Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 167669

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

General overarching comments on whole Neighbourhood Plan as follows:

Important to have clear and unambiguous policies that decision maker can apply consistently and with confidence when determining planning applications.

Need for Proposals Map for a complex plan like Cottenham Plan. Concerns about many of the figures used in the Plan.

Supporting text and justification for policies lacking.

Concern about how Village Design Statement SPD has been incorporated into the Plan.

AECOM's assessment work suggested need for further work and clear evidence to support why sites within the Plan.

Suggest amending policy and paragraph numbering.

Concerns about criteria based policies and car parking requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 167670

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/1-1: Landscape character

a) SCDC supports the aim of the policy to protect views that contribute to the character and attractiveness of Cottenham. It would have been helpful if the selection of views had been supported by evidence setting out how the important views have been selected.

b) It is not clear where criterion d) would apply as development can only provide planting within the application site. If this is the intention then we feel the policy should be clear in its wording.

Comment

Representation ID: 167671

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/1-2: Heritage Assets

a)It would have assisted the understanding of the policy if evidence had been included to support why applications to demolish pre-1945 buildings are to be treated differently from other buildings in the Conservation Area. It is not clear whether these are the typical buildings described in paragraph 1-2a?

b)The wording in the part a) of this policy is confusing. By linking the two elements of part a) of this policy with the word 'or' the policy as drafted could allow for buildings in a good state of repair to be demolished as long as the replacement building uses the reclaimed materials. Is this the intention of the policy?

Comment

Representation ID: 167672

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/1-3: Non-designated heritage assets

SCDC supports the identification of such assets in the Plan. We feel that a larger scale map showing clearly the location and extent of each asset would assist the user of the Plan to identify whether a proposal might impact on a building in the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 167673

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/1-4: Village Character - alterations and extensions

It would have benefited the supporting text to this policy if both the Village Design Statement SPD and the AECOM Heritage and Character Assessment had been more fully referenced.

Comment

Representation ID: 167674

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/1-5: Village character - new build

SCDC support the overall object of this policy to provide guidance for new buildings so that they can enrich the character of Cottenham. However, the policy as written would result in a terrace of four dwellings potentially failing this policy despite such a proposal positively adding to the street scene. Is this the intent of the Policy?

Comment

Representation ID: 167675

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/1-6: Village character - the village core or centre
a) This would benefit from a larger scale map to identify clearly the four focal points in the village. Figure 11 is of too small a scale.

b)It is difficult to see how the criteria in the policy will be achieved as many of the requirements are not deliverable as they are reliant on others to deliver (E.g. County highways). Also the focal points and centre are within the village core with limited space for extra features.

c)The identification of the four focal points was not included in the Regulation 14 consultation and it is unclear as to whether the local community has not had the opportunity to comment on the policy or the focal points identified.

Comment

Representation ID: 167676

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/1-7: Local Green Space (LGS)

a)SCDC welcomes the policy but its wording is not clear. The policy includes both a revised boundary to a LGS designated in the Local Plan and a new LGS assessed in the neighbourhood plan. The justification for both of these sites is included in the supporting text to the policy which is to be welcomed.

b)The supporting text does not mention the adopted LGS policy NH/12 in the Local Plan which would help to put in context this specific local policy.

c)It would help the understanding of the policy greatly if a larger and more detailed map was included to identify both LGSs - the revised boundary for the Recreation Ground and the new boundary for the Les King Wood - Figure 12 is very confusing.

Comment

Representation ID: 167677

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/1-8:Protected Village Amenity Areas (PVAA)

a) The supporting text to this policy would benefit from having mention of the relevant policy in the Local Plan - Policy NH/11: Protected Village Amenity Areas.

b) There does not appear to be a justification for including The Dunnocks as a new PVAA. It does not appear in the VDS as open space valued by the community.

Comment

Representation ID: 167678

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/2-1: Development Frameworks

SCDC considers that the Local Plan policy that designates a Development Framework is a strategic policy and that amendments to the development framework of a village is not one for a neighbourhood plan to include. Changes to a framework boundary to reflect current and future proposed growth on the edge of a village will be considered in a future review of the Local Plan