhood could be upgraded to help
mitigate the impact of the new development.
Designated area of water stress – the need for appropriate and
sufficient water supplies has not been given sufficient
emphasis in the past and it is an issue of wider significance
than within South Cambs alone.
Policy CC/5: Sustainable Show Homes (and paragraphs 4.22 – 4.23)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 10
Support: 4
Object: 6 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Main Issues Support
Natural England – welcomes chapter and policies requiring
development to promote and ensure sustainable construction.
Vital if people are to be encouraged to include Green Options
when they buy a house. Will require agents to be well trained
and fully informed.
Object
Home Builders Federation – cost implication has not been
assessed. Ambiguous how might be applied. Unlikely to be
feasible and safe to provide all these in one dwelling. How
developers choose to achieve carbon reduction targets is
matter for them. Unclear how bullet point 3 would be enforced.
Oakington and Westwick PC – all developments over 15
dwellings should provide sustainable show home with costs
displayed.
No policy basis, no justified need and policy will have no
material effect in reducing climate change. Measures to secure
sustainably designed homes should be secured through Code
for Sustainable Homes or successor standards. Delete policy.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 58 4: Climate Change
Building Regulations approach is sufficient. Special show
homes not required and not viable. Other approaches including
marketing materials and a virtual green home can be used.
Favour the use of Allowable Solutions to provide greater
sustainability benefits – a local Allowable Solutions SPD should
be produced. Customers wanting to go beyond national
standards have other ways forward.
Unreasonable to build a sustainable show home, however
reasonable for show home to include details of options to
purchasers.
o Amend bullet point 1 of policy to: “On developments
where a show home is being provided, this should
include demonstrating environmentally sustainable
alternatives beyond those provided to achieve the
standard agreed for the development.”
o Amend bullet point 2 of policy to: “The sustainable
alternatives can be purchased when a dwelling is
bought off-plan and full details of the options must be
made available in the show home and positively
marketed. Purchasers should be clear on where
alternatives are available, why it is more sustainable,
and the cost of including the alternative.”
Policy CC/6: Construction Methods (and paragraphs 4.24 – 4.26)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 6
Support: 3
Object: 3
Main Issues Support
Cambridge Past, Present and Future – support policy.
Environment Agency – support need for CEMP given that
construction is a major potential source of pollution in
watercourses.
Natural England – welcomes chapter and policies requiring
development to promote and ensure sustainable construction.
Object
Cambridge City Council – City Local Plan makes reference to
the need to comply with County Council's RECAP Waste
Management Design Guide. To ensure consistent approach to
waste management across sub-region, appropriate to make
reference to it in this policy.
Unduly prescriptive and inflexible. The requirement that all
applications should submit supporting documents in relation to
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
4: Climate Change Page 59
construction matters including a CEMP is unnecessary,
unjustified and not proportionate to the scale and nature of
proposals. The requirement will not be relevant to all planning
applications and impacts and issues will vary. Policy should be
amended to include threshold for provision of information.
Amend policy to: “Applications for developments of 10 or more
dwellings or non-residential developments of 1,000 m2 or more
must submit supporting documents ...”.
Policy CC/7: Water Quality (and Paragraphs 4.27 to 4.30)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 8
Support: 3
Object: 5
Main Issues Support
Natural England – welcome policy which seeks to enhance
water quality.
RSPB – support the objective to protect water quality.
Object
Environment Agency – support the water quality and river
renaturalisation policy. To ensure that the development
management process progresses smoothly, we suggest some
flexibility in CC/7 such that only major development proposals
should comply with all aspects of CC/7.
Cambourne and Caldecote PCs – a policy should be included
in relation to inspection and signing off of drainage systems to
mitigate against combining foul and surface water drains.
There is a historical failure to address water issues.
Responsibilities must be agreed with all developers and water
authorities BEFORE development.
The policy should include a commitment by the Council to
improve the 'ecological status' of the rivers in the South Cambs
area.
Policy CC/8: Sustainable Drainage Systems (and Paragraphs 4.31 to 4.33)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 9
Support: 4
Object: 5
Main Issues Support
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 60 4: Climate Change
Environment Agency – strongly support policy.
Natural England – support policy which promotes
multifunctional SuDS.
RSPB – SuDS can provide habitat for biodiversity and can
have important local and cumulative benefits for the wider
water environment.
Object
English Heritage – include a reference in the supporting text
to the need to evaluate the potential impact on archaeological
remains.
Homes and Communities Agency – further supporting text
should be included to confirm the arrangements for future
management of SuDS for large scale new settlements and
urban extensions. In this regard the HCA consider it sensible
for the Council to undertake responsibility for management and
maintenance of SuDS.
Cambourne and Caldecote PCs – a policy should be included
in relation to inspection and signing off of drainage systems to
mitigate against combining foul and surface water drains.
Consider creative use of balancing lakes e.g. watersports.
There is a historical failure to address water issues.
Responsibilities must be agreed with all developers and water
authorities BEFORE development.
Policy CC/9: Managing Flood Risk (and Paragraphs 4.34 to 4.37)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 32
Support: 6
Object: 26
Main Issues Support
Natural England – welcomes policy regarding managing flood
risk.
Cottenham Parish Council – support elements of the policy.
Object
Environment Agency – support the thrust of the policy. There
are some small but critically significant gaps with respect to
setting out the need for development to be safe, and how this
might be achieved for a range of flood risks. A Flood and Water
Management Supplementary Planning Document would be a
helpful way to clarify role of different stakeholders, and
complement policies with more complex guidance.
Anglian Water – pleased to see the inclusion of the drainage
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
4: Climate Change Page 61
hierarchy in dealing with surface water. Text should clarify that
re-development sites (brownfield) are required to take the
same approach to surface water drainage as new undeveloped
(greenfield) sites.
Middle Level Commissioners – care needs to be taken in
respect of floor levels to consider impact on surface water flow
routes. Board will require an FRA in a range of circumstances
set out in national guidance.
Ely Group of Internal Drainage Boards – Internal Drainage
Boards should be included in list of responsible bodies in
paragraph 4.37.
Bourn and Cambourne PCs – does not apply sufficiently
stringent criteria to guard against flood risk to settlements
downstream of any proposed new development. New
settlements should include mitigation (e.g. via balancing lakes)
against a 1-in-250 rather than a 1-in-100 year event. A policy
should be included in relation to inspection and signing off of
drainage systems to mitigate against combining foul and
surface water drains.
Cottenham PC – SFRA should be updated to reflect latest
guidance. Paragraph 4.35: refers to the EA and its maps and
available web-site. The policy would be better served if it were
to include the specifics of flood zones 1, 2 and 3 as detailed in
national policy documents. There should be specific reference
to individual internal drainage boards to be consulted.
In part 1a, proposed floor levels should be based on flood
levels, not on existing site infrastructure and roads.
In part 1c, the text as currently drafted would have the effect of
seeking to restrict the surface water run off rates for new
developments on all sites, including brownfield sites, to below
the equivalent greenfield run off rates for an undeveloped site.
This is not appropriate and may well not be feasible.
There is a historical failure to address water issues.
Responsibilities must be agreed with all developers and water
authorities BEFORE development.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 62 4: Climate Change
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
5: Delivering High Quality Places Page 63
Chapter 5: Delivering High Quality Places
Policy HQ/1: Design Principles (and paragraphs 5.1 – 5.9)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 33
Support: 17 (including 2 from Parish Councils (PC)
Object: 16 (including 2 from PC)
Main Issues Support
Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Support this policy.
Fulbourn PC – Support as protects intrinsic character of the
village and surrounding countryside.
Great Abington PC – Fully support. Completely in harmony
with our ambitions for developments in Great Abington.
Natural England – Pleased includes reference to high quality
landscaping and public spaces with various functions.
Every new development must make the site and its
environment, as well as the surrounding area, better to live in.
Proposals will help create good quality new developments.
New developments should be attractive and traditional to be in
keeping with rural village settings.
Object
Cambridgeshire County Council - Strengthen to ensure
needs of ageing population addressed by future development
and provide for supported living and other facilities to meet
adult social care needs. Suggest Building for Life standards.
Caldecote & Cambourne PCs – Should include reference to
the requirement for Lifetime Homes in Criterion k.
English Heritage – Welcome policy subject to minor change to
criteria 1b and 1e, and paragraph 5.6 to strengthen policy in
relation to heritage assets and improve clarity.
Swavesey and District Bridleways Association and 6 others
- Criterion f - add horse riding.
Much concern with conserving. Should be greater acceptance
of new ways of doing things. Criteria c, d and e contradict.
Policy needs more emphasis on the positive contribution high
quality design can have on vibrant communities.
Sad to see how badly made new developments around
Cambridge are. Not in keeping / unattractive.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 64 5: Delivering High Quality Places
Policy HQ/2: Public Art and New Development (paragraphs 5.10 - 5.13)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 11
Support: 6 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 5 (including 2 from PC)
Main Issues Support
Fulbourn PC – Support policy - led to major public art projects
being incorporated into developments – e.g. The Swifts.
Think about public art in widest form, not just installations and
street art – e.g. funding a workshop, project or performance.
Community must be seen in widest sense not just council and
school. Vital that it is ‘owned’ by the community.
Use should be made of design competitions and allow local
people to choose from wide variety of types and styles.
Object
Caldecote & Cambourne PCs – Policy should foster local
artists in conjunction with community and where possible be
integrated into buildings, landscape or street furniture.
Essential to strengthen community buy in and ‘ownership’.
Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Agree in principle as
highly desirable, but should allow pooling of funds from small
developments to deliver fewer more significant pieces.
Criterion 3 – Unsure if this just relates to art as in sculptures
and material installations.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 65
Chapter 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic
Environment
Key Facts ( and paragraphs 6.1- 6.4)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 3
Support: 0
Object: 3
Main Issues Object
The Wildlife Trust – include mention of ecological networks,
County Wildlife Sites and SSSIs. Improve consistency across
document in referring to target areas in Green Infrastructure
Strategy. Suggest additional wording to key facts.
Great Ouse AONB Working Group – Welcome objectives of
chapter 6 and should mention ‘The Great Ouse Valley’ in plan
and its key values identified. Urge the Council to support
recognition and inclusion of proposed Great Ouse AONB within
Strategic Green Infrastructure of Local Plan. Evidence
submitted to put forward case for AONB and suggested
wording.
Policy NH/1: Conservation Area and Green Separation at Longstanton (and
paragraph 6.5)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 11
Support: 1
Object: 10
Main Issues Support
Natural England - General support for all policies in the
environment chapter.
Objection
English Heritage – Historic importance of this land and
remnants of early ridge and furrow. Policy refers to playing
fields being potentially acceptable. Disagree – will damage
archaeological remains when land levelled. Need to clarify that
they are not appropriate.
Swavesey & District Bridleways Association – Green
separation should include bridleways – valuable to community.
Supported by number of individuals.
Separation important – should be designated as green belt.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 66 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment
Request from owners that Melrose House and associated land
to be excluded from policy.
Policy NH/2: Protecting and Enhancing Landscape Character (and paragraphs 6.6
- 6.11)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 6
Support: 4 (including 3 from Parish Councils (PC))
Object: 2 (including 1 from PC )
Main Issues Support
Elsworth PC – Character and distinctiveness of rural
landscape in South Cambs important. New development must
reflect and enhance character. Need to protect existing assets.
Fulbourn PC – Policy protects intrinsic character of village and
surroundings.
Gamlingay PC – Bedfordshire Greensand Ridge has particular
impact on parish – specific character very noticeable.
Natural England – General support for all policies in
environment chapter.
Objection
Cambridge Past Present and Future – Object to National
Character Area assessments as too broad brush. Local
authority should commission an up-to-date local Landscape
Character assessment to replace current one dated 2003.
Policy should specifically refer to historic landscape character.
Great Shelford PC – East Anglian Chalk local landscape
character but waterways significant within parish – Hobson’s
Brook. Would like to see policy for waterways.
Policy NH/3: Protecting Agricultural Land (and paragraphs 6.12 - 6.14)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 22
Support: 19 (including 3 from Parish Councils (PC))
Object: 3 (including 1 from PC)
Main Issues Support
Cambridge Past Present and Future - Recognise importance
of using good quality agricultural land for food production rather
than for development.
Elsworth PC – Essential for national food security. Should be
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 67
robustly protected.
Fulbourn PC – Protects intrinsic quality of village and
surrounding area.
Ickleton PC – Support policy.
Natural England – General support for all policies in
environment chapter.
General support for policy.
Object
Bourn PC – Support policy but concerned that not following
NPPF guidance because insufficient weight to economic value
of agricultural land.
Small areas of grade 2 and 3a farmland are uneconomic and
areas below 2 hectares should be exempt from policy.
Introduce lower threshold limit of 2 hectares. to policy
Should never allocate high grade farmland for development.
Policy NH/4: Biodiversity (and paragraphs 6.15 - 6.18)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 12
Support: 7 (including 2 from Parish Council)
Object: 5 (including 1 from PC)
Main Issues Support
Environment Agency – Support policy – wholly compatible
with requirements of EU Water Framework Directive.
Elsworth PC – Support and agree Biodiversity SPD should be
updated.
Fulbourn PC – Fully support.
Natural England – General support for all policies in
environment chapter.
The Wildlife Trust – Support – pleased to see recognition of
national guidance, specific mention of brownfield sites.
Object
Cambridge Past Present and Future – Policy too weak.
Suggest amending wording of policy to strengthen. Replace
‘clearly’ with ‘demonstrably and significantly’ so similar to
wording in Policy NH/5.
Dry Drayton PC – Request recognition of Dry Drayton’s
biodiversity survey in policy.
The Wildlife Trust – Support but suggest mention is made of
the importance of wider ecological networks that need to be
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 68 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment
considered when planning the green infrastructure – will help
species adapt to climate change.
Policy should not just protect protected species etc but also the
‘ordinary’ non-threatened biodiversity. Development should be
refused where negative impact on biodiversity.
Policy NH/5: Sites of Biodiversity or Geological Importance (and paragraphs 6.19
– 6.26)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 9
Support: 6 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 3
Main Issues Support
Cambridge Past Present and Future – Support policy.
Cambridgeshire County Council – Support policy.
Elsworth PC – Support policy and should update Biodiversity
SPD.
Environment Agency – Support policy – compatible with
requirements of EU Water Framework Directive.
Natural England – General support for policies in environment
chapter.
Object
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) – Support
but recommend wording at 2a makes a clearer distinction
between the hierarchy of international, national and locally
designated sites, as set out in paragraph of 113 of NPPF.
The Wildlife Trust – Need to clarify wording in 2e since
remaining features would not need to be recreated!
No development should be granted that impacts biodiversity
therefore delete ‘not normally be permitted.’
Policy NH/6: Green Infrastructure (and paragraphs 6.27 - 6.31)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 73
Support:6 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 67 (including 2 from PCs)
Main Issues Support
Cambridgeshire County Council – Support policy.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 69
Gamlingay PC – Support targets identified in Strategy relating
to West Cambridgeshire Woodlands.
Natural England – General support for all policies in
environment chapter.
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) – Support
policy and Green Infrastructure Strategy.
The Wildlife Trust – Support policy.
Excellent partnership of different organisations. Strategy
should not be allowed to languish.
Object
Cambourne and Caldecote PCs – Support policy but should
include proposals for woodland creation to enhance
countryside and help mitigate greenhouse emissions.
Cambridge Past Present and Future – Support policy but
would like more specific reference to role of River Cam and its
corridor in Green Infrastructure Policy. Need for specific Cam
Corridor enhancement guidance as SPD or specific policy for
River Cam and corridor in plan.
Great Ouse AONB Working Group – Should include whole of
Great Ouse Valley which will be important area for quiet
enjoyment in County in future.
Shelford and District Bridleways Group; Swavesey and
District Bridleways Association; Sawston Riding School;
Brampton Bridleway Group - Introduce an additional
paragraph to Policy NH/6 which secures access for horse
riders, pedestrians and cycles. Rights of way should be for all
non motorised users. Need to update Cambridgeshire Green
Infrastructure Strategy to comply with NPPF which encourages
providing opportunities for all to access open space – includes
horse riders.
The National Trust – Lack of joined up thinking between
Green Infrastructure and how people arrive at these sites via
sustainable transport promoted in Policy TI/2. Wimpole Cycle
route should be mentioned in paragraph 6.31 to enable it to be
taken forward as scheme in Local Transport Plan.
The Wildlife Trust – Map should show locations of key
ecological networks (Gog Magogs Countryside Area and West
Cambridgeshire Hundreds) and target areas from Strategy
mentioned in paragraph 6.31.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 70 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment
Policy NH/7: Ancient Woodlands and Veteran Trees ( and paragraph 6.32 – 6.33)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 7
Support: 3 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 4 (including 2 from PC)
Main Issues Support
Cambridgeshire County Council – Support policy.
Elsworth PC – Support.
Natural England – General support for policies in environment
chapter.
Object
Cambourne and Caldecote PCs – Support policy but should
include proposals contributing to woodland creation to mitigate
effects of loss of ancient woodlands or veteran trees.
Cambridge Past Present and Future – Support policy but
object to weak wording – replace clearly with demonstrably and
significantly as in Policy NH/5.
Great Ouse AONB Working Group – Request to include
floodplain / carr woodland as an additional category of
woodland to be protected in the policy as they are rare and
need to be conserved.
Policy NH/8: Mitigating the Impact of Development in and adjoining the Green Belt
(and paragraph 6.34 – 6.35 )
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 10
Support: 3 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 7 (including 1 from PC)
Main Issues Support
Fulbourn PC – Support policy
Natural England – General support for policies in environment
chapter
Object
Cambridge Past Present and Future – Object on basis that
development in green belt is inappropriate unless can
demonstrate exceptional circumstances according to NPPF.
Cambridgeshire County Council – Propose change of
wording to strengthen policy.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 71
Great Shelford PC – Landscaping could be used as excuse to
permit development in green belt. Policy should include
wording stating development is inappropriate unless
exceptional circumstances.
No exceptional circumstances to warrant encroachment on
Green Belt.
If exceptional circumstances proven then exceptional
landscape enhancement must form part of development – area
equal in size to area released from Green Belt must be added
within same geographical zone.
Any development will conflict with wording of policy.
Policy NH/9: Redevelopment of Previously Developed Sites and Infilling in the
Green Belt (and paragraph 6.36)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 8
Support: 4 (including 1 Parish Council (PC))
Object: 4
Main Issues Support
Fulbourn PC - Support
Natural England – General support for policies in environment
chapter.
Support for second part of policy as complies with NPPF.
Object
Cambridge Past Present and Future + other – NPPF
(paragraph 89) allows ‘limited infilling in villages and limited
affordable housing for local community needs…’ but no
definition of ‘limited’. Policy should specify limit on number of
homes that can be built. Suggest five homes as a maximum?
Brownfield land to be used first. Detailed wording suggested for
change to policy.
Girton College – seek amendments to policy and supporting
text -
o Policy to recognise special nature of site as established
development site within Green Belt where development
brief will be prepared.
o Criteria in part 1 of policy go beyond NPPF - should be
removed.
o Amendment to paragraph 6.36 to comply with NPPF – The
NPPF (para 89 last bullet point) refers to the 'partial or
complete redevelopment of previously developed sites'
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 72 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment
whereas paragraph 6.36 only refers to 'complete
redevelopment'.
o Remove phrase in 6.36 ‘to rural character’ of Green Belt as
not consistent with NPPF.
Policy NH/10: Recreation in the Green Belt ( and paragraphs 6.37 – 6.38)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 7
Support: 4 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 3
Main Issues Support
Fulbourn PC – Support policy for providing sport and
recreation in villages within Green Belt such as Fulbourn.
Natural England – Support general policies in environment
chapter.
Trumpington Residents Association – Support increased
access to green belt but concerned at development of sports
pitches.
Green Belt is an asset for benefit of local community – should
allow for improved public access. Council should promote
schemes such as those promoted in Quarter to Six Quadrant
document. Green Infrastructure Strategy provides framework to
implement.
Object
Grosvenor Development and Anglian Ruskin University –
NPPF para 81 states local planning authorities should plan
positively to enhance beneficial use of Green Belt –
opportunities to provide access to outdoor sports and
recreation. NPPF identifies outdoor sport as appropriate green
belt use. Suggest change of wording to paragraph 6.38 to say
plan will seek to positively bring forward land in green belt for
outdoor sport.
Cambridgeshire County Council – Support intention of policy
but has sought provision of school playing fields outside
development footprints including in Green Belt as means of
supporting overall development viability. Will need balance in
application of this policy. Should allow for scope to expand
schools to provide additional education provision as required.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 73
Policy NH/11:Protected Village Amenity Areas
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 12
Support: 7 (including 3 from Parish Councils (PC))
Object: 5
Main Issues Support
Bourn PC – Support retention as allows protection of areas
that would not qualify for Local Green Space.
Fowlmere and Fulbourn PCs – Support policy.
Natural England – general support all policies within
environment chapter.
Objection
Cambridgeshire County Council – Need to allow greater
flexibility in policy to allow schools to be able to provide new
buildings on existing playing fields. Should allow re-provision of
open space as integral part of overall development.
Objection to having both PVAA and LGS designations within
plan - two similar designations. If PVAAs are to remain in plan
should review each designated site to reflect changed
circumstances.
Residents should have more say in which green spaces to
protect – parish councils should consult local community and
forward to district council.
Representations relating to village sites
(Note: same 2 sites registered against Policy NH/12: Local Green
Space.)
Great Shelford
Land south of 26 Church St and Rectory Farm
Jesus College objecting to designation as PVAA. Area
covered by range of designations which offer protection and
prevent inappropriate development. PVAA not required.
Little Abington
Meadow surrounded by residential development and Bancroft
Farm
Committee for Abington Housing object to former farm site
being protected as green space. Adjacent meadow is rightly
designated but this site is brownfield land with no public
access, derelict farm buildings - does not meet criteria for
PVAA.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 74 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment
Policy NH/12: Local Green Space
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 424
Support: 395 (Including 2 from Parish Councils (PC))
Object: 29 (including 5 from PC)
Main Issues Representations on general issues on Local Green Space.
Support
Environment Agency – Consider LGS can also be used to
help provide resilience to climate change through making and
protecting spaces that can flood with minimal effect compared
to occupied property. Cambs Surface Water Management Plan
sets out known hot spots. EA specifically supports LGS in Bar
Hill; Bassingbourn; Bourn; Cottenham; Elsworth; Great and
Little Abington; Ickleton; Orwell; Papworth.
Fowlmere PC – Support protection given by LGS
Fulbourn PC – Support for policy
General support for policy from 215 respondents.
Natural England – General support for all policies in
environment chapter.
Object
Bourn PC – support policy but should clarify in policy what
changes of land use would be permitted after area has been
designated LGS.
Cambridgeshire County Council –Current policy would
prevent overall redevelopment of school provision across a
school site with new buildings being provided on existing
playing fields and re-provision of playing fields in place of
existing buildings. Policy should allow for re-provision of green
space as integral part of overall development proposals as
means of promoting flexible school place planning.
General objections to policy from 8 respondents
Residents should have more say in which green spaces to
protect – parish councils should consult local community and
forward to district council. Insufficient consultation on current
proposed sites.
Representations on LGSs included in the Proposed
Submission Local Plan
Bassingbourn
Bassingbourn PC - Support all sites in village.
The Rouses
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 75
Support LGS from 71 respondents. Open access including
informal paths leading to Ford Wood, Willmott playing field and
South End. Setting for listed buildings. Undisturbed meadow
area. Rich in wildlife. Development of site would harm
character and appearance of historic part of village. Surviving
relic of village's manorial / field system. Site of Rowses manor
house, recorded as vacant 1589. Valuable village amenity –
used by many for informal recreation / meeting place / dog
walkers. Green space near centre of village. Additional
recreational land needed by Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth.
Duxford
End of Mangers Lane
Objection to designation by individuals - should remove
designation of PVAA as no longer meets criteria. Replace with
more flexible and responsive community use allocation /
designation (for allotments / orchard / affordable housing) to
serve local community and village.
Greenacres
Support for LGS from 9 respondents. Village already short of
green areas. Popular safe play area in cul-de-sac – can be
viewed by parents. Alternative play area requires crossing busy
road, blind junction. Valued by local residents – LGS preserves
open, pleasing aspect to area – character noted recently by
planning inspector. Venue for annual street BBQ – helps bring
community together.
Fulbourn
Fulbourn PC – support LGS policy as it protects intrinsic
character of village and surrounding countryside.
Field between Cox’s Drove, Cow Lane and railway line + area
adjacent to Horse Pond.
Support designation from Fulbourn Forum for Community
Action and 24 individuals. Haven for local wildlife. Important
green space for village. Field enhances setting and
appearance of this part of village – brings countryside into
heart of village. Contributes to retaining rural character. As
village has expanded in recent years important to preserve
character and ambience of village.
Objection that site does not meet criteria for LGS by Castlefield
International Ltd. No public access / private land – therefore
any public activity on land represents trespass. Need for sixth
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 76 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment
criteria for assessing sites – whether they are deliverable as
LGS – this site is not. Not put forward by Parish Council even
though they made comprehensive represents to S Cambs
therefore not worthy of designation. If site to be secured as
long term green space would need support of PC. Priority in
South Cambs is for housing land, sustainable site for allocation
- complies with NPPF. Remove designation.
Victorian Garden associated with Old Pumping Station.
Support designation from Fulbourn Forum for community
action and 16 individuals. Area valued by local community –
has both historic and recreational value. Landscape value –
where springs emerge in village. Countryside penetrating into
village, contributes to rural village character.
Land between Townley Hall fronting Home End
New site proposed by individual - Should be designated as
LGS – need to preserve character of village.
Gamlingay
Lupin Field
Support for LGS designation from Gamlingay PC and 54
individuals – preserves openness, beauty, tranquillity and
richness of wildlife for residents on west side of village. Valued
by local community. Should not be developed. Focal point of
village especially when lupins flower in summer. Limited
opportunity and access to open space on this part of village.
Suggest part of Merton Field should be fenced off as play area.
Field marks boundary between edge of settlement and Hamlet
of Dennis Green – natural boundary.
An objection to LGS from Merton College as site does not meet
criteria for designation as LGS. Council misguided in
designating it as LGS. NPPF states blanket designation of
open countryside adjacent to settlements is not appropriate +
Landowner does not believe they have been properly
consulted – plan fails legal compliance. No public right of
access. Limited historic or wildlife value. Reaction from
community to planning application on site. Designation barrier
to future development.
Great Abington
General support for all LGS in village.
Magna Close central grassed area
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 77
Support for LGS.
Great and Little Chishill PC
Bull Meadow and playing fields north of Hall Lane
Support for this site being LGS from Great and Little Chishill
PC.
Great Shelford
Land south of 26 Church St and Rectory Farm.
Objection to this site being LGS from Jesus College. Area
covered by range of designations which offer protection to site
– prevent inappropriate development. Does not need additional
designation as LGS. Landscape and Townscape assessment
of criteria carried out and site does not them - no significant
landscape features – only number of mature trees.
Harston
General support for all LGS in village.
Recreation Ground and orchard
Support for inclusion by Harston PC and three individuals but
boundary of LGS does not include football pitches and does
include privately owned farmland – needs revising.
Hauxton
General support for all LGS in village.
Hinxton
General support for all LGS in village.
Ickleton
Village Green and Drivers Meadow
Support from Ickleton PC and Ickleton Society for these sites
being LGS.
Back Lane
Objection from Ickleton Society for this site being rejected as
LGS. Not just access to recreation ground but enjoyed in its
own right for tranquillity. Enhances character of village and
therefore should be designated as LGS.
Little Abington
Scout campsite, Church Lane
Support from Little Abington PC and others. Recognises
importance of site.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 78 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment
Bowling Green
Support for LGS designation.
Meadow surrounded by residential development and Bancroft
Farm
Bancroft Farm, Church Lane (SHLAA site 28) - Objection from
both Great and Little Abington PCs and Committee for
Abington Housing. Wrong designation of brownfield land and
LGS should only apply to meadow. Old derelict farmyard
previously not designated for protection. Reclassification would
enable sensitive development within conservation area.
Little Shelford
General support for all LGS in village.
Melbourn
Greengages Rise play area
Support from 2 respondents for this LGS. Used as area for
informal recreation. Recent planning application to develop
area dismissed at appeal as open space covered by plan
policy protecting existing recreational areas.
Newton
General support for all LGS in village.
Orwell
Chapel Orchard by Methodist Church
Request from Orwell PC to amend boundary as LGS extends
over farmland / private land. Landowner of this land
erroneously included in LGS has objected to designation –
request for amendment of boundary.
Over
Land to rear of The Lanes
Objection to LGS by individual as does not meet criteria for
designation. Site bounded by 2m high fence. Limited views /
overgrown private land. No public access. No more tranquil
than other nearby areas in village. No uncommon wildlife.
Station Road/ Turn Lane
Objection to LGS from individual. Must be demonstrably
special. Afforded more weight as summited by Parish Council.
Rejected by inspector in 2006 – little changed. PC not justified
why site special. Site fails assessment. Long term protection
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 79
important but not at expense of potential future growth of
village and development that could result in better
management of site.
Pampisford
General support for all LGS in village.
Papworth Everard
Papworth Everard PC strongly supports policy and its
application to village. Valued by parishioners. Village
characterised by housing separated by relatively large green
spaces.
New site
Papworth Everard PC request that consideration be given to
designating wider landscape stripes within housing
development in NW of village – valued by local community –
well used.
Sawston
General support for all LGS in village.
Stapleford
General support for all LGS in village.
Policy NH/13: Important Countryside Frontages
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 30
Support: 24
Object: 6 (including 3 from Parish Councils (PC))
Main Issues Support
General support for policy.
Representations on village frontages
Fowlmere
Objection from individual to remove frontage from B1368
London Road / High Street along east boundary of SHLAA site
107. Does not meet tests for ICF. Designation outside
conservation area and is not PVAA – land not considered to
have any specific importance to setting of village.
Foxton
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 80 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment
Fowlmere PC – suggest new frontage south of Foxton primary
school – behind southern boundary of recreation area and
school.
Fulbourn
Home End
Support for frontage adjacent to the Fulbourn Centre (between
Townley Hall and the Scout Hut) - from 17 respondents.
Penetration of countryside into Home End – helps retain strong
rural village character in Conservation Area – lost if developed.
Objection to frontage – not justified in this location. No
assessment in draft plan that policy is appropriate and whether
specific sites should be included within policy. Suitable location
for development to meet objectively assessed development
needs.
Great and Little Abington
General support for frontages.
Great and Little Chishill
Great and Little Chishill PC – Five new frontages suggested:
1. B1069 leading from Barley Road, past windmill - this sweeps
up to built-up area.
2. May Street - this sweeps up to built-up area.
3. New Road - this sweeps up to built-up area.
4. Heydon Road - provides an important rural break from
Heydon Village.
5. Hall - this sweeps up to built-up area.
Great and Little Shelford
General support for frontages.
Guilden Morden
Frontage to land south of 33 Dubbs Knoll Road
Objection from landowners to frontage. Objection to frontage
as unsound, not compliant with NPPF. Land not previously
designated – is bordered either side, opposite and to NE by
existing housing. Countryside to west not visible through
mature hedge and trees. Development of land for affordable
housing would not significantly alter character of land – greater
benefit to village.
Harston
General support for frontages.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 81
Hauxton
General support for frontages.
Heydon
Heydon PC – suggesting an additional frontage – vista from
Fowlmere Road looking up the avenue to Heydon.
Hinxton
General support for frontages.
Newton
General support for frontages.
Pampisford
General support for frontages.
Sawston
General support for frontages.
Stapleford
General support for frontages.
Policy NH/14: Heritage Assets (and paragraphs 6.43 – 6.58)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 6
Support: 1
Object: 5 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Main Issues Support
Cambridgeshire County Council – Support as accords with
NPPF.
Gamlingay PC – Support policy.
Object
Bourn PC - Polices Map does not show extent of boundary of
Conservation area in village.
Cambridge Past Present and Future - Support policy but
would like to see strengthening of wording relating to ‘non-
designated assets’ in policy so developers are clear policy not
just referring to designated assets.
Cambridgeshire County Council - Suggest change of
wording to paragraph 6.56 and 6.57 to explain the County’s
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 82 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment
role with heritage assets and their Historic Environment
Records.
English Heritage – Strong support for policy but suggest some
changes:
o NPPF paragraph 126 states local planning authorities
should set out positive strategy for historic environment in
local plan. Recognise that plan policies refer to historic
environment. Generic policy for historic environment
provides opportunity to provide distinctive, positive
framework and address issues relevant to overview.
Consider how plan is underpinned in a positive strategy for
historic environment – could be done in form of supporting
SPD – include conservation area appraisals and
management plans.
o Need to consider how joint work with Cambridge City can
be consolidated and updated e.g. Cambridge Green Belt
Study (LDA 2002) significant evidence base used in plan –
parts no longer applicable. Inner Green Belt boundary –
recent detailed work could be assimilated into this study.
o Suggest extending scope of policy to consider future
maintenance of assets and ones at risk. .
o Amend para 6.48, mentioning the use of traditional
materials on vernacular buildings.
o Re-word the last two sentences para 6.49 for clarity.
o Replace ‘historic asset’ with ‘heritage asset’ in paragraph
6.57.
IWM Duxford - Support policy. Finding viable uses is included
in policy – will require careful consideration and control.
Support adoption and use of Heritage Partnership Agreements
where appropriate (set out in Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform Act 2013) – suggest amending paragraph 6.52.
Policy does not clearly differentiate between designated and
non-designated assets. Uses term ‘undesignated’ - contrary to
NPPF. Confusing to group all assets in one policy. Implies
same weight afforded to all elements – no mention of
proportionality therefore at odds with NPPF.
Definition of ‘heritage asset’ too restrictive. Council should
encourage local communities through their Parish Councils to
identify and list all heritage assets within parish that are of
significance to that community. This register should then inform
conservation area appraisal, if such actually exists, and the
planning process - as set out in the 2011 Localism Act.
Suggests adding 3rd clause to policy.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Page 83
Policy NH/15: Heritage Assets and Adapting to Climate Change (and paragraphs
6.59 – 6.63)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 9
Support: 1
Object: 8
Main Issues Support
General support.
Object
Cambridge Past Present and Future - Support policy but
object to weak wording in bullet 2 which talks only about
‘adequate’ safeguarding. Should refer to heritage character.
Suggest amending policy to read:
'effectively safeguards heritage significance and character...'
English Heritage – Suggest re-wording part 2 of policy to
reflect approach of NPPF more closely:
‘Proposals for energy efficient and renewable energy measures
for historic buildings will be supported where they are
individually tailored to the historic building and are developed
with the benefit of a full understanding of the historic and
architectural significance of the building such that the
proposals will not result in harm to heritage significance'.
Policy welcomed but section 2 is too broad. Suggest adding
following words:
'...will be permitted, provided the proposal does not impact on,
or detract from, the heritage value of the historic building.'
Do not consider policy usefully addresses how balance
heritage significance and environmental adaption. Need for
clearer guidance. Need for clarity on how to reach a balance in
paras 6.61 - 6.62.
Wording in part 1 of policy weak - ‘encourage and support’
should be replaced with ‘destruction of these buildings will not
be permitted’.
Need for stricter definition of what allowable re-use is. Suggest
that where possible should be a community asset. Should
specify priorities.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 84 6: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 85
Chapter 7 High Quality Homes
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages (and paragraphs
7.5 and 7.6) (Excluding allocations H/1a to H/1h)
This covers general points in policy H/1 and new or alternative sites proposed in
representations. To look at the representations on housing allocations included in the
Local Plan see the separate tables that follow for each allocated site.
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 381
Support: 266
Object: 115
Main Issues Support
Natural England - welcome specific reference to landscape, biodiversity and GI protection and enhancement requirements for relevant developments.
Bassingbourn cum Kneesworth Parish Council support rejection of Bassingbourn SHLAA Sites 059, 066, 078, 085, 219, 220, 291 and Land north of High Street Bassingbourn (SHLAA Site 324)
Fen Ditton Parish Council - Support for rejection of Land between 12 and 28 Horningsea Road, Fen Ditton (SC254)
3 Support for rejection (including Histon and Impington Parish Council, Oakington and Westwick Parish Council): Land at Buxhall Farm Histon (SHLAA site 133)
Madingley Parish Council – Note no development proposed in the Parish.
Stapleford Parish Council – Support rejection of SHLAA sites in Stapleford.
Shepreth Parish Council – Support rejection of Barrington Cemex site
Oakington Parish Council Supports rejection of sites in Great Shelford (SHLAA site 5), Cottenham (SHLAA sites 3, 129, 260), Gamlingay (SHLAA sites 93 and 171), Girton SHLAA site 143, Bassingbourn (SHLAA sites 78 and 219), Comberton SHLAA site 110, and Waterbeach (SHLAA sites 1 and 202).
7 general supports for Policy H/1.
7 supports for no sites being allocated at Fulbourn
2 Support for development at Sawston to help local residents stay in the village.
1 Support for rejection of Barrington Quarry site.
Support for rejection of Sawston, Babraham, Hinxton, Great Shelford & Stapleford – SHLAA Sites.
213 Supports for Rejection, and 6 object to rejection of Land to East of New Road Melbourn (SHLAA site 320) and
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 86 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
Orchard and Land at East Farm Melbourn (SHLAA site 331)
1 Support for rejection of The Rouses Bassingbourn (SHLAA site 078)
1 Support for rejection of Next to Walnut Tree Close, North End Bassingbourn (SHLAA site 85) 1 Support for rejection of Land north of A428, Cambourne (SHLAA Sites 194 & 265)
Petition Signed By 22 People support rejection of land at Cockerton Road Girton (SHLAA site 143)
5 Supports for rejection of Land off Station Road Fulbourn (SHLAA site 74) and other Fulbourn SHLAA sites
OBJECT
Roads are already a problem.
Half the sites are in the Green Belt, and exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated.
Policy should refer to sites being allocated in the Green Belt only if there are no sites available outside the Green Belt.
Bullet 2 requiring sites to make appropriate financial contributions to any necessary additional infrastructure is unnecessary as a plan policy.
Roads in Gamlingay cannot cope.
Object to further development in Melbourn.
Oakington Parish Council object that the plan does not include the following sites as housing allocations:
o Sawston (SHLAA sites 230, 116, 23, ) o Cottenham (SHLAA sites 123, 263) o Fulbourn (SHLAA site 74) o Linton (SHLAA site 152) o Swavesey (SHLAA site 83) o Bassingbourn (SHLAA site 85) o Comberton (SHLAA sites 4, 158, 255) o Papworth Everard (SHLAA site 151)
Waterbeach (SHLAA sites 89, 189, 155, and 206)
Additional or alternative village housing sites
90 additional or alternative village housing sites suggested, most
of which have been previously submitted and reviewed through the
SHLAA. These have been summarised and assessed separately,
and the assessments can be read in Annex B.
Rural Centres: o Cambourne: 1 site, 56 homes (1 new site) o Cottenham: 5 sites, 477 homes (All SHLAA sites) o Great Shelford & Stapleford: 7 sites, 702 homes (6
SHLAA sites, 1 new site) o Histon & Impington: 5 sites, 380 homes (All SHLAA
sites)
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 87
o Sawston: 4 sites, 152 homes (All SHLAA sites)
Minor Rural Centre: o Bassingbourn: 2 sites, 71 homes (1 SHLAA site, 1
new site) o Comberton: 2 sites, 181 homes (1 SHLAA site, 1
new site) o Fulbourn: 5 sites, 416 homes (All SHLAA sites) o Gamlingay: 4 sites, 191 homes (3 SHLAA sites, 1
new site) o Girton: 2 sites, 15 homes (All SHLAA sites) o Linton: 3 sites, 473 homes (All SHLAA sites) o Melbourn: 1 site, 200 homes (SHLAA site) o Papworth Everard: 1 site, 167 homes (SHLAA site) o Swavesey: 3 sites, 284 homes (All SHLAA sites) o Waterbeach: 4 sites, 178 homes (All SHLAA sites) o Willingham: 1 site, 28 homes (SHLAA site)
Group Villages - 22 SHLAA sites, 4 new sites. Includes sites proposed by Great Abington and Little Abington Parish Councils.
Infill Villages – 5 new sites. Includes sites proposed by Graveley Parish Council.
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages
Site reference H/1a Sawston, Dales Manor Business Park
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 146
Support: 44
Object: 102
Main Issues Support
Cambridge Past Present and Future – support this policy.
Cambridgeshire County Council – three Sawston sites can
be appropriately accessed. Detailed Transport Assessment
needed to determine impacts, required mitigation and viability,
deliverability and acceptability of works. Education impacts
capable of mitigation.
Hinxton, Ickleton, Oakington & Westwick and Pampisford
Parish Councils – support reuse of brownfield site.
Sustainable development, brownfield land, will improve
appearance of village boundary and benefit community.
Allows for additional housing without ruining the Green Belt.
Development of only this site would limit traffic congestion on
Babraham Road, minimise impact on schools, health centres
and other local services.
Sawston provides housing to average income home owners
who cannot afford to live anywhere else south of Cambridge.
One of the few communities with the infrastructure to support
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 88 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
such developments. Need housing for local people.
Include a corner shop – already needed in the area.
Objection
Environment Agency – former industrial site above a Source
Protection Zone. Need a land contamination report prior to the
drainage plan - suggest adding requirement to policy.
Governing Body of Icknield Primary School – object to all 3
Sawston sites: increased roll detrimental to education provision
/ school ethos, buildings inadequate; negative impact on
education from construction noise and disruption; significant /
negative impact on community; access, traffic and parking are
major issues. If approved, require new buildings, retention of
existing school site and grounds, improved access and
parking, and full involvement in discussions / decisions.
Great Abington Parish Council – developments in or near
Sawston, particularly on eastern edge, are unacceptable.
Considerable traffic impacts for Sawston and Babraham.
James Binney Will Trust – accept need for more dwellings
and in vicinity of Sawston and Pampisford is appropriate in
principle. Serious concerns over highways safety and setting of
heritage assets; increased traffic on Babraham Road, Sawston
Road and Babraham High Street - roads inadequate, and
significant upgrades to junctions will detract from rural
character, impact on local residents and setting of Listed
Pampisford Hall. Impact on drainage system to south must be
assessed to ensure natural ecosystem not affected.
MCA Developments Limited – given limited employment
opportunities in villages and there are locations (e.g. West
Cambourne) that can accommodate housing without loss of
employment land, there is not sufficient justification for this site.
Peterhouse (Bidwells) (promoter) – support allocation - will
strengthen vitality and viability of village, and provide needed
housing and employment opportunities. Site within a variety of
ownerships and overall delivery is unlikely until after 2020
(2017/18 in housing trajectory). Delete 3rd bullet.
Salmon Harvester (Savills) (promoter) – support allocation,
but opportunity for 230-250 dwellings. Insufficient market
interest for employment - opportunity for redevelopment of
underused site for housing and business uses. Traffic study
shows capacity in highway network. Site is available on phased
basis, but to be completed by the end of the plan period.
Replace 200 with 230 dwellings.
Sawston Parish Council – fully supportive of sustainable new
housing on brownfield site, within framework, supported by
residents. Would not overburden facilities. If well planned,
could enhance neighbourhood and provide better transition
between built-up area and countryside. Alternative access to
Wakelin Avenue needed. Consideration needed to cumulative
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 89
impact should football stadium be permitted on adjacent site.
All 3 sites will create large housing estate, increase population
significantly, and change nature of village - becoming a town.
Lower number of homes so new population can be absorbed
into village. Need assurance of attractive and varied design.
Appropriate measures needed to deal with significant
additional traffic, especially peak times.
Require developers to fund new access road - suggestions: (i)
along old railway line, (ii) north of Deal Grove wooded area to
Cambridge Road, (iii) parallel to Woodlands Road wooded
area to Cambridge Road, (iv) new bypass from Babraham
Road to Cambridge Road.
Wakelin Avenue is unsuited to extra traffic - use Grove Road
and West Way.
Considerable distance from High Street – will encourage car
use – parking in the village already saturated.
Too far from nearest bus stop and routes to Cambridge are
infrequent, slow and unreliable.
Sawston does not have facilities for these houses, and no
apparent mitigation. No room to expand Icknield School.
Bellbird School not suitable for increased demand. Health
centre at capacity. Limited local employment. Sewage plant
needs upgrading. Water pressure already low.
Policy should require retention of tree belt located to rear of
Broadmeadows / Fairfields - enhances environment and
natural habitat. Part of a scheme to reduce noise and pollution.
Choosing industrial site short sighted – expanding population in
Sawston / growing economy may mean more industrial units
are needed. Consider non-industrial areas first.
Location between industrial and football stadium unsuitable.
Provide sustainable employment opportunities for residents,
e.g. sports centre, ice rink or cinema. Need village hall.
Site is supposed to be for affordable homes but cannot ensure
they will be allocated to local residents.
Will create suburb of Cambridge – Sawston, Stapleford and
Babraham will all join together in future.
Consider land off New Road / smaller sites on west of village.
Near bypass; easier for cars to leave village, nearer High
Street; more likely to walk/cycle. Flood issues acceptable with
careful controls. Whittlesford station is within walking distance.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 90 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages
Site H1/b – Sawston, land north of Babraham Road (in Babraham Parish)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 210
Support: 9
Object: 201
Main Issues Support
Anglian Water – capacity available to serve proposed growth
in water recycling centre and foul sewerage network. Surface
water network capacity – major constraints to provision of
infrastructure and/or treatment to serve proposed growth.
Sewers crossing the site – site layout should take into account.
Cambridgeshire County Council – three Sawston sites can
be appropriately accessed. Detailed Transport Assessment
needed to determine impacts, required mitigation and viability,
deliverability and acceptability of works. Education impacts
capable of mitigation.
Logical infill to improve appearance of entrance to village -
create soft green edge. Make provision for maintaining or
enlarging path along the current eastern edge of the village.
Sawston provides housing to average income home owners
who cannot afford to live anywhere else south of Cambridge.
One of the few communities with the infrastructure to support
such developments. Need housing for local people.
Objection
Babraham Parish Council – Green Belt should not be built
on. Increase in traffic unacceptable - will make Babraham High
Street/A1307 more dangerous. Will attract London commuters,
not allocated to local residents. Medical centre and schools at
capacity. Land owned by Ward’s Charity is not available for
housing under charity’s terms.
Cambridge Past Present and Future – half the sites in
villages lie within Green Belt - Council has not demonstrated
‘exceptional circumstances’.
Governing Body of Icknield Primary School – object to all 3
Sawston sites: increased roll detrimental to education provision
/ school ethos, buildings inadequate; negative impact on
education from construction noise and disruption; significant /
negative impact on community; access, traffic and parking are
major issues. If approved, require new buildings, retention of
existing school site and grounds, improved access and
parking, and full involvement in discussions / decisions.
Great Abington Parish Council – developments in or near
Sawston, particularly on eastern edge, are unacceptable.
Considerable traffic impacts for Sawston and Babraham.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 91
Within Green Belt and Babraham parish.
Hinxton Parish Council – greenfield land in Green Belt.
Increased traffic. Concerns over capacity of parking, schools
and doctors surgery.
Ickleton Parish Council – not sustainable as good agricultural
and Green Belt land. Too far out of village - car journeys to
facilities elsewhere. Medical Centre at capacity. Public
transport inadequate or non-existent.
James Binney Will Trust – accept need for more dwellings
and in vicinity of Sawston and Pampisford is appropriate in
principle. Serious concerns over highways safety and setting of
heritage assets; increased traffic on Babraham Road, Sawston
Road and Babraham High Street - roads inadequate, and
significant upgrades to junctions will detract from rural
character, impact on local residents and setting of Listed
Pampisford Hall. Impact on drainage system to south must be
assessed to ensure natural ecosystem not affected.
MCA Developments Limited – NPPF clear Green Belt should
only be considered where exceptional circumstances can be
demonstrated. Release of Green Belt land around Sawston is
not justified when other options exist e.g. Cambourne West.
Pampisford Parish Council – consider effect of 540 homes in
same area on Sawston and surrounding villages. Located far
from village centre and few residents have employment in
Sawston - reliance on cars. Increase congestion and pollution
on Babraham Road. Roads unsuitable – no credible transport
plan to mitigate impacts. No justification for using agricultural
land outside village framework – contrary to NPPF. Impact on
local infrastructure especially schools and medical services.
Quy Farms Ltd – hierarchy gives edge of Cambridge as
preferred location - difficult to understand why releasing land
from Green Belt on edge of villages. Some development is
needed in villages to provide choice, quantum is unsound.
Allocate land at Fen Ditton - edge of Cambridge.
Sawston Parish Council – 540 homes out of proportion.
Poorly related to public transport and unacceptable distance
from village facilities - increase car usage. Physically
impossible to increase parking in village. Increase traffic on
Babraham Road and no clear proposals for increasing capacity
on road network. Existing amenities oversubscribed. Limited
scope to expand Icknield School - site constraints. Bellbird
800+ metres away, discouraging walking. Green Belt important
in preserving the separation between Sawston and Babraham.
In public consultation only 33% of representations supported.
Stapleford Parish Council – Parish Plan states should resist
Green Belt except for recreation. Recognise need for housing,
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 92 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
but concerned that existing infrastructure cannot support
massive rise in housing and population. Traffic increase will
have massive impact on Stapleford parish.
Whittlesford Parish Council – will place added pressure on
infrastructure e.g. schools, shopping, medical centre, roads.
Nearby small villages depend on these services. Will add
considerable traffic accessing and joining A505 and cause
congestion in Babraham.
All 3 sites will create large housing estate, increase population
significantly, and change nature of village - becoming a town.
Adequate sustainability report not prepared.
Minimal contribution to five year supply, not vital.
Council has only considered land deemed available by owners.
Look for appropriate brownfield sites and approach owners.
Loss of good quality agricultural land and wildlife habitat - don’t
need houses to soften the edge of the village – just plant trees.
Adverse impact on Babraham in terms of character and nature,
facilities and safety.
Lower number of homes should be built so that the new
population can be successfully absorbed into the village.
Too much strain on village centre - cannot expand. Shops
would compete with village centre and endanger its vitality.
Village infrastructure will not support increased population and
no substantive remediation plans. Increased load on schools,
nursery and medical facilities. Access problem for dependent
neighbouring villages. No employment in Sawston. Water
pressure already low. If developed require: primary school,
improved transport, additional village amenities and parking.
Need housing for local people. Will become commuter village.
Significant impact on traffic and surrounding roads. Strain on
public transport. No adequate traffic impact appraisal done for
this site or cumulative impacts of 3 proposals. No traffic
mitigation planned. Congestion on main roads will lead to side
roads being used as ‘rat runs’.
Concerned about cumulative impacts of traffic if Cambridge
City FC move to Sawston.
Require developers to fund new access road - suggestions: (i)
along old railway line, (ii) north of Deal Grove wooded area to
Cambridge Road, (iii) parallel to Woodlands Road wooded
area to Cambridge Road, (iv) new bypass from Babraham
Road to Cambridge Road.
Distance to village centre - car dependent. No plans for safe
non-car routes. Car parks at capacity. No suitable public
transport links to Cambridge. Locate homes around transport
links - train stations. Bus routes infrequent, slow and unreliable.
Protect Babraham Restricted byway 10 along the edge of site.
Sawston carrying disproportionate housing burden – other
villages could take 40-50 new homes.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 93
Effects on Sawston and surrounding villages like Babraham,
Pampisford and Whittlesford have not been considered.
Will create suburb of Cambridge – Sawston, Stapleford and
Babraham will all join together in future.
Provide sustainable employment opportunities for residents,
e.g. sports centre, ice rink or cinema. Need village hall.
Consider land off New Road / smaller sites on west of village.
Near bypass; easier for cars to leave village, nearer High
Street; more likely to walk/cycle. Flood issues acceptable with
careful controls.
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages
Site H1/c – Sawston, land south of Babraham Road (part in Babraham Parish)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 231
Support: 13
Object: 218
Main Issues Support
Anglian Water - capacity available to serve proposed growth
in water recycling centre. Foul sewerage network capacity –
infrastructure and/or treatment upgrades required or diversion
of assets may be required. Surface water network capacity –
major constraints to provision of infrastructure and/or treatment
to serve proposed growth. Some localised enhancement to
network may be required to receive foul water. Sewers
crossing site – layout should take into account.
Cambridgeshire County Council – three Sawston sites can
be appropriately accessed. Detailed Transport Assessment
needed to determine impacts, required mitigation and viability,
deliverability and acceptability of works. Education impacts
capable of mitigation.
John Huntingdon Charity (promoter) – charity provides relief
to local people who need housing through alms houses. Intend
to provide further alms houses.
Good location / obvious place to extend village. Would give
continuity to village and better access to amenities. Opportunity
to improve boundary landscaping.
Need for affordable housing – prevents residents being forced
to move away from family and support networks.
Sawston provides housing to average income home owners
who cannot afford to live anywhere else south of Cambridge.
One of the few communities with the infrastructure to support
such developments. Need housing for local people.
Site put forward by local charities who understand the local
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 94 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
need. Some land could be used for school playing field.
Desperately need additional housing - should not be dismissed
on basis of imagined or hypothetical problems.
Objection
Babraham Parish Council – Green Belt should not be built
on. Increase in traffic unacceptable - will make Babraham High
Street/A1307 more dangerous. Will attract London commuters,
not allocated to local residents. Medical centre and schools at
capacity. Land owned by Ward’s Charity is not available for
housing under charity’s terms.
Cambridge Past Present and Future – half the sites in
villages lie within Green Belt - Council has not demonstrated
‘exceptional circumstances’.
Governing Body of Icknield Primary School – object to all 3
Sawston sites: increased roll detrimental to education provision
/ school ethos, buildings inadequate; negative impact on
education from construction noise and disruption; significant /
negative impact on community; access, traffic and parking are
major issues. If approved, require new buildings, retention of
existing school site and grounds, improved access and
parking, and full involvement in discussions / decisions.
Great Abington Parish Council – developments in or near
Sawston, particularly on eastern edge, are unacceptable.
Considerable traffic impacts for Sawston and Babraham.
Within Green Belt and Babraham parish.
Hinxton Parish Council – greenfield land in Green Belt.
Increased traffic. Concerns over capacity of parking, schools
and doctors surgery.
Ickleton Parish Council – not sustainable as good agricultural
and Green Belt land. Too far out of village - car journeys to
facilities elsewhere. Medical Centre at capacity. Public
transport inadequate or non-existent.
James Binney Will Trust – accept need for more dwellings
and in vicinity of Sawston and Pampisford is appropriate in
principle. Serious concerns over highways safety and setting of
heritage assets; increased traffic on Babraham Road, Sawston
Road and Babraham High Street - roads inadequate, and
significant upgrades to junctions will detract from rural
character, impact on local residents and setting of Listed
Pampisford Hall. Impact on drainage system to south must be
assessed to ensure natural ecosystem not affected.
MCA Developments Limited – NPPF clear Green Belt should
only be considered where exceptional circumstances can be
demonstrated. Release of Green Belt land around Sawston is
not justified when other options exist e.g. Cambourne West.
Pampisford Parish Council – consider effect of 540 homes in
same area on Sawston and surrounding villages. Located far
from village centre and few residents have employment in
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 95
Sawston - reliance on cars. Increase congestion and pollution
on Babraham Road. Roads unsuitable – no credible transport
plan to mitigate impacts. No justification for using agricultural
land outside village framework – contrary to NPPF. Impact on
local infrastructure especially schools and medical services.
Quy Farms Ltd – hierarchy gives edge of Cambridge as
preferred location - difficult to understand why releasing land
from Green Belt on edge of villages. Some development is
needed in villages to provide choice, quantum is unsound.
Allocate land at Fen Ditton - edge of Cambridge.
Sawston Parish Council – 540 homes out of proportion.
Poorly related to public transport and unacceptable distance
from village facilities - increase car usage. Physically
impossible to increase parking in village. Increase traffic on
Babraham Road and no clear proposals for increasing capacity
on road network. Existing amenities oversubscribed. Limited
scope to expand Icknield School - site constraints. Bellbird
800+ metres away, discouraging walking. Green Belt important
in preserving the separation between Sawston and Babraham.
In public consultation only 33% of representations supported.
Shelford & District Bridleways Group – Reword bullet 4 to
incorporate access for horse riders as well as pedestrians and
cyclists - not compliant with NPPF, evidence in Cambridgeshire
Green Infrastructure Strategy and Equality Act.
Stapleford Parish Council – Parish Plan states should resist
Green Belt except for recreation. Recognise need for housing,
but concerned that existing infrastructure cannot support
massive rise in housing and population. Traffic increase will
have massive impact on Stapleford parish.
Whittlesford Parish Council – will place added pressure on
infrastructure e.g. schools, shopping, medical centre, roads.
Nearby small villages depend on these services. Will add
considerable traffic accessing and joining A505 and cause
congestion in Babraham.
All 3 sites will create large housing estate, increase population
significantly, and change nature of village - becoming a town.
Adequate sustainability report has not been prepared. Site is
amalgamation of Site Options 8 and 9, put forward separately
by different developers - cannot legally be considered as one.
Minimal contribution to five year supply, not vital.
Council has only considered land deemed available by owners.
Look for appropriate brownfield sites and approach owners.
Loss of good quality agricultural land and wildlife habitat - don’t
need houses to soften the edge of the village – just plant trees.
Within Babraham parish - adverse impact on Babraham in
terms of character and nature, facilities and safety.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 96 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
Small strip of land that gives access is owned by Ward’s
Charity - without this land the site is undeliverable.
Lower number of homes should be built so that the new
population can be successfully absorbed into the village.
Too much strain on village centre - cannot expand. Shops
would compete with village centre and endanger its vitality.
Village infrastructure will not support increased population and
no substantive remediation plans. Increased load on schools,
nursery and medical facilities. Access problem for dependent
neighbouring villages. No employment in Sawston. Water
pressure already low. If developed require: primary school,
improved transport, additional village amenities and parking.
Need housing for local people. Will become commuter village.
Significant impact on traffic and surrounding roads. Strain on
public transport. No adequate traffic impact appraisal done for
this site or cumulative impacts of 3 proposals. No traffic
mitigation planned. Congestion on main roads will lead to side
roads being used as ‘rat runs’.
Concerned about cumulative impacts of traffic if Cambridge
City FC move to Sawston.
Require developers to fund new access road to bypass village
centre / encourage traffic away from Babraham. Suggestions:
(i) along old railway line, (ii) north of Deal Grove wooded area
to Cambridge Road, (iii) parallel to Woodlands Road wooded
area to Cambridge Road, (iv) new bypass from Babraham
Road to Cambridge Road. No undertaking given to prevent
access onto Church Lane.
Distance to village centre - car dependent. No plans for safe
non-car routes. Car parks at capacity. No suitable public
transport links to Cambridge. Locate homes around transport
links - train stations. Bus routes infrequent, slow and unreliable.
Public footpath runs through site – object to its extinguishment
but would consider a sensible diversion.
Sawston carrying disproportionate housing burden – other
villages could take 40-50 new homes.
Effects on Sawston and surrounding villages like Babraham,
Pampisford and Whittlesford have not been considered.
Will create suburb of Cambridge – Sawston, Stapleford and
Babraham will all join together in future.
Provide sustainable employment opportunities for residents,
e.g. sports centre, ice rink or cinema. Need village hall.
Consider land off New Road / smaller sites on west of village.
Near bypass; easier for cars to leave village, nearer High
Street; more likely to walk/cycle. Flood issues acceptable with
careful controls. Consider housing on Michael Mallows Farm.
Infill small serviced sites within the village first.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 97
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages
Site H1/d – Histon & Impington, land north of Impington Lane
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 24
Support: 2
Object: 22
Main Issues Support
Anglian Water – Capacity available for water recycling and
foul sewerage to serve the proposed growth.
Support completion of Unwins site for small, affordable, carless
properties to help young people stay locally.
Objection
WJ Unwins & Messrs Biggs (site promoters) – Support, but
object to northern site boundary – illogical, not defined on
ground. Green Belt release for only 25 houses at highly
sustainable Rural Centre is inappropriate. Increase site size.
Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Within Green Belt.
Not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. NPPF permits
limited infill in Green Belt for affordable housing only.
Ely Group of Internal Drainage Boards – Site outside IDB
area but must be consulted (with Environment Agency) on
surface water disposal proposals.
Histon and Impington PC – Need for homes not outweigh
harm to Green Belt – no exceptional circumstances. Adverse
impact on rural appearance and character of area, including
setting of Conservation Areas and Grade II Listed Buildings,
archaeological potential. Further strain on infrastructure –
schools. Inappropriate access. Alternative brownfield sites.
Already loss of Green Belt for Orchard Park, Darwin Green etc.
Even if larger site, not strategic scale and faces same issues.
Oakington and Westwick PC – Object to site option.
Green Belt. Not exceptional circumstances to remove.
Premature to release before proper review conducted,
including all possible brownfield sites.
Outside village framework.
Floods during winter. Bidwells report erroneous claiming water
table does not reach this field.
Access previously refused as inappropriate, dangerous and
does not comply with highway regulations regarding visibility.
Impact on pedestrian safety - main walk / cycleway to school.
Services over capacity – doctors, schools, recreation.
Impact on Green Belt, village character, village sprawl not
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 98 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
offset by benefits of 25 dwellings.
Most employment in Cambridge or south of city.
Impington Lane and B1049 do not have capacity for more
traffic. Junction Impington Lane / The Green - accident area.
Lack of information on “significant landscape buffer”.
Parish Council’s plans for ‘station’ should be followed.
Build barriers to reduce A14 noise pollution.
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages
Site H1/e – Melbourn, land off New Road and rear of Victoria Way
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 230
Support: 179
Object: 51
Main Issues Support
A high number of largely identical representations have been
submitted as part of a local campaign supporting the site but
opposed to any wider scale of development in the village.
Brian Tyler (site promoter) – Site is sustainable, deliverable,
and owner preparing planning application. No overriding
constraints to delivery of high quality housing for local people.
Nicholas Newman (site promoter) – Sustainable site forming
an obvious extension to the settlement.
Anglian Water – Capacity available for water recycling and
foul sewerage to serve the proposed growth.
Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Supports policy.
Defence Infrastructure Organisation – Site falls outside of
statutory consultation zones for MOD aerodromes.
Oakington and Westwick PC – Support site allocation.
Support housing site off New Road to the rear of Victoria Way.
Support but consider 65 to be absolute maximum for village.
Evidence of democracy in action – listened to response of
village to H7 & H8 (overwhelmingly against).
As long as sustainability is factored in i.e. % families / elderly,
affecting all services – medical, schools, transport, parking.
Will need imaginative landscape as forms promontory
development jutting into farmland.
Sustainable location, obvious extension to village, capable of
meeting housing needs. Access achievable from New Road.
Support site, with plans for The Moor, the Old Elm Tree and
the Old Police Station, ample housing for Melbourn.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 99
Objection
Object to housing site off New Road to the rear of Victoria Way
Too many houses. Village already at capacity. More like small
town than village. Housing not required and sets precedent.
Does not deal with (overstretched) infrastructure – water,
sewerage, doctors, school, village centre gridlocked at traffic
lights, community halls.
Contradicts Minor Rural Centre policy – no more than 30
dwellings.
Access to New Road insufficient. Roads inadequate. Traffic
from scientific and technology parks not taken into account.
More in favour of creating new village than diminishing quality
of life in Melbourn and other affected villages.
Loss of significant area of high quality agricultural land.
54% population children or pre-middle age, remainder elderly -
enhance schools and communal facilities not add to demands.
Would be serious social disruption to established community.
Serious engineering / surveying difficulties within site.
Strange change of use of a field that provides a buffer to the
extension of the village. Would be open except for cemetery.
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages
Site H1/f – Gamlingay, Green End Industrial Estate
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 13
Support: 4
Object: 9
Main Issues Support
Anglian Water – Capacity available for water recycling and
foul sewerage to serve the proposed growth.
Defence Infrastructure Organisation – Site falls outside of
statutory consultation zones for MOD aerodromes.
Gamlingay PC – Support inclusion as it was the most sensible
option to cater for Gamlingay’s housing needs in this period.
Oakington and Westwick PC – Support site allocation.
Objection
Green End Trading Company (site promoters) – Support in
principle. Object to clause “employment uses utilising not less
than 25% of the site” on viability grounds. Only some existing
uses could be retained, rest speculative – limited demand and
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 100 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
excess supply locally. Alternative wording proposed.
Gamlingay PC – Concerns about ensuring proposed mix of
development properly caters for existing businesses on site.
Support need for them to be retained on site or relocated to
Station Road site.
Objectives of climate change must be rigorously pursued in this
development – where feasible zero carbon policy applied.
Over 65s need 2 bed houses of sensible size in Gamlingay to
downsize.
Roads already choked. Trucks, lorries and buses cannot get
through. Further industrial development will add to problem.
Gamlingay has reached capacity – no more.
Can infrastructure cope? – doctors, shops, schools, transport /
roads. Excess traffic. Roads full of potholes.
Lack of amenity space this side of village. Overdevelopment of
village.
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages
Site H1/g – Willingham, land east of Rockmill End
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 5
Support: 4
Object: 1
Main Issues Support
Ely Diocesan Board of Finance (site promoter) – Site
justified when considering reasonable alternatives. Willingham
sustainable village. Viable, deliverable, minimal landscape,
access, heritage, wildlife impacts - capable of being mitigated.
Quantum of development corresponds to Minor Rural Centre.
Anglian Water – Capacity available for water recycling and
foul sewerage to serve the proposed growth.
Defence Infrastructure Organisation – Site falls outside of
statutory consultation zones for MOD aerodromes.
Oakington and Westwick PC – Support site allocation.
Objection
Ely Group of Internal Drainage Boards – Site drains into Old
West IDB. No residual capacity for increased run-off – must
include scheme for water accommodation within development,
at developers expense.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 101
Policy H/1 Allocations for Residential Development at Villages
Site H1/h – Comberton, land at Bennell Farm (in Toft Parish)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 32
Support: 2
Object: 30
Main Issues Support
Anglian Water – Capacity available for water recycling and
foul sewerage to serve the proposed growth.
Defence Infrastructure Organisation – Site falls outside of
statutory consultation zones for MOD aerodromes.
Objection
Mr & Mrs Arnold (site promoters) – Support but seek more
flexibility: (1) alternative disposition of residential development
across site, not restricted to east of access road. (2) Query
need for football pitch, monies better directed to existing
facilities & Village College overspill car parking provision –
allow flexibility for on- or off-site provision or both. (3) Expand
site to include remaining part of field to allow better disposition
of uses – unsuitable for agriculture once site built.
Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Within Green Belt.
Not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. NPPF permits
limited infill in Green Belt for affordable housing only.
Barton PC – Must reduce amount of traffic through villages -
access from A428 to M11 must be provided before houses.
Comberton PC – Majority of residents support no significant
changes to Comberton. Sewage capacity issues. Traffic flow
without traffic calming / controls – impact on pedestrian safety
and children attending schools. All negative impacts while Toft
gets financial benefits. Remove site, or offset adverse impacts.
Toft PC – Site not suitable for 90 houses, cannot achieve low
density. Overstretch local infrastructure, amenities and
services. Opposite Village College – hazardous. Within Toft
Parish but adjacent to Comberton – support any representation
from Comberton PC. Concerns about football pitch / changing
room proposals – not discussed with PC.
Green Belt should be protected and not “released”. Loss of
separation with Toft. Alternative non-Green Belt sites available.
Goes against Council’s own policies - outside village
framework, Minor Rural Centre - maximum size 30 dwellings.
Road and public transport cannot support traffic – commuting
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 102 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
already difficult, congestion. Roads blocked by parked cars.
Opposite Village College – hazardous. Poor pavement
continuity. No safe cycle path.
Toft does not need elaborate football field and changing
facilities. Takes no account of existing provision in Comberton.
Unlikely to benefit younger children - too far from village.
Drainage and risk of flooding need to be planned for.
Consult Comberton residents on how to spend monies – new
footpaths, cycleways, road safety measures etc.
Overstretch local infrastructure, amenities and services in
Comberton – library, health, schools, shops etc. No mains gas.
Lack of local employment – commute elsewhere.
Historical grazing land, rich in wildlife.
Within Toft Parish but on edge of Comberton – Toft receives
benefits / finance (move Parish Boundary), whilst Comberton
gets the negative impacts.
Numerous planning applications refused as outside village
framework and encourage ribbon development.
Disproportionate number of homes planned for area.
Developments this size should be near good fast roads and
adequate local shopping and employment.
Requirement for affordable housing to meet local needs
welcomed, but need to preserve character of area, reduce
traffic impact and address drainage – no more than 50-60.
Hierarchy preference for edge of Cambridge. Quantum of
development in villages compared to edge of Cambridge
unsound. Object to release of Green Belt land at villages in
preference to land at Fen Ditton.
Policy H/2 Bayer CropScience Site, Hauxton
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 21
Support: 8
Object: 13
Main Issues Support
Environment Agency – Support the remediation of all
contamination to make the drainage of the site effective.
Natural England – Welcome policy references to landscape,
biodiversity, and cycle and pedestrian linkages.
Support the development which will deliver riverside open
space, bus services and cycle links into Trumpington which will
benefit residents from Hauxton, Harston and Trumpington.
Support subject to adequate de-contamination measures.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 103
Objection
Environment Agency – FRA required at an early stage. Land
decontamination must take account of ground water.
Provision should be made for the needs of horse riders in
section 1 and in section 2 b, and c.
Development will lead to a huge increase in traffic on the
Hauxton Road. The A10 should be diverted around the village.
Harrow Estates PLC - Site boundary should be extended to
include the former Waste Water Treatment Works which could
be developed for up to 35 family properties without any greater
impact on the Green Belt.
Policy H/3 Papworth Everard West Central
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 3
Support: 1
Object: 2
Main Issues Support
Objection
Cambourne, Caldecote PCs – The policy should require
contributions to be made to the A428/A1198 junction as the
scale of development proposed will have an adverse effect on
the junction.
Policy H/4 Fen Drayton Former Land Settlement Association Estate
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 3
Support: 3
Main Issues Support
Environment Agency – No soundness concerns on flood risk
as development is limited to the existing footprint.
Support the continuation of this policy.
Policy H/5 South of the A1307, Linton
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Total: 4
Support: 3
Object: 1
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 104 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
Received
Main Issues Support
Suffolk County Council – Policy H/5 is designed to improve
the safety of this road and is supported.
The A1307 is operating at and above capacity and transport
issues along it need to be addressed.
Objection
The policy serves no useful planning purpose and should be
deleted from the plan. Safe access across the A1307 can
easily be achieved. A purely affordable home development for
18 affordable homes was permitted in February 2013 on the
Old Police Station site.
Assessment This long established policy seeks to prevent residential
development south of the A1307 in the interest of public safety and
sustainability. With regard to the Old Police Station, the site was
already in residential use with 4 existing homes, and Planning
Committee determined that a departure from policy was justified to
provide a substantial number of new affordable homes in a village
with a very high level of local need.
Approach in
Submission
Local Plan
No change.
Policy H/6 Residential Moorings
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 2
Support: 2
Object: 0
Main Issues Support
Cambridge City Council – The City Council has allocated
adjoining land in Cambridge for the same purpose since 2006,
the addition of this land will render the scheme more
developable and so have positive impacts on residential and
leisure moorings on the river
Policy H/7 Housing Density
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 8
Support: 1
Object: 7
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 105
Main Issues Support
Support policy.
Objection
Policy is inflexible and too prescriptive and should give more
weight to site and design related considerations. Remove the
minimum density requirements.
Not consistent with the NPPF which has removed density
requirements.
The Taylor Family and Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd -
40 dph is too high for the Bourn Airfield development as there
is no market locally for flats. Clause 1b should refer to 30-
35dph being acceptable at Bourn Airfield. The site could
deliver 3,500 homes at an average density of 33.3 dph.
Use higher densities to reduce the number and area of
development sites required.
Policy H/8 Housing Mix (paragraphs 7.26, 7.28 and 7.29)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 30
Support: 3
Object: 27
Main Issues Support
Gamlingay PC - Smaller housing units and lifetime homes are
needed to cater for an aging population.
The 30% allocation for larger family houses is appropriate for
rural communities.
Agree that specialist accommodation for the elderly should not
be subject to the housing mix policy.
Objection
Bourn PC - Plan should define the meaning of local
circumstances.
Gt Abington and Little Abington PCs - Greater flexibility
required, policy should allow input from local housing need
assessments.
Cambridgeshire County Council - For sites providing 100
homes or more a ‘demographic change impact assessment’
should be required. New policy sought. All market homes
should be built to the lifetime homes standard.
Cambourne Parish Council - Include a 20% flexibility
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 106 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
allowance.
Homes and Communities Agency – Support the provision of
lifetime homes, but delivering 1 in 20 homes as lifetime homes
could affect the deliverability and viability of Northstowe.
Gallagher Estates - The percentages of differently sized
homes in the policy do not reflect forecast needs. Account
should be taken of the higher provision in Cambridge of 1 and
2 bedroom homes. Flexibility is required in respect of the
phased development of new settlements. Amend the
proportions to accord with SHMA evidence:(At least 12% 1 or 2
bedroom homes, at least 22% 3 bedroom homes, at least 23%
4 or more bedroom homes, with a 10-15% flexibility allowance
and unless it can be demonstrated that the local circumstances
of the particular settlement or location suggest a different mix
would better meet local needs).
Too inflexible and prescriptive. Not justified by the evidence
base and changing market conditions over the plan period.
Ignores site circumstances and location. Amend to remove the
percentages.
For developments of 9 or fewer homes the policy should state
that the mix will take account of local circumstances.
Policy H/9 Affordable Housing
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 24
Support: 8
Object: 16
Main Issues Support
Gamlingay PC - Will deliver balanced communities
Fowlmere, Caldecote PCs – Support
Madingley PC – Support, local need in the Parish
A threshold of 3 dwellings is much better.
Avoids creation of them and us ‘ghettos’.
Support this approach and the flexibility it provides in respect of
viability. Accords with the NPPF.
Objection
Gamlingay PC - Provision must be on-site. Financial
contributions should be ‘ring-fenced’ to that community
Bourn PC – Allows off site provision and should include a
definition of the term ‘local circumstances’. Not clear on how
Parish Councils can get involved.
Cambourne PC – Would support a threshold of 5 homes.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 107
Threshold should be set higher (at between 5 and 10 homes).
If set at 5 homes, 2 on site affordable homes could be
achieved.
Homes and Communities Agency – Support H/9, but to
ensure clarity the status of the Affordable Housing SPD must
be clarified.
The viability of this policy has not been demonstrated, there is
a lack of clarity about how small sites will be treated where
exactly 40% provision cannot be made on site.
Home Builders Federation - The evidence does not support a
40% affordable housing rate across the District taking account
of CIL and the impact of other plan policies on viability.
Section f) should be deleted as it contradicts sections d) and
e).
Policy H/10 Rural Exception Site Affordable Housing (paragraphs 7.36, 7.39)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 25
Support: 5
Object: 20
Main Issues Support
Gamlingay PC – Where there are no other sites available
within the village envelope to meet local needs.
Objection
Gamlingay PC – Allowing some market housing will inflate the
hope value of land for landowners. There is no mention of a
role for Parish Councils.
Bourn PC – Support the policy generally, but object to the lack
of clarity about Parish Council involvement regarding
identification of local needs, siting, phasing and the level of
market housing.
Great Abington PC – Support policy but exception schemes
should not be the only way to get more housing in Group
Villages like the Abingtons.
Little Abington PC – More flexibility required in definition of
exception sites to allow the housing to meet local needs
including for market housing.
Cambourne and Caldecote PC’s – Policy should require that
the affordable homes are not isolated or disenfranchised from
the existing settlement.
Exemption housing schemes in the Green Belt should be
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 108 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
limited to no more than 5 dwellings.
Delete section 2. Replace section 2f) with: ‘Including an
appropriate mix of market housing to make the scheme viable
to meet the needs of the Parish Councils and still remain an
exception site’.
Not consistent with the NPPF, a more positive and flexible
approach to the inclusion of market housing is required
particularly to allow exemptions for Community Land Trusts.
There is a need for more market housing in the Abingtons to
meet local needs and allow downsizing.
Policy H/11 Residential Space Standards for Market Housing (Figure 10:
Residential Space Standards)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 16
Support: 0
Object: 16
Main Issues Objection
Gamlingay PC – Ensure smaller accommodation meets
Lifetime Homes standards.
The policy is unduly prescriptive and inflexible and not
consistent with the NPPF. It fails to allow for the implications of
individual sites to be taken into account. Space in the home
should be left to the market.
We should use the same standards as are proposed in
Cambridge.
No adequate evidence base or viability testing. It will increase
house prices. It ignores the fact that market homes are often
under-occupied and that purchasers are satisfied with their
new homes.
The standards are different from those in the Government’s
Housing Standards Review which includes a proposed national
minimum standard. They should be amended to be consistent
with the minimum level 1 standards in Table A1-A3 of the
review.
Remove the restriction on the area of a study.
The Council has used the upper end of the Homes and
Communities Agency (HCA) standards for affordable homes,
but to establish a minimum acceptable standard it should have
used the lower end room sizes from the HCA range.
The proposed standards are too small and will not increase the
size of homes.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 109
Policy H/12 Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 3
Support: 3
Object: 0
Main Issues Support
Bourn PC – This will help protect local character.
Great Abington PC – Welcome policy which will help address
planning issues in the Abington Land Settlement Area.
The equivalent policy in previous plans was unduly restrictive.
Policy H/13 Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 5
Support: 1
Object: 4
Main Issues Support
Great Abington PC – Welcome policy which will help address
planning issues in the Abington Land Settlement Area.
Objection
Bourn PC – Generally support but seek a 15% maximum
increase limit to any extension put back in the policy to protect
local character and the availability of smaller homes.
Cambourne, Caldecote PCs – Limit extensions to no more
than 15% of original dwelling.
Policy H/14 Countryside Dwellings of Exceptional Quality
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 5
Support: 0
Object: 5
Main Issues Objection
Bourn PC – Would be divisive and allow wealthy applicants to
bypass normal planning controls.
The policy criteria are subjective. Replace ‘truly outstanding
and innovative’ with ‘consistent with local building materials
and historical and landscape context’.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 110 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
Support the principle but disagree that such dwellings should
be excluded from the Green Belt (GB). The GB surrounds
Cambridge where entrepreneurs may live and work. Existing
policy can allow rural worker dwellings and rural exception site
affordable housing in the GB. Development could improve
damaged and derelict GB land.
Lack of evidence that it would help to satisfy a demand from
top executives.
Policy H/15 Development of Residential Gardens
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 3
Support: 3
Object: 0
Main Issues Support
Over development of gardens can adversely affect the
character and environment of historic areas of South Cambs.
Natural England – Welcome reference in the policy to
biodiversity and trees.
Policy H/16 Reuse of Buildings in the Countryside for Residential Use
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 6
Support: 0
Object: 6
Main Issues Objection
Bourn PC – Support the policy, but it should actively promote
the use of the Community Asset Register to protect
employment buildings from conversion to residential.
Contrary to paragraph 55 of the NPPF which removed the
‘employment use first’ sequential test.
Bullet point 2 of paragraph 55 of the NPPF allows for the
conversion of redundant countryside buildings for residential
where this would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage
asset or would be enabling development to secure the future of
the heritage asset. The policy fails to include these provisions
and should be amended to do so.
Policies H/16 and H/13 are inconsistent. H/16 allows the reuse
of redundant or disused buildings in the countryside for
residential whilst H/13 requires demonstration that residential
use has not been abandoned.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 111
Policy H/17 Working at Home
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 4
Support: 4
Main Issues Support
It is important to safeguard residential amenity and the
character of the locality.
Policy H/18 Dwellings to Support a Rural-based Enterprise
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 1
Object: 1
Main Issues Objection
Support the principle of policy H/18 but object to the wording of
section 4 k). The required marketing exercise would
contravene the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 or the
Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008.
Policy H/19 Provision for Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople (table
of needs, paragraphs 7.61, 7.62 and 7.65)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 17
Support: 1
Object: 16
Main Issues Support
Essential that need is expressed as a minimum figure.
Objection
Cottenham PC – Section 1 of the policy should say that
provision has been made, rather than will be made. Section 2
of the policy should either be deleted as contrary to
Government policy for Travellers Sites, or amended to be clear
that it applies to both private and public sites. Paragraph 7.62
should explain why sites in Meldreth and Willingham have
been excluded. Paragrapth 7.65 should name the relevant
major developments.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 112 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
Distribution of need should be front loaded and thereafter less
prescriptive. Unrealistic to assume there will be periods when
there will be no need.
The policy should offer greater flexibility and choice of location,
size and tenure of sites. There are suitable alternatives to
Chesterton Fen.
Land suitable for the development of affordable homes should
not be used to accommodate travellers as proper homes
provide a healthier lifestyle.
The GTANA needs assessment is not robust failing to take
account of overcrowding, household growth, unauthorised sites
and waiting lists, and so cannot be relied on. A new needs
assessment for Cambridgeshire is needed which engages with
the Traveller communities. This will show a substantial need
for which the plan should allocate sites and broad locations
including sites in rural locations and on village edges.
Policy H/20 Gypsy and Traveller Provision at New Communities (paragraphs 7.66,
7.67, 7.68, 7.69)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 23
Support: 5
Object: 18
Main Issues Support
Cottenham PC – Support the wording of policy section 2, a)
and b). Support the wording in paragraph 7.68 as consistent
with section 2 of policy H/20.
Support in principle, but it is unclear how it will be achieved and
whether the sites will be affordable, suitable and accessible.
Objection
Cambourne PC – Policy is unclear as to which developments
would be affected. How would it affect Northstowe and
Cambourne?
Cottenham PC - Policy is ambiguously worded and should be
amended for clarity and to avoid creating an escape clause for
reluctant developers. The final sentence of paragraph 7.66
should be given more emphasis. Paragraph 7.67 should
specify phasing requirements to avoid provision only in later
phases. The reference to policy H/20 providing a criteria
based approach to site identification is incorrect. Disagree with
the proposed site guidelines in paragraph 7.69, allowance
should be made for the growth of extended families.
Caldecote PC – The policy is unclear and so unsound. Does it
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes Page 113
include Bourn Airfield and a new town at Waterbeach?
No examples exist of the implementation of such a policy. It
prescribes to Gypsy and Traveller communities where they
should live, whereas sites should be provided where such
communities want to live. The wishes of the landowner must
be taken into account to demonstrate that such sites are
deliverable.
All such developments should include G&T sites, like
affordable housing.
The policy is too vague and uncertain.
Provision should be made for 2-5 pitch family sites.
Policy H/21 Proposals for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Sites on
Unallocated Land Outside Development Frameworks (paragraphs 7.70 to 7.77)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 43
Support: 10
Object: 33
Main Issues Support
Gamlingay PC – Support the policy taking into account
cumulative impacts and proximity to facilities and services.
Cottenham PC – Support criteria a). Support paragraphs 7.72
and 7.73.
Natural England – Welcome policy reference to assessing
impacts on biodiversity and trees.
Objection
Cottenham PC – The site size guideline of 5-10 pitches in
major developments (policy H/20) must also apply to policy
H/21. Existing sites must also be capped at the officially
approved number and no further growth in pitch numbers
allowed. The policy criteria fail to reference activities which
may/may not be conducted from sites. Policy criteria b) is
unrealistic regarding location, access to services. A definition
of what ‘dominating’ means should be given in context of
section 2 f). A definition of ‘nearest settled community’ is
needed. Similarly the enforceability of 2 g) and 2 h), cannot be
understood without greater exemplification of what would be
unacceptably adverse impacts. Criteria i), should cover noise
and disturbance issues from on-site business activities. The
policy and supporting paragraphs should also apply to existing
sites and not just to new sites. If an existing site falls vacant
and does not meet the standards it should be denied further
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 114 Chapter 7 Delivering High Quality Homes
occupancy. Definition of nuisance required in paragraph 7.77.
Criteria a) is contrary to paragraph 22 (d) of Planning Policy for
Travellers Sites, which does not require a need to be identified.
Policy H/21 is too complicated and creates unnecessary
obstacles to development.
Policy H/22 Design of Gypsy and Traveller Sites, and Travelling Showpeople Sites
(paragraphs 7.78.7.86, 7.87)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 12
Support: 1
Object: 11
Main Issues Support
Cambridgeshire County Council – Welcome reference to
space for play on sites of 10 or more pitches.
Objection
Cambridgeshire County Council – Space for play should be
required on all sites.
Cottenham PC – Criteria i) on play is at odds with the 5-10
pitch guideline from paragraph 7.69. Paragraph 7.86 should
also refer to space for grazing and exercising horses. A criteria
is needed concerning the keeping and control of dogs. The
policy should include provision to help control littler and the
abuse of verges.
The 2008 Good Practice Guidance should not be used in
isolation to decide whether a private application is permitted.
Para 1.13 of the guide makes clear it was not intended for
private sites.
This policy is too complicated and creates unnecessary
obstacles to obstacles to necessary Gypsy and Traveller
development.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Page 115
Chapter 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy
Paragraphs 8.1 to 8.11 Introductory Paragraphs
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 8
Support: 0
Object: 8
Main Issues Object
Paragraph 8.4 indicates that growth in the R&D sector will be
slower than in the past and other sectors will account for a
higher proportion of growth. Evidence suggests that this will not
be the case. The Cambridge area has a truly exceptional level
of R&D employment, more than any other district.
Insufficient land allocated in the right locations to
accommodate the level of required employment need and
support the economy. The employment land proposed for
allocation is either not available, not suitable or will be subject
to deliverability issues. Provision for B use class employment,
particularly B1(b) R&D uses in Cambridge is location sensitive.
Employers want to be located in, or on the edge of Cambridge.
An additional 112,700 sq m of employment floor space on 31
ha of land is needed. This represents an additional 2,700 jobs.
Objection proposes a science park at Cambridge South that
would meet the forecast employment land requirements:
o in the most sustainable location that is accessible by
public transport in a location attractive to occupiers and
investors.
o Promote and facilitate the expansion of Cambridge's
world class knowledge and high technology cluster in
Cambridge.
o Provide competition between providers and choice for
occupiers, as the lack of planned provision is acting as
a barrier to business growth.
o Provide a strategic site for inward investment.
Policy E/1: New Employment Provision near Cambridge - Cambridge Science Park
(and paragraphs 8.12 to 8.14)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 9
Support: 2
Object: 7
Main Issues Support
Trinity College Cambridge is pleased to note that the Local
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 116 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy
Plan identifies the importance of the Cambridge Science Park
to assist in delivering employment growth through
densification. There are already a number of examples of plots
on the park that have been successfully reconfigured.
Object
Cambourne Parish Council / Caldecote Parish Council -
Encourages commuting rather than encouraging extra
employment growth at the major development sites.
A Masterplan should also be produced to show how the density
of the existing Science Park could be increased. Car parking
should be addressed as it is a waste of valuable land.
Policy E/2: Fulbourn Road East (Fulbourn) (and paragraph 8.15 to 8.16)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 36
Support: 6
Object: 30
Main Issues Support
Cambridge City Council - Support the allocation of this site.
Provides scope for on-going employment development at
Peterhouse Technology Park.
English Heritage - welcome the consideration in part 2 of the
setting of new development into the landscape in this location.
Natural England - welcome specific reference to landscape,
biodiversity and GI requirements for relevant developments
Support if policy requirements are fully applied.
Object
Fulbourn Parish Council – Parish Plan opposed to changes
to Green Belt in village. Contrary to proposed policies S/2, S/4,
NH/2, NH/3 and NH/13.
The land immediately adjoining Peterhouse Technology Park,
in the Parish of Fulbourn, is in the ownership of a charity which
has no intention to dispose of this land. Request it is removed
from plan. Important to character of Fulbourn and the Green
Belt.
Impact on the Green Belt, highly visible form the south east,
and will merge Cambridge towards Fulbourn.
Exceptional circumstances required for development in the
Green Belt have not been demonstrated. There are other sites
available for employment ion Cambridge, and on Capital Park.
The December 2012 Inner Green Belt Appraisal assessing the
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Page 117
importance of the Green Belt in this location is flawed and
contains errors and inconsistencies.
There may be insufficient planning control to ensure that these
sites are released for employment purposes that support the
Cambridge Cluster. Should be restricted to firms that have a
need.
Fulbourn Road already busy at peak times. Need improved
safety measures for pedestrians and cyclists.
Should retain land south of roundabout in case there is a future
proposal for southern relief road.
Loss of agricultural land.
Policy E/3: Allocations for Class B1 Employment Uses and Policy E/4: Allocations
for Class B1, B2 and B8 Employment Uses (and paragraph 8.17)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 6
Support: 4
Object: 2
Main Issues Support
Anglian Water - Waste Water infrastructure available to serve
the sites (all four sites)
Environment Agency – raised concern regarding location, but
subsequently updated comments that issues are capable of
mitigation at the planning application stage.
Object
Additional Site: Sawston – Spicers Estate. Business led
development on the existing Spicers employment site,
supported by residential enabling development on a site north
of Whitefield Way. .
Policy E/5: Papworth Hospital (and paragraphs 8.18 to 8.22)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 12
Support: 3
Object: 9
Main Issues Support
Papworth Everard Parish Council - very important that the
housing and employment balance of the village is maintained.
Object
Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust - Having a
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 118 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy
framework for redevelopment is helpful, but policy is not
coherent. Suggest the following changes:
o Definition of healthcare imprecise – should be
‘hospitals, nursing homes, residential care homes,
clinics and health centres’.
o Reference to ‘other’ employment uses not compatible
with definition of healthcare above.
o Requirement for 2 year marketing unreasonable as
would have to start before policy adopted.
o Requirement to ‘maintain’ the viability of Papworth
Everard is unreasonable.
o Requirement to ‘Maintain the present setting of
Papworth Hall’ should be to sustain and enhance the
setting. Reference to the Conservation area in the
policy is superfluous.
o Should be greater flexibility for residential as part of a
mixed use scheme.
Policy E/6: Imperial War Museum at Duxford (and paragraphs 8.23 to 8.24)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 8
Support: 2
Object: 6
Main Issues Support
The Ickleton Society - IWM Duxford is a major asset of
significant importance to our district.
Object
IWM Duxford - pleased to note and give support to the
proposal for a more flexible and appropriate policy for IWM
Duxford, but suggest paragraph 8.24 is included in the main
policy.
English Heritage – Reference to a ‘special case’ should be
clarified. The significance of the site should be weighed
appropriately in considering any proposals for development.
Should include reference in policy to address their protection.
Policy E/7: Fulbourn and Ida Darwin Hospitals (and paragraphs 8.25 to 8.36)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 5
Support: 1
Object: 4
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Page 119
Main Issues Support
Natural England - welcome specific reference to landscape,
biodiversity and GI requirements.
Object
Fulbourn Parish Council - should make specific cross-
reference to proposed policy NH/9 in particular to maintaining
existing height and openness in any redevelopment.
Risk of merging Fulbourn with Cherry Hinton. Expand the
green wedge further east.
Policy E/8: Mixed-Use Development in Histon & Impington Station Area (and
paragraphs 8.37 to 8.43)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 18
Support: 13
Object: 5
Main Issues Support
Histon and Impington Parish Council - Significant support
from majority of residents. Mixed use has been misinterpreted
by some, and vision offers greater flexibility. Evidence that
guided bus has increased footfall in the area.
Worthwhile, as long as it is led by the local Parish Council for
villagers and to attract visitors passing through from Cambridge
and St Ives.
Has potential to benefit area, but must not impact on retail in
High Street.
Need firm decision making to implement vision for mixed use.
Regarding a supplementary Planning Document, Consultation
will need to be undertaken with property owners to ensure their
future plans are addressed. Need flexibility rather than fixed
use allocations.
Object
Proposal not subjected to full and proper evaluation before
being promoted. No clear support from land owners. No impact
assessment on village centre. No evidence of additional need
for retail uses. Not appropriate to indicate the area as a
destination. Too restrictive. Local Plan should not been seen
as an alternative to a Neighbourhood Plan.
Welcome the intent, but needs to explain costs / viability, and
how future benefits will be accrued if existing businesses are to
review their accommodation. Less pre-occupation with small
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 120 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy
specialist shops and leisure outlets as they could not be viable.
Needs to be flexible and not prejudice existing businesses.
Reality is that redevelopment will need to be led by residential
development and the proposed allocation fails to recognise the
desirable benefits of this highly sustainable location for
residential development or the impact on the remainder of the
village of a second retail centre. There is not support from the
principle landowners and there has been no discussion with
the key stakeholders.
Policy E/9: Promotion of Clusters (and paragraphs 8.44 to 8.48)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 11
Support: 5
Object: 6
Main Issues Support
Unanimous agreement by all the businesses consulted on the
Cambridge PPF 2030 Vision that location in clusters with like-
minded companies was essential for their success.
The concentration (in the form of a mini-cluster) of businesses
at Granta Park/TWI has itself brought significant benefits.
This policy will proactively drive and support the sustainable
economic development of existing business and help attract
new businesses to South Cambridgeshire.
Existing policy ET/1 (Development Control Policies DPD) is
very restrictive, failing to recognise high value manufacturing,
high tech headquarters, and support services can help
reinforce development of high-technology clusters.
Object
Cambourne Parish Council, Calcedote Parish Council -
Cambourne should be included as a site suited to cluster
development.
Clusters should be located only where there is adequate
provision of public transport or where new public transport is
planned.
The promotion of clusters requires more than the identification
of additional employment land in appropriate locations. It is
important that the plan recognises the importance of
maintaining the character of Cambridge and providing sufficient
and accessible supporting development, including new
housing, to support the jobs target and the creation of effective
clusters in and on the edge of the City.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Page 121
Paragraph 8.48 should be deleted because it undermines a
number of key policies in the NPPF, including planning
positively for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters
and the provision of sustainable economic development
generally.
The supporting text to Policy E/9 should recognise the potential
need for new high technology businesses to be located close
to existing centres of excellence where linkages and
collaborative work can be facilitated.
Object to the non-allocation of the Cambridge South site for an
85,000 sq m R&D led mixed use development. Sustainable
location, would benefit the economy, provide a new focus for
R&D south of the City.
Policy E/10: Shared Social Spaces in Employment Areas (and paragraphs 8.49 to
8.50)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 2
Support: 1
Object: 1
Main Issues Support
Granta Park/TWI benefits from shared social spaces.
Object
The words 'small-scale' should be replaced with 'appropriately
scaled'. Whilst uses should be ancillary to business, they
should be appropriate to meet needs.
Policy E/11: Large Scale Warehousing and Distribution Centres (and paragraph
8.51)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 2
Support: 0
Object: 2
Main Issues Object
Cambourne Parish Council, Caldecote Parish Council -
applications for Large Scale Warehousing and Distribution
Centres should be taken on a case by case basis with a view
to promoting sustainability by providing alternative
employment.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 122 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy
Policy E/12: New Employment Development in Villages (and paragraph 8.52)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 3
Support: 0
Object: 3
Main Issues Object
Bourn Parish Council - weakens the existing LDF policy
(ET/4) by removing all size restrictions. It also does not define
any local employment criteria.
Concerned that the term "very small scale" requires further
definition and clarification to provide better guidance for would-
be developers and parish councils.
Policy E/13: New Employment Development on the Edges of Villages (and
paragraph 8.53)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 9
Support: 4
Object: 5
Main Issues Support
Permissive towards new employment uses adjoining or close
to development frameworks and expressly prioritises
previously developed land.
Support elements e and f as will protect rural nature of South
Cambs.
Support subject to good design.
Reference to green belt policy is fundamental.
Object
Bourn Parish Council - it will remove any protection offered
by the village framework with respect to business development
(as opposed to housing development). Sections a and b do not
provide a mechanism for a formal consultation process
involving the applicant, SCDC and PC.
Amend to remove the onerous requirements that prevent
existing established businesses in villages from expanding
(development framework at Volac International site Fishers
Lane Orwell should be amended)
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Page 123
Policy E/14: Loss of Employment Land to Non Employment Uses (and paragraphs
8.54 and 8.55)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 7
Support: 1
Object: 6
Main Issues Support
Fully supportive in restricting development employment sites.
Object
Bourn Parish Council – Support the policy, but it should
include formal consultation with Parish Councils.
12 months marketing is not enough. It must be shown that a
very robust marketing strategy has been implemented to retain
land for employment. It should be VERY difficult to get
employment land approved for housing.
Policy is unduly restrictive. Does not deal with derelict sites.
Need to take account of viability. If not viable for employment
marketing not required.
Negative presumption within Policy against alternative uses, at
odds with NPPF which states Planning Policies should avoid the
long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where
there is little prospect of a site being used for that purpose.
Policy ET6, which would be replaced by Policy E/14 does not
require valuation to be agreed with Council before marketing
properties stated in 8.55. Instead Council has ability to seek
independent advice when it considers a property has been
inappropriately valued. Insufficient evidence to justify proposed
change in approach. May add delay, cost and place additional
burden on developer.
If one of criteria a, b, or c has been met it should not be
necessary to meet point 2 - should be deleted.
Policy E/15: Established Employment Areas (and paragraphs 8.56 to 8.58)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 5
Support: 2
Object: 3
Main Issues Support
Granta Park/TWI and the Wellcome Trust support the policy
and the amended boundaries shown on the policies map.
Object
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 124 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy
Babraham Bioscience Technologies - Babraham Research
Campus should be removed from the Green Belt to deliver new
specialist research and development floorspace.
Richard Arbon - Syngenta Site Whittlesord should be removed
from the green belt and identified as an established
employment area. Site should not be lost to employment as
other village sites have.
John Shepperson - Buckingway Business Park Swavesey
should be expanded to the east. SCDC assessment identified
no significant constraints. Need for employment land. Most
sites near to Cambridge serve only high tech.
Policy E/16: Expansion of Existing Businesses in the Countryside (and
paragraphs 8.59 to 8.60)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 4
Support: 2
Object: 2
Main Issues Support
Offers appropriate encouragement for the sustainable growth
of existing businesses in rural areas.
Support for paragraph 8.60 in clarifying the scale of growth
must be sustainable.
Object
Bourn Parish Council – Weakens existing policy, the original
period of operation of 5 years in the LDF has been reduced to
just 2 years, and the restrictions on the scale of development
have been removed. Fails to provide for a formal consultation
process with Parish Councils.
Policy E/17: Conversion or Replacement of Rural Buildings for Employment (and
paragraph 8.61)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 2
Support: 0
Object: 2
Main Issues Object
Generally support this policy, but consider that it should
provide greater flexibility by allowing for the development of live
/ work units.
As the policy relates to the re-use of existing buildings without
material changes, the form, bulk and general design will not be
altered. Furthermore the building will remain in its existing
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Page 125
context and surroundings. Therefore, what is the intention and
meaning of paragraph c?
Policy E/18: Farm Diversification (and paragraphs 8.62 and 8.63)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 8
Support: 0
Object: 8
Main Issues Object
A cohesive bridleway network opens up opportunities for farm
diversification into horse-related business (bed and breakfast,
holidays etc). Should add reference to horse riding.
Dernford Farm Great Shelford / Sawston – allocate as leisure /
tourism facility utilising former mineral workings.
Policy E/19: Tourist Facilities and Visitor Attractions (and paragraphs 8.64 and
8.65)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 12
Support: 0
Object: 12
Main Issues Object
English Heritage - Part c of the policy is phrased so as to
allow some degree of adverse impact to local character. We
would prefer a more positive wording, and one that allowed for
enhancement.
National Trust - It is unclear what "in scale with its location"
means for an existing large scale tourism attraction. The
second part of the sentence appears to be duplicated in part e.
of the policy.
National Trust – Concern with last sentence of paragraph
8.65. The scale of growth proposed in the SC and CC Local
Plans will mean that existing tourism sites are put under
increasing pressure to expand. If limitations are to be placed
on existing sites but no further sites are to be encouraged then
how will the Council plan pro-actively to provide tourism-based
leisure to meet the demands of a growing population?
IWM Duxford seek amendment to part c to include no
significant adverse impact on operation and function of the
area.
Add horse riding to point e - "walking, cycling, horse riding and
public transport".
Object to policy item f on the basis that sustainable site
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 126 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy
management of green spaces requires on-site accommodation
to make them more viable and sustainable, especially in urban
fringe and rural areas.
Policy E/20: Tourist Accommodation (and paragraph 8.66)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 9
Support: 2
Object: 7
Main Issues Support
Support the development of tourist facilities/accommodation in
the countryside.
This policy could help struggling or closed public houses to
become re-vitalised by the addition of sensitively developed
accommodation.
Object
Add reference to horse riding.
Policy E/21: Retail Hierarchy (and paragraphs 8.67 to 8.70)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 4
Support: 2
Object: 2
Main Issues Support
Towns and town centres first is consistent with national policies
including the NPPF.
New retail development should remain to be encouraged within
the Rural Centres, in order that services and facilities can
continue to support additional growth in these areas at a
proportionate level.
Object
Cambourne Parish Council / Caldecote Parish Council -
Item a, should read ‘town centres’ and not list names as in the
other Retail Hierarchy categories. This allows other settlement
centres or settlements to be upgraded as they develop and
grow.
Policy E/22: Applications for New Retail Development (and paragraphs 8.71 to
8.74)
Proposed
Submission
Total: 7
Support: 2
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy Page 127
Representations
Received
Object: 5
Main Issues Support
Bourn Parish Council – Support retail impact assessment
thresholds.
Fulbourn Parish Council - Protects the intrinsic character of
the village and surrounding countryside.
Object
Local thresholds will be difficult to implement. There are no
defined village centre boundaries and in their absence a single
local threshold should be adopted which requires all retail
schemes over 250 square metres gross within the Rural
Centres to be supported by a retail impact assessment.
Approach to local thresholds for impact assessment is not
proportionate and places an unnecessary burden on an
applicant, contrary to the provisions of the NPPF in paragraph
21. The suggested threshold set out in the NPPF requiring a
retail impact assessment for stores outside a centre is
2,500sqm.
Council’s Retail Study contains flaws and underestimates retail
need. It ignores overtrading. It is out of date.
Policy E/23: Retailing in the Countryside (and paragraph 8.75)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 8
Support: 0
Object: 8
Main Issues Object
Overly restrictive in respect of existing retail uses. Does not
support uses unsuited to a town centre location, and
development of existing rural retail businesses.
Add reference to horse riding.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 128 8: Building a Strong and Competitive Economy
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 9: Promoting Successfully Communities Page 129
Chapter 9: Promoting Successful Communities
Key facts and paragraphs 9.1 – 9.3
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 2
Object: 2
Main Issues Object
Inter-Church Contact Group – insufficient weight given to
community infrastructure needed to support development.
Much space given to transport infrastructure whilst few
references to cultural and community infrastructure.
Experience of new developments (Cambourne and Orchard
Park) show existing or new churches play vital role in
supporting emerging communities – undervalued role.
Cambridgeshire County Council - Joint Strategic Needs
Assessment for New Communities and Health & Housing
highlights importance of green space to supporting mental as
well as physical wellbeing. Should include in bullet "Sport and
play space is important for supporting healthy lifestyles."
Policy SC/1: Allocation for Open Space (and paragraph 9.4 – 9.5)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 35
Support: 11 (including 3 Parish Councils)
Object: 24 (including 2 Parish Councils)
Main Issues Support
Environment Agency – support allocating land for open space
as it can be available for water storage now – perhaps more
formally in future. Open space provides resilience to climate
change- areas that can flood with minimal effect compared to
occupied property. Green spaces to store excess surface
water. Cambs Surface Water Management Plan sets out
known hot spots. Support designations in following locations to
be future formal flood storage areas – Great Shelford;
Longstanton and Swavesey.
Oakington and Westwick Parish Council – support policy
Object
Natural England – Should amend policy to refer to Natural
England’s ANGSt standards as advocated in Cambridgeshire
Green Infrastructure Strategy.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 130 9: Promoting Successful Communities
Swavesey and District Bridleways Association and six
individual respondents – policy should mention importance of
leisure routes such as public bridleways – promotes health,
leisure and transport network.
Village allocations
SC/1:1a – Land east of recreation ground, Over –
Objection from landowners (The Ginn Trustees) – other land
adjacent to playing fields should be used instead. No objection
to half site being allocated even given substantial areas have
already been compulsory purchased previously for playing
fields but not all used for that purpose. Site allocated for many
years – opportunity for resolution of matter as no proposals by
District or Parish Councils. Representation also submitted for
southern half of site to be allocated for housing.
SC/1:1b - Land east of Bar Lane, Stapleford and west of
the access road to Green Hedges Farm
Support for allocation
SC/1:1d – Land north of recreation ground, Swavesey
Objection from landowner. Site rolled forward without
consideration of alternatives. Land part of larger area next to
village green. Could now expand village green in alternative
directions. Need better distribution of open space within village
– all at northern end. Swavesey linear village. Site unlikely to
be deliverable during plan period. Should replace with
alternative site to east or south of existing village
SC/1:1e – Land at Grange Farm, Church Street, Great
Shelford
Objection from landowners of field – land not accessible to
public / not a village amenity. No consultation with owners by
Parish Council who put forward site or District Council who
included it in Issues and Option 2 consultation. Site not
available. In private ownership.
Objection as recreation ground is big enough- parts not fully
used. Need for land for new housing. . Village in Recreation
and Open Space Study 2013 found to be well provided for
compared to other villages. Two new sites proposed in plan –
over provision of open space
Support for allocation from three respondents.
(Separate representation received for site to be allocated for
housing)
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 9: Promoting Successfully Communities Page 131
SC/1:1f – Land north of former EDF site, Ely Road. Milton
Milton Parish Council support allocation.
SC/1:2g – Land known as Bypass Farm, west of
Cottenham Road, Histon
Objection to site from 7 respondents – not suitable site, too
close to neighbouring properties, not needed in village, no
consultation with those affected by it. Should look for
alternative site. Likely to generate increased traffic on already
busy road, not safe to cross road. Using green belt land. Land
floods.
Objection from landowners of site next to allocation – concern
at that site not suitable – wrong location for village.
Support proposal but as part of proposal should reduce speed
limit on B1049. Site car park should not be open 24/7 to
minimise disturbance to local residents. Consider light
pollution at night.
Support from Histon and Impington Parish Council –
confirmation from landowners that willing to sell land. Shortage
of open space in village. PC has leafleted near neighbours
and only three adverse comments.
SC/1:2h – Land south of Granham Road, Great Shelford.
Great Shelford Parish Council
Support for allocation from 3 respondents.
Separate representation received for southern part of site to be
allocated for housing.
New sites proposed in villages
Fulbourn
New site - Field abutting existing recreation ground should be
used as extension to recreation ground. Shortage of open
space in village especially as much new housing proposed.
Dry Drayton
Dry Drayton Parish Council - New site – Provision for a
recreation ground of at least 2 acres as close to school as
possible and a separate play area for community within the
parish. Only village in district with no play area or recreation
ground
Graveley
Graveley Parish Council – New site – Need for informal
recreation area in village – joint representation with Manor
Farm for new housing with provision of green area.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 132 9: Promoting Successful Communities
Policy SC/2: Health Impact Assessment (and paragraphs 9.6 – 9.8)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 14 (including 2 Parish Councils)
Support: 3
Object: 11
Main Issues Support
Cambridgeshire County Council – support policy. Need for
consistent approach across Cambridge City and South
Cambridgeshire.
Fulbourn Parish Council – support policy
Oakington and Westwick Parish Council – support
Object
Swavesey and District Bridleway Association and six
respondents – policy should mention importance of leisure
routes such as public bridleways – promotes health, leisure
and transport network.
Objection – HIA adds no value to decision making process – all
health related issues covered by sustainable development
considerations/ other policies in the plan. Should only be
required for EIA developments.
House Builders Federation – Policy unnecessary. Contrary
to paragraph 122 in NPPF. Delete policy.
Unreasonable for guidance on HIA to be delayed until SPD –
clarification needed as to whether existing SPD still valid?
Policy SC/3: Protection of Village Services and Facilities (and paragraph 9.9)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 11
Support: 7 including 2 parish councils
Object: 4 including 2 parish councils.
Main Issues Support
Campaign for Real Ale – pleased to see inclusion of public
houses in policy.
Cambridge Past Present and Future – Support policy.
Particular attention should be paid to retaining pubs.
Fulbourn Parish Council – support policy as it protects
character of village
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 9: Promoting Successfully Communities Page 133
Oakington and Westwick Parish Council - support for policy.
Object
Bourn Parish Council – supports policy. Services often focal
point for surrounding community. Important that parish
councils are formally consulted with respect to section 2 (a)
and (b). Also as part of policy the Council should promote
Community Asset Register.
Barrington Parish Council – policies in chapter 9 relate to
large scale developments. Insufficient mention of day to day
needs of Group Villages. Plan not protecting further erosion of
facilities and services in villages particularly public transport,
education and health services. Not considering increased
demand and diminishing capacity of existing provision.
The Theatres Trust – policy does not refer to cultural
infrastructure – should add cultural buildings to section 1 of
policy to reflect paragraph 28 bullet 4 in NPPF.
Support policy but term ‘village service’ should explicitly cover
educational provision such as local primary schools. New
housing development in existing villages will generate extra
burden on local schools – need for new provision to provide for
that development.
Policy SC/4: Meeting Community Needs ( and paragraph 9.10 – 9.15) excludes
paragraphs relating to sub-regional facilities including Community Stadium
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 34
Support : 6 (including 2 Parish Councils )
Object: 28 (including 3 Parish Councils )
Main Issues Support
Campaign for Real Ale – support policy including public
houses in list of commercial facilities important to community
life (section 4 f)
Cambridgeshire County Council – welcome libraries
mentioned
Fulbourn Parish Council – support policy
Haslingfield Parish Council – support policy new services
and facilities in new developments must be done in timely
fashion – at early stage of development / not neglected
General support for policy
Object
Homes and Communities Agency – mismatch of policies as
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 134 9: Promoting Successful Communities
set out in adopted Northstowe Area Action Plan (NAAP) and
draft policy. Need for clarity. Will new policy supersede older
ones in NAAP? Suggested amended wording for Policy SC/4
to clarify
Cambridgeshire County Council – JSNA New Communities
Report should be referenced in plan. Importance to plan for
social infrastructure. Infrastructure Study in section on social
infrastructure only sets out physical requirements for social
facilities and omits reference to community development
resources needed to development community cohesion.
Cambridgeshire County Council – still outstanding
requirement for Household Recycling Centre in area. Also
need to clarify that for waste and recycling provision that this
includes both HRCs and bring sites as set out in the
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mineral and Waste Core
Strategy and the RECAP Waste Management Guide -
Propose amending wording to 4(i)
Cambridgeshire County Council – amend policy to include
options whereby if land is required to provide for existing or
future community or education services then site may come
forward for mixed- use development (including residential)
where there is an enabling development argument.
Harston Parish Council – insufficient information for other
needs than housing of a community – future school provision;
health and social care; lack of proposals for other amenities
such as shops, pubs and village halls, sports and children’s
facilities; no mention of future governance – need for new
parish council.
Cambourne and Caldecote Parish Councils – amend policy
by adding to range of services to be provided – allotments and
youth and older people’s services/facilities. Also need new
section in policy about Community Governance – ‘parishing’ of
new communities.
Cambridgeshire Ecumenical Council – insufficient weight
given to role faith facilities play in providing for needs of wider
community. Key component in creating community. Little
reference to a place of worship or religious instruction.
The Theatre Trust – policy does not include reference to
cultural infrastructure – need to add cultural buildings to those
listed in section 4 to reflect NPPF paragraph 28.
Swavesey and District Bridleway Association and eight
respondents – policy should mention importance of leisure
routes such as public bridleways – promote healthy, leisure
and transport network.
Cambridge Past Present and Future - List of services and
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 9: Promoting Successfully Communities Page 135
facilities to be provided should include adequate green open
space with playing fields, green infrastructure and children’s
playground.
House Builders Federation – policy conflicts with paragraphs
203 - 206 in NPPF. Council may seek financial payments to
range of services listed through CIL but not planning obligation.
Requirement for new developments to provide for provision of
faith groups and burials is unreasonable and unjustified. Better
provided for at district level.
New development must provide sufficient additional local
educational infrastructure for new population. Need to
consider full impact on existing schools.
Council should ensure free home shopping deliveries are
provided by major supermarkets on major new developments
to reduce unnecessary car journeys.
Need for doctor’s surgery in Hardwick or Caldecote.
New policy on healthcare provision.
Cambridgeshire County Council – recommend that
Cambridge City and S Cambs jointly agree policy on health
care facilities. Cambridge City has explicit policy – Policy 75
which recognises the changing way in which health services
may be delivered.
Paragraph 9.16- 9.18 Consideration of Sub-regional facilities including Community
Stadium and Sawston Stadium.
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 15
Support : 8 (including 5 Parish Councils specifically supporting
non- inclusion of Community Stadium)
Object: 7 (including 1 Parish Council objecting to non- inclusion of
policy for sub-regional facilities)
Main Issues Support
Grantchester Parish Council - support decision not to further
consider Community Stadium at Trumpington Meadows. Need
for stadium on green belt not been demonstrated and 900
signature petition against demonstrated local opposition.
Community Stadium should be sited amongst population it is
intended to serve so supporters can walk to games. Green
Belt not appropriate location for stadium.
Harlton and Haslingfield Parish Councils – support
rejection of stadium at Trumpington
Oakington and Westwick Parish Council – support rejection
of stadium proposals
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 136 9: Promoting Successful Communities
Great Shelford Parish Council – no compelling case for
allocating community stadium or other facilities in green belt
General support for no inclusion of community stadium at
Trumpington – would conflict with new country park; would
undermine viability of Trumpington facilities; site poorly served
by public transport.
Cambridge Past Present and Future – support for emphasis
that provision of sub regional facilities in Green Belt would only
be allowed if exceptional circumstances.
Object
General
Trumpington Residents Association – Support Councils’
assessment that green belt location for community stadium not
appropriate. Fundamentally opposed to such a stadium.
Policy does not include way the Council would respond to
proposals for sub-regional community, sports and leisure
facilities – should include specific reference to Council’s policy
consistent with City Council Policy 73.
Oakington and Westwick Parish Council – object to plan not
including site for ice rink. A suitable site would be the rowing
lake at Waterbeach. Object that plan does not include a
concert hall – suitable site at Northstowe or off A428 near
Cambridge
Cambridge FA – growing demand for football and to deliver
FA strategy need improved facilities.
Community Stadium
Grosvenor/ Wrenbridge Ltd - Plan fails to respond to
evidence base and sporting needs of Cambridge and
surrounding area. Land west of Hauxton Rd, Trumpington and
at Abbey Stadium, Newmarket Rd should be allocated for
community football stadium, indoor and outdoor sports and
residential development to fund delivery. Release 15 hectares
from green belt west of Hauxton Rd. to accommodate
residential development and built sports facilities. Land
between new green belt boundary and M11 provide outdoor
sport and ancillary features. Proposed wording for policy and
supporting text.
New policy for Community stadium – should be new policy as
stadium is absolute priority for area. Surely one of nine sites
proposed was sufficient. With planned growth and resulting
increased population need for adequate sporting facilities to
meet community needs. Both Cambridge United and City need
stadium. Benefits clear.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 9: Promoting Successfully Communities Page 137
Sawston Stadium
Need for new policy to allow for football stadium in Sawston –
village would benefit from additional sporting facilities and
green space proposed by club. Potential traffic issues over-
stated. Proposed site is brownfield site not greenfield.
Policy SC/5: Hospice Provision (and paragraph 9.19)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 2
Support: 0
Object: 2
Main Issues Object
Arthur Rank Hospice – Welcome policy but concerned policy
fails to understand hospice requirements, locating close to
acute hospital, and increasing role in community healthcare.
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust –
Policy should be upgraded to include wider healthcare
facilities. Suggest change of wording in policy and supporting
text by replacing ‘hospices’ with ‘community healthcare
facilities’.
Policy SC/6: Indoor Community Facilities (and paragraphs 9.20 – 9.22)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 5
Support: 2 (including 2 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 3
Main Issues Support
Fulbourn PC – Support to ensure facilities are enhanced to
meet increased demands.
Oakington and Westwick PC – Support Policy SC/6.
Object
Home Builders Federation – contrary to national policy paras
203 and 206.(3 tests for planning obligations ) May seek
payments through CIL but not planning obligations.
Demonstrate tests met and not already charging.
Requirements onerous and unjustified having regard to
evidence base. Unclear how CIL would affect requirement
since contributions would be superseded by CIL charge. Costs
in relation to viability and cumulative impact not properly
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 138 9: Promoting Successful Communities
tested. Suggest rewording of policy to exclude mention of an
appropriate standard and also reference to it in paragraph 9.22
– each development should be determined based on local
circumstances.
Policy SC/7: Outdoor Play Space, Informal Open Space and New Developments (
and paragraphs 9.23 – 9.30 including Figure 11)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 11
Support: 6 (including 5 from Parish Councils (PC))
Object: 5
Main Issues Support
Bourn PC – Support ensuring adequate play areas available in
new developments to promote safety and well being of
children. Many new developments infill and omit space.
Cambridgeshire County Council – Welcome reference to
“informal open space suitable for play” in para 9.24 – keen to
see variety of spaces.
Fulbourn PC – Support to ensure facilities are enhanced to
meet increased demands.
Great Abington PC – Pleased to see recognition of
importance of allotments and community orchards.
Developments proposed in village include both.
Oakington and Westwick PC – Support Policy SC/7 and
Figure 11.
Object
Cambridgeshire County Council – Welcome reference to
creative design approach, but recognise these are places
adults want to spend time in too.
English Heritage – Provision of fixed structures associated
with outdoor recreation should be appropriately located as not
to intrude on sensitive areas e.g. setting of heritage assets.
Natural England – Would like reference to ANGSt standards
as advocated through Green Infrastructure Strategy for
provision of multi-functional green infrastructure.
Sport England – Support principle but recommend robust
assessment of need using Sport England methodology and
action plan be developed which identifies priorities for new
open space provision. Do not support principle of providing for
new development through a standard of provision. New
housing developments should make provision for community
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 9: Promoting Successfully Communities Page 139
indoor sport.
Support objective, but space standards not always appropriate.
Development should take account of provision in immediate
area not whole district.
Policy SC/8: Open Space Standards (and paragraph 9.31 – 9.33)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 5
Support: 3 (including 3 from Parish Councils (PC))
Object: 2
Main Issues Support
Bourn PC – Support ensure adequate open space for
communities. Strongly support provision of allotments.
Currently large demand and many new developments have
small gardens.
Fulbourn PC – Support to ensure facilities are enhanced to
meet increased demands.
Oakington and Westwick PC – Support Policy SC/8
Object
Home Builders Federation - Unsound, contrary to national
policy paras 203 and 206. May seek payments for outdoor
space through CIL but not planning obligations.
Homes and Communities Agency – Support provision of
open space but Northstowe AAP establishes (lower) provision
required. Change to provision will affect viability. Clarify.
Policy SC/9: Protection of Existing Recreation Areas, Allotments and Community
Orchards (and paragraph 9.34 – 9.37)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 8
Support: 7 (including 4 from Parish Councils (PC))
Object: 2
Main Issues Support
Bourn PC – Support as complements Policy SC/10 in
providing some protection against inappropriate infilling. Great
demand for allotments in parish and finding suitable land is
difficult.
Fulbourn PC – Protects intrinsic character of the village and
surrounding countryside.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 140 9: Promoting Successful Communities
Natural England – Welcome protection of existing recreation
areas, allotments and community orchards.
Oakington and Westwick PC – Support Policy SC/9.
Protect existing open spaces of value to local communities.
Object
Sport England – Support principle but suggested
amendments, including final criteria should note there is no up
to date playing pitch assessment for district. Urge SCDC to
carry out such an assessment as soon as possible.
Council should promote new community orchards, woodland
and allotments. New site at end of Manger’s Lane, Duxford for
community orchard and residential.
Policy SC/10: Lighting Proposals, (and paragraph 9.38 – 9.43)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 8
Support: 5 (including 3 from Parish Councils (PC)
Object: 3
Main Issues Support
Bourn PC – Support as it will help contain the problem of light
pollution in the district.
Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Support subject to
appropriate constraints being applied to developments in or
close to sites of natural and built heritage and Green Belt.
Fulbourn PC – Support policy for protecting the intrinsic
character of the village and surrounding countryside.
Natural England - Welcome policies to ensure development
addresses potential for adverse environmental effects through
lighting, noise and emissions to air.
Oakington and Westwick PC – Support.
Object
Cambridge City Council – Support control of lighting but
bearing in mind cross-boundary sites and benefits of a
coordinated approach, policy could benefit from mention of
ecological impact. Include an additional bullet in policy as
follows - "Impact on wildlife is minimised, particularly in
countryside areas."
English Heritage – Floodlighting for sports pitches can conflict
with amenity and appreciation of heritage assets. Floodlighting
heritage assets can have positive and negative impacts.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 9: Promoting Successfully Communities Page 141
Amend text to reflect need for sensitivity in relation to heritage
assets and their settings.
Home Builders Federation – Contrary to paragraph 122 of
NPPF and should be deleted. Not planning matters.
Policy SC/11: Noise Pollution (and paragraphs 9.44 – 9.53)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 7
Support: 4 (including 3 from Parish Councils (PC)
Object: 3
Main Issues Support
Bourn PC – Support but is concerned it must be
complemented with an effective enforcement regime.
Fulbourn PC – Support policy for protecting the intrinsic
character of the village and surrounding countryside.
Natural England - Welcome policies to ensure development
addresses potential for adverse environmental effects through
lighting, noise and emissions to air.
Oakington and Westwick PC – Support.
Object
Cambridge City Council – Support aims of policy but consider
bullet 4 should be amended to ensure no worsening of noise
beyond site boundary. Replace existing text in Policy SC/11
clause 4 which reads "Noise level at nearby existing noise
sensitive premises..." with "Noise level at the boundary of the
premises subject to the application and having regard to noise
sensitive premise..."
IWM Duxford – Support need to ensure appropriate noise
control, but concerned may restrict aviation and F1 testing
activities. Amended wording to paragraph 9.53 is proposed.
Home Builders Federation – Contrary to paragraph 122 of
NPPF and should be deleted. Not planning matters.
Policy SC/12: Contaminated Land (and paragraphs 9.54 – 9.56)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 4
Support: 2 (including 2 from Parish Councils (PC)
Object: 2
Main Issues Support
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 142 9: Promoting Successful Communities
Fulbourn PC – Support policy for protecting the local
community’s health and amenities.
Oakington and Westwick PC – Support.
Object
Environment Agency – Support inclusion of policy, but will
need redrafting either prior to submission or through
modifications.
o Suggest change policy title to ‘Land Contamination’.
Contaminated land has strict definition in Environment
Protection Act.
o Need to address development affected by landfill gas -
append to existing policy /new policy? - NPPF leaves it
for local policies to address when formally covered by
PPS23.
o Need to cover water pollution (groundwater) in policy –
as it stands only relates to health and amenity. This
area depends on groundwater for majority of drinking
water so important. Many chalk aquifers vulnerable to
water pollution.
o Policy needs to address approaches to development on
aquifers as well as EA designated Source Protection
Zones.
o Support Environmental SPD concept but question title
as being vague – danger of being side lined. Landfill
gas and land contamination could command their own
SPD
Home Builders Federation – Contrary to paragraph 122 of
NPPF and should be deleted. Not planning matters.
Policy SC/13: Air Quality (and paragraphs 9.57 - 9.62)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 6
Support: 4 (including 2 from Parish Councils (PC)
Object: 2
Main Issues Support
Cambridge City Council – Represents comprehensive and
effective policy, incorporating all necessary protections and
promotes low emission strategies. Site specific air quality
issues for major sites can be addressed through this policy in
tandem with site specific policies.
Fulbourn PC – Support policy for protecting the local
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) 9: Promoting Successfully Communities Page 143
community’s health and amenities.
Natural England – Welcome policies to ensure development
addresses potential for adverse environmental effects through
lighting, noise and emissions to air.
Oakington and Westwick PC – Support.
Object
Home Builders Federation – Contrary to paragraph 122 of
NPPF and should be deleted. Not planning matters.
Needs expanding to cover air quality from vehicle emissions as
well as development – cause serious health problems. Need to
work with City and County to ensure buses meet European
emissions standards. Suggest include following:
'Measures will be taken to extend the Quality Bus Partnership
beyond 2015. Buses accessing towns and cities where air
quality is an issue must conform to European emission Code
Level 5 as a minimum requirement'.
Policy SC/14: Hazardous Installations (and paragraphs 9.63 -9.65 )
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 2
Support: 1 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC)
Object: 1
Main Issues Support
Fulbourn PC – Support policy for protecting the local
community’s health and amenities.
Object
Home Builders Federation – Contrary to paragraph 122 of
NPPF and should be deleted. Not planning matters.
Policy SC/15: Odour and Other Fugitive Emissions to Air (and paragraphs 9.66 -
9.69)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 5
Support: 4 (including 3 from Parish Councils (PC))
Object: 1
Main Issues Support
Natural England – Welcome policies to ensure development
addresses potential for adverse environmental effects through
lighting, noise and emissions to air.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 144 9: Promoting Successful Communities
Bourn PC – Support but is concerned it must be
complemented with an effective enforcement regime.
Fulbourn PC – Support policy for protecting the local
community’s health and amenities.
Oakington and Westwick PC – Support.
Object
Home Builders Federation – Contrary to paragraph 122 of
NPPF and should be deleted. Not planning matters.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure Page 145
Chapter 10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport
and Infrastructure
Paragraphs 10.1 - 10.8
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 6
Support: 0
Object: 6 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Main Issues Object
English Heritage – Priority should be given to solutions that
take account of the historic environment.
Ickleton PC – Include new cycle and footpaths to the village.
St Edmundsbury BC - Plan weakened by lack of reference to
delivering aspirations of emerging Transport Strategy.
Growth strategy reliant on significant improvements in public
transport and deliverability depends on availability, level and
timing of public funding. Large gap in funding and cost. Identify
sites less reliant on improvements to ensure deliverability.
Little about railways, except Chesterton Station.
Little money for roads or to address congestion on A505.
Policy TI/1: Chesterton Rail Station and Interchange
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 5
Support: 5
Object: 0
Main Issues Support
Natural England – Welcome the requirement for development
to protect Jersey Cudweed.
New station is fundamental to redevelopment of the Northern
Fringe East and will benefit all of northern Cambridge / region.
Opportunity to enable greater use of the railway, an underused
means of transport, and a corridor capable of carrying an
increased modal share in the area.
Policy TI/2: Planning for Sustainable Travel
Proposed
Submission
Total: 45
Support: 21 (including 2 from Parish Councils (PC))
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 146 10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure
Representations
Received
Object: 24 (including 6 from PC)
Main Issues Support
Cambridgeshire County Council – Location of development
important to ensure distance and need for travel is reduced
and maximises opportunity to travel by sustainable modes. All
sites in plan can achieve appropriate access from network, but
need comprehensive Transport Assessment to fully assess.
Fulbourn PC - Support this policy to encourage and support
cycling and use of public transport.
Great Chesteford PC – Strong support. Fits well with footpath
/ cycle path project to link villages.
Natural England – Support protection and enhancement of
routes and linkages between villages, Northstowe, Cambridge,
market towns and wider countryside. Pleased developers will
be required to mitigate environmental impacts.
Rampton PC – Criterion 2b - important for small infill villages,
to provide access without car. Need cycleway to Willingham.
Most effective way of achieving is by ensuring correct spatial
strategy is chosen - focus on edge of Cambridge/close to jobs.
Naïve to assume edge of town is more sustainable than rural
area if effective and reliable public transport can be provided.
Travel by car is becoming increasingly unsustainable and a
blight. Roads too busy. Reality is people will continue to use
their cars.
Against development that would lead to large increase in car
use due to lack of public transport facilities within a village.
Support extending cycleways, particularly in villages along the
Guided Busway to give good access for all.
Necessary to prevent transport infrastructure in the region
becoming so overburdened it has negative economic impact.
List commendable but should not be used to bribe communities
into accepting inappropriate levels of development.
Object
Barrington PC – Does not address sustainable provision for
the needs of Group Villages. Focus on walking, cycling and
public transport at odds with reality.
Bourn PC – Support but lacks detail on timescales for attaining
“sufficient integration”. “Significant transport implications” does
not consider distance from employment / service centres, as
excludes cycling / walking as option.
Cambridgeshire County Council – Support but add reference
to Transport Assessments being agreed with the local highway
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure Page 147
authority and encourage travel planning activities from smaller
schemes.
Dry Drayton PC – Request network of off-road cycle paths
along each road in / out of village.
Haslingfield PC –– No direct / safe all weather cycling route to
Cambridge. Uncertainty about public transport provision –
essential for ageing population some of whom do not drive.
Ickleton PC – Policy will only succeed if new routes link with
established settlements. Cycle path between Ickleton and
Great Chesterford would link station, facilities and NCN11.
Madingley PC – Welcome development that reduces traffic
and speeds, provides cycle / footpaths. Need new Park and
Ride at Bar Hill, car park at Oakington Guided Bus stop, direct
link to M11, A428 / A14 link, improved junction at Cambridge
Road, Madingley and A1303.
Royston Town Council - Development at Cambourne already
had significant effect on Royston. Bourn Airfield / Cambourne
West and other developments should mitigate traffic impacts
on Royston / pressure on station car park.
Suffolk County Council – Policy should secure appropriate
improvement in accordance ‘with the aims of relevant local
transport plans or strategies’.
Add policy to include bus services / park and ride.
Radial roads clogged during rush hour and major
developments will exacerbate.
Objective will not be achieved with the development strategy.
Different travel patterns achieved in City, urban fringe and new
settlements - evidence supports sites on urban fringe.
Fails to acknowledge parts of district not adequately served by
public transport, yet these areas still have development needs.
Protect and enhance Rights of Way for all users (horse riders).
Bridleways as default – good value for money.
Policy TI/3: Parking Provision (paragraphs 10.23-10.25 and Figure 12)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 15
Support: 6 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 9 (including 3 from PC)
Main Issues Support
Bourn PC – Support - defines standards for car parking and
garage sizes. Support promotion of cycle parking to encourage
more people to cycle. Current developments have insufficient
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 148 10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure
car and cycle parking spaces leading to inappropriate parking.
Oakington & Westwick PC – support criterion 4 – specify
minimum size dimensions for garages so large enough for
modern cars, cycles and other storage needs.
For the share of cycling to grow, adequate facilities have to be
provided over and above current level of demand. The number
of spaces defined in this policy will help achieve this.
Object
Bourn PC – Footnote 2 – specify minimum height for MPVs or
4 wheel drive vehicles? Figure 12 – unclear as to allocation of
parking for multiple residential properties such as flats.
Caldecote & Cambourne PCs – Change ‘minimum’ to
‘indicative’ to ensure flexibility in accordance with Travel Plan.
Review after 1 year. Undue costs on community buildings.
Homes and Communities Agency – Object to 1 cycle space
per bedroom - excessive. Seek flexibility, including communal
parking. Is the standard for A2 uses an error (2m2)?
Oakington & Westwick PC – remove all car parking
standards and adopt design-led approach.
Wording of policy contradicts supporting text - policy advises
standards should be met but text advises indicative standards.
Policy TI/4: Rail Freight and Interchanges
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 2
Support: 1 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 1
Main Issues Support
Bourn PC – Strongly in favour of shifting more freight from
road to rail given the strains on local road infrastructure.
Object
Support proposals concerning rail freight and protection of
sidings. Should require construction items to come by rail to
Chesterton sidings for A14 / construction of new settlements.
Policy TI/5: Aviation-Related Development Proposals
Proposed
Submission
Total: 11
Support: 3 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure Page 149
Representations
Received
Object: 8 (including 2 from PC)
Main Issues Support
Fulbourn PC – Being regularly over-flown by aircraft from
Cambridge Airport support this policy to protect amenities of
local residents.
Natural England – Welcome requirement to take into account
effects on nature conservation and landscape.
Cambridge Airport not suitable for further expansion - close
proximity to city. Increase in flights will create major
disturbance - night flying should not be permitted.
Object
Caldecote & Cambourne PC – Preserve Bourn as a flying
facility for commuting / recreation. Close to employment. Would
decrease need for expanding other airfields.
IWM Duxford – Support criteria-based policy and tests include
economic advantages / recreation opportunities. Criteria could
impact on viability of business - historic aircraft (noise). Clarify
that there are a variety of different airfields in South Cambs.
Marshall of Cambridge – Cambridge Airport makes positive
contribution to economic well-being of area. DfT emphasises
need to make best use of existing runways. Positively worded
policy would accord with NPPF.
Cambridge Airport - significant impacts warrant separate policy
Lack of formal procedures to ensure development / change of
activity complies with legislation - most development under
permitted development rights. Not enforced.
Policy TI/6: Cambridge Airport Public Safety Zone
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 3
Support: 1
Object: 2
Main Issues Support
Marshall of Cambridge – Support policy which is firmly based
on advice by central government to seek to minimise risk.
Object
Defence Infrastructure Organisation – Statutory
safeguarding / consultation zones around MOD aerodromes to
ensure structures do not obstruct air traffic movements,
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 150 10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure
compromise operation of air navigational transmitter, birdstrike.
IWM Duxford – Support but the Plan should include reference
to the IWM Duxford Aerodrome Safeguarding Map.
Policy TI/7: Lord’s Bridge Radio Telescope
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 2
Support: 1
Object: 1
Main Issues Support
Chanceller, Masters and Scholars of Univ. of Cambridge –
Lord’s Bridge is internationally important, and the policy to
protect its operational viability is supported.
Object
Inclusion in this chapter inappropriate as radio telescope is not
public infrastructure. Suggest it is included in chapter 8.
Policy TI/8: Infrastructure and New Developments (and paragraph 10.36)
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 17
Support: 5 (including 3 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 12 (including 3 from PC)
Main Issues Support
Caldecote & Cambourne PCs – Criterion 1 is vital for the
proposals of new development.
Fulbourn PC – support this policy to ensure facilities are
enhanced to meet increased demands.
Hertfordshire County Council – Where development is
proposed close to Royston may require contributions to
mitigate impacts on Royston schools.
Natural England – Support requirement for developers to
demonstrate improvement or provision of infrastructure. Note
contributions may also be required towards future maintenance
and upkeep in accordance with Government guidance.
Object
Caldecote & Cambourne PCs – Criterion 2 should read “will”
not “may” - contributions towards maintenance are essential to
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure Page 151
allow communities to take on the infrastructure necessary.
Cambridge Past, Present and Future – Key infrastructure
provision to be supported through CIL should include
community assets. Support for Green Infrastructure.
Harlton PC – Insufficient information in the proposals for the
needs of a community and adjacent communities. No reference
to availability of public utilities.
Highways Agency - No reference to A428 Black Cat to
Caxton Gibbet improvement within Infrastructure Delivery
Study (IDS). Clarify how it will be taken forward and whether it
has implications on deliverability of Local Plan. IDS includes
improvement to A14 Histon Interchange, but no costs or
funding gap specified. Further information needed in update.
Middle Level Commissioners – Costs for flood defence
works and SuDS do not need to be included in tariff, but may
need to include maintenance.
Require funds for infrastructure to be met by S106 and CIL
money. Provision of essential infrastructure must be in place
before house building starts. Provide critical mass of residents
faster so essential facilities and services are put in earlier.
Policy does not address deliverability of sites where new
infrastructure required. NPPF clear that reliance should not be
placed on major infrastructure to deliver sites.
Council should ensure viability and deliverability. Sites in plan
should not be subject to scale of obligations / policy burdens
that their ability to be developed viably is compromised.
Paragraphs 10.45 & 10.46 Waste Infrastructure
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 3
Support: 2
Object: 1 (including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Main Issues Support
Cambridgeshire County Council – Welcome inclusion of
reference to Minerals and Waste Plan and policies regarding
areas of search, safeguarding and consultation zones.
Object
Bourn PC – Concerned that Policies Map Inset 11 for Bourn –
mineral classification is incorrect.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 152 10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure
Policy TI/9: Education Facilities
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 10
Support: 4 (Including 1 from Parish Council (PC))
Object: 6 (including 1 from PC)
Main Issues Support
Cambridgeshire County Council – Policy is appropriate and
encouraging that educational facilities are being supported in
locations that are accessible and experience growth. Proposals
within Plan have potential for appropriate mitigation, where
required. Coherent approach with less disruption for schools.
Fulbourn PC - Ensure facilities are enhanced to meet
increased demands.
Suffolk County Council – Welcome recognition of the need to
secure cross-border contributions as appropriate.
Should also cover all housing developments where education
facilities have not been explicitly mentioned.
Object
Harlton PC – Insufficient information in the proposals for the
needs other than housing of a community and adjacent
communities. No reference to future school provision to be
provided by Cambridgeshire County Council.
Sport England – No objection in principle, but development on
educational sites should minimise impact on sports facilities.
More schools needed if there is to be a big population growth.
Must tackle problem before it arises and reduce traffic problem
by preventing children being driven to school.
Criterion 3 is insufficiently strongly stated, merely ‘suggesting’
developers work with the CSA to ensure timely provision.
Policy TI/10: Broadband
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 5
Support: 3 (including 2 from Parish Councils (PC))
Object: 2 (including 1 from PC)
Main Issues Support
Fulbourn PC – Support this policy to ensure facilities are
enhanced to meet increased demands.
Great Abington PC – Support policy and recognise high
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure Page 153
speed infrastructure is essential to maintain our community as
a desirable place to live. Current speeds is limiting self
employed people working from home.
Support as fast and reliable access to the internet will soon be
essential for citizens to fully participate in the community.
Object
Ickleton PC – Want to see solid proposals for broadband
improvement in Ickleton Parish coming forward.
Mobile Operators Association – New clear and flexible
criteria based telecommunications policy should be included.
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Page 154 10: Promoting and Delivering Sustainable Transport and Infrastructure
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014)
Appendix A: Supporting Studies and Evidence Base & Appendix C: Glossary Page 155
Appendix A Supporting Studies and Evidence Base
Appendix C - Glossary
Appendix A Supporting Studies and Evidence Base
Appendix C - Glossary
Proposed
Submission
Representations
Received
Total: 1
Support: 0
Object: 1
Main Issues Objection
Cambridgeshire County Council - Suggest Building for Life
standards for well designed homes and neighbourhoods
should be referenced.
Assessment Agree, the Building for Life standard should be added. Further
minor changes are proposed for clarification.
A number of hyperlinks to evidence documents included in the
chapters in the plan are not listed in Appendix A and should be. A
minor change is proposed to include these documents in the
appendix.
Approach in
Submission
Local Plan
Minor change
Add ‘Building for Life standard’ to the glossary with the following
definition:
Building for Life is a useful tool for gaining an indication of
how well-designed homes and neighbourhoods are.
Add ‘Cambridge Area’ to the glossary with the following definition:
The area covered by Cambridge City Council and South
Cambridgeshire District Council.
Add ‘General Permitted Development Order’ to the glossary with
the following definition:
Provides permitted development rights which allow certain
types of development to proceed without the need for a
planning application.
Add ‘Green Corridor’ to the glossary with the following definition:
Area of open land which penetrates into an urban area for
amenity and recreation.
Add ‘High Quality Public Transport’ to the glossary with the
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Proposed Submission Consultation
Summary of representations and main issues (March 2014) Page 156 Appendix A: Supporting Studies and Evidence Base & Appendix C: Glossary
following definition (source: adopted Local Development
Framework) :
Generally service frequencies of at least a 10 minutes peak /
20 minutes inter-peak. Weekday evening frequencies of ½
hourly until 11pm, Saturday ½ hourly 7am - 6pm, then hourly
and Sunday hourly 8am - 11pm. Also provides high quality
low floor / easy access buses, air conditioning, prepaid /
electronic ticketing, Real Time information and branding to
encourage patronage.
Add ‘Local Needs’ to the glossary with the following definition:
The definition varies depending on the circumstances in
which it is used. Where talking about types of housing or
employment provision in the district it will often relate to the
needs of the wider Cambridge area. Where talking about local
needs as identified through the Strategic Housing Market
Assessment it refers specifically to the needs of the housing
market area. With regards to exception sites for affordable
housing it refers to the needs of the village / parish.