7. A connected village

A safe footpath/cyclepath alongside Willingham Road, connecting the two villages, would be a vital transport link. Many people would be able to use this for work, shopping and leisure. Currently the road is not safe for pedestrians and less confident cyclists due to the speed and volume of traffic, and the verges are unsuitable in their current condition.

The map shown on page 11 shows a variety of access routes through the village, including proposed footpaths. I am very concerned that one proposed footpath shown, trending north from mill Road, runs down my drive, in front of my home and onto Chapmans way. From discussions with South Cambs officer at the exhibition of the VDP yesterday, I was told that routes shown on the map were all drawn up by local people of Over. It is difficult to understand how local people would have proposed a footpath along my drive as the drive is private. I have lived in the property since 1983, owned by me, and is a cu de sac ending in my front garden. There is no access, nor possibility of access, through to Chapmans way or Cox's End, because of existing gardens and houses adjacent to the northern boundary of my property, as local is likely to have known. I should be grateful if you will remove the proposed footpath from the plan.

Secondly, and for info only, the proposed footpath shown trending from Mill Road runs directly through a new home. Perhaps the proposer was using an out-of-date map when they drew the route.

Support that the village should sustain its green fingers within the village and not infill develop these. Also support to maintain the village's compact shape.
Support that infill and back garden development in the Historic Core should be avoided and that we should consider reviewing to extend the conservation area to include Over End.
Support the recommendation to extend footways and cycleways towars Willingham, widen towards Swavesey and enable circular routes. We would also suggest that the recommendation to improve footway and cycleway access across the river is advantageous, meaning the accessing villages/towns on the other side of the river is faster by bike than by car, therefby reducing traffic
Comment on the recommendation that individual houses should have elevations in a single material. We do not believe this is necessarily reflective of the area (our home is an example of brick and weatherboarding and we are in the conservation area). However maintaining sympathetic designs in keeping with the adjacent and general village character is extremely important to us.
The suggestion is made the the Southern edges of the village are more suitable for development, and the prairie edge to the East is less suitable for development. We do not necessarily agree with this. Development towards the Southern (guided busway) end would merge Over with Swavesey, although appreciate it would provide good access to the public transport system. The greater separation between the villages of Over and Willingham we feel woudl allow better development towards this end of the village.

This response is based solely on the VDG. There are numerous, well documented reasons why equestrian
access should be included in protecting and improving access including impact on the rural economy, public
money should benefit all users, health and well being, local and national Planning Policies. Should Over Parish
Council require further details or information, either Swavesey Bridleways Association or the British Horse
Society would be pleased to answer questions or make a presentation with a view to working with the PC to
improve countryside access.
The BHS is very pleased to see the inclusion of equestrians in the Over VDG and supports all the ideas below
for improving the bridleway network, creating new bridleways and upgrading footpaths to bridleway status:
'* Improve the network of bridleways, foot and cycle paths to destinations outside the village,
including recreational routes into the wider landscape.
* Improve and extend the green network, a valued means of moving through the village away from
vehicular routes.
* Creating a bridleway link across the River Great Ouse by re‐using the current gravel extraction
bridge at Brownshill Staunch.
* Upgrade an existing footpath to a bridleway connecting Over to Swavesey. This could follow the
River Great Ouse bank from Swavesey and connect into Over along the Swavesey Drain or Chain
Road. Alternatively it could follow the path from New Road by the historic orchard to the south of
Over towards Swavesey.
8.3 New and improved footpaths, cyclepaths and bridleways leading out of Over should be designed
as extensions of the green network, where green lanes free of cars connect green open spaces and
public amenity spaces.
7.3 A new bridleway to Willingham, either along Willingham Road or past the Over Sewage Works.'
However some of the points in the plan do not mention the inclusion of equestrians and this needs to be
corrected. There is no reason not to include equestrians in future access, for instance in point 7 there is no
mention of equestrian inclusion in the routes to the Guided Busway, and East towards Willingham. Nor is there
any mention of equestrians in the routes along Swavesey Drain.
The Guided busway route is a bridleway and includes horses. Any paths connecting to the Guided busway must
include equestrians. There is also a requirement for a Non motorised User route between Over and
Willingham, which should include all users ie pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.
'7 Key foot, cycle and bridleway connections outside the village are lacking, including routes to the
guided busway and adjacent cycle route and east towards Willingham. The footpaths along the
Swavesey Drain are popular recreational routes but the route could be more extensive.'
There is also no mention of equestrian access in point 7.2.
'7.2 New development should be well connected to Over's existing network of public footpaths and
cycle paths and seek opportunities to provide additional public pedestrian and cycle routes that are
separate from streets and roads.'
Point 7.3 does mention a new bridleway to Willingham, however there is no mention of equestrian inclusion in
the first point regarding new routes to the guided busway route. The Guided busway route is a bridleway and
includes horses. It is not a cycle route. Any paths connecting to the Guided busway must include equestrians.
'7.3 * New foot and cycle routes to the guided busway cycle route, particularly along Longstanton
Road. * A new bridleway to Willingham, either along Willingham Road or past the Over Sewage
Works.'
Cambridgeshire County Council has a Local Transport Policy (LTP), which sets out their transport objectives,
policies and strategy for the county. A sister document of the LTP is the Rights of Way Improvement Plan
(ROWIP). The County Council updated its ROWIP in 2016 in line with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act
2000. You may wish to consult this document when drafting policies dealing with Non‐Motorised Users (NMU)
and the Public Rights of Way network.
https://cambridgeshire.gv.uk/residents/travel‐road‐and‐parking/transport‐plans‐and‐policies/local‐transportplan
Particular interest should be given to Policies S0A1 'Making the Countryside More Accessible', S0A2 'A Safer
Activity', S0A3 '57,000 New homes', S0A4 'Knowing what's out there', S0A5 'Filling in the Gaps', and S0A8 'A
Better Countryside Environment'- all of which include the need for access for equestrians.

Overall bpha are supportive of the approach taken within the South Cambridgeshire Village Design Statements.
bpha is a registered not for profit affordable housing provider with over 18,000 homes within the Cambridge to Oxford arc. We are committed to building and maintaining quality affordable homes in thriving communities.
More information can be found at — www.bpha.org.uk

bpha have a commitment to provide well-designed high quality housing for our customers. Our approach to delivery is informed by key financial viability considerations. We look forward to working with SCDC to deliver a range of housing opportunities for your residents that is financially sustainable and reflects that addresses the design issues raised in the statement.

As an organisation bpha are looking to increase the number of homes that we provide through land-led opportunities. The Village Design Guides provide a useful insight into the important design issues at a neighbourhood level that we will consider early in the development design and planning process. We remain committed to working with SCDC in order to find appropriate design responses to housing development.

We are currently in contract with various developers across multiple sites in the South Cambridgeshire area. Most notable locally is that bpha are contracted to deliver all affordable homes on Phase 1 at Northstowe. Via our Market sale arm Bushmead Homes we have acquired open market sites in Over, Swavesey and Gamlingay to deliver market sale and affordable homes.

Please find attached below comments on the Village Design Statements. Should you have any questions on the points raised please do not hesitate in contacting me.

In terms of an overall comment the Village Design Statements cover seven villages across South Cambridgeshire. What would be helpful is also identifying important design considerations for those villages that sit outside the areas covered by the Village Design Statements. We are currently actively looking at rural exception sites across South Cambridgeshire and such guidance would be useful.

In relatoin to the content of the Village Design Statements. The broad comments that can be read across all the statements can be summarised into the following categories:

Affordable Housing - the deliery of new affordable housing is key to the delivery of the strategic objectives of bpha. In terms of village sustainability the delivery of affordable homes to meet the needs of the local community is vital. This requires the delivery of a broad range and tenure of homes.

While there is reference to the importance of well-designed affordable housing such as in the case of Robinson Court, Gamlingay, many of the statements are silent on the issue of affordable housing. The planning system should balance the demand of particular the types of affordable housing within a village with the requirements of the densikty parameters set out in the Village Design Statements. Therefore the approach to meeting specific housing needs should be addressed in the Village Design Statements. Consideration to the Nationally Prescribed Space Standards, Lifetime Homes and Building Regulation accessibility/adaptability ought to considered.

Materials - the approach to taken to the appropriate materials to be used within new developments is broadly supported. It is welcomed that the document refers to the type of materials that are likely to be acceptable without specifying specific products.

The availability of materials is a critical factor for development delivery, with the lead in times for materials such as bricks having a significant impact on a development programme. Therefore we would welcome a dialogue with SCDC early in the development process of a broad palette of products that would be acceptable. This is cruicial for our cost planning of developments.

The Village Design Statements should also recognise that in relation to innovation in the building industry through Modern Methods of Construction to include off-site and modular housing. A sustainability balance should be struck between innovation and following a rigid design approach.

Public Realm Investment - In the case of the larger villages reference such as Sawston and Fulbourn reference is made to the need for public realm improvements being made to the local centre. We would strongly support improvements being made the public realm to contribute towards the viability of local service provision within village centres.

In terms of specific comments, we have the following comments on the individual Village Design Statements:

Caldecote

Support the principles of partnership working on flood management. There is no mention of affordable housing within the statement this should be addressed.

Fulbourn

The following statement is made 'The need for a housing mix including suitable dwellings for the elderly and for younger households' is identifed as not an issue to be addressed with the Village Design Statement. This is not correct as the approach taken to density in the Statements will affect the delivery of certain types of affordable housing.

The objective for an improved High Street is supported as improvements to the public realm will support the financial viability of local services as it will create a better environment to visit.

In relation to improvements to existing stock there needs to be a consideration of wider issues such as External Wall Insulation and the acceptability of such changes.

At paragraph 10.13 reference is made to self build reference in addition the reference should be extended to include custom build.

Gamlingay

Broad support to the reference that affordable housing can play in village i.e. Robinson Court. The reference to taking influence from non-residential uses in housing such as agricultural and live work influences is welcomed

Over

At paragraph 4.5 it is stated 'Development should seek to maintain and enhance wildlife corridors in ways that are not costly to maintain.' The importance of wildlife corridors is supported as is the recognition that this should be undertaken in a cost effective way.

We support the proposals for better linkages to the guided busway. Mobility is critical for access to jobs and services and it is recognised that access to a car is lower for those on lower incomes.

At paragraph 8.7 it is stated 'Surface of green lanes should be permeable and easy to maintain'. We support the provision of a green land network this should consider the whole life costing of mterials to be used. In addition consideration should be given to the materials being acceptable for cycling. Sustrans give useful guidance in the following document: www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/files/migrated-pdfs/Technical%20Note%208%20-%20Path%20surfaces(1).pdf

Papworth Everard

The statement makes a strong emphasis on corridors for movement, the point made above on Over is of relevance here.

Sawston

The use of terraces to raise densities is supported.
The proposed public realm improvements and frontages is supported although an appropriate upfront capital budget is important it is also critical that there is a long-term revenue maintenance budget

Swavesey

Support the need for collaborative working on flood risk. In relation to the requirement for low carbon housing this should take into account the need for schemes to be viable with a sustainable maintenance strategy. Consider design implications of electrical generation (solar PVs) due to the shift to electric cars etc.