Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 167679

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/2-2: Large Site Design

Whilst welcoming aim of policy to provide design guidance for large sites in Cottenham, there are criteria that identify locally specific requirements without providing justification for them
i. Criterion c) relates to play space - LEAP which is different from requirement in Local Plan - Policy SC/7: Outdoor Play Space, Informal Open Space and New Developments and Figure 10 which provides a guide for the on-site provision of open space. This criterion could result in development having a lesser provision of open space - is this intention of policy?

ii. Criterion d) relates to distribution of affordable houses. In Local Plan Policy H/10 for affordable housing it mentions that this sort of housing should be in small groups or clusters distributed throughout the site. It is not clear that there is locally supported evidence to support neighbourhood plan approach to have individual affordable houses pepper potted through a site?

Comment

Representation ID: 167680

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/2-3: Use of brownfield sites for housing

a) SCDC considers that this policy would seem to repeat the site-specific policies for these three sites and it is not sure what the policy adds to the Plan?

b)The total housing potential in the table (page 41) is 24. If Durman and Watson's site come forward first with a total of 15 then is it the intention of the Plan that the Co-op site cannot provide any housing as it would be in excess of the 15 total specified in the policy.

c)As this is a policy allocating sites, it is unusual for two figures to be identified in a policy to show the location of any sites. Neither maps shows clearly the boundary of the three sites and are at too small a scale. If Figure 4 is the Site Specific Policies Map for the Plan then we recommend this should be referred to in the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 167681

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/2-4: Locally affordable housing and CLT

We feel that this policy could be misinterpreted to imply that it is promoting housing development in the open countryside. In criterion a) it states that homes are located on sites near or immediately adjacent to Cottenham's development framework boundary. We feel that the term "near" would need to be defined very precisely. Developers could see this as an opportunity to propose sites well away from the existing built area of the village of Cottenham which would be contrary to national and local plan policy. Would a preferable term be 'adjoining' to the framework? This would conform to the wording in the Local Plan policy on rural exception sites (Policy H/11)

Comment

Representation ID: 167682

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/2-4: Locally affordable housing and CLT

We feel that this policy could be misinterpreted to imply that it is promoting housing development in the open countryside. In criterion a) it states that homes are located on sites near or immediately adjacent to Cottenham's development framework boundary. We feel that the term "near" would need to be defined very precisely. Developers could see this as an opportunity to propose sites well away from the existing built area of the village of Cottenham which would be contrary to national and local plan policy. Would a preferable term be 'adjoining' to the framework? This would conform to the wording in the Local Plan policy on rural exception sites (Policy H/11)

Comment

Representation ID: 167683

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/3-1.1: Durman Stearn site (site X4 as shown on Figure 14)

a)SCDC welcomes Figure 20 which shows the site location. However Figure 21, showing indicative redevelopment, is also included in the Plan. The Plan would be clearer if the policy or supporting text explained its status.

b) SCDC considers that there is a lack of clarity concerning housing numbers when compared to Policy COH/2-3.

c)There is a current planning application for this site - Ref S/4698/18/OL

Comment

Representation ID: 167684

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/3-1.2: Co-op site (site X6 as shown in Figure 14)

a)SCDC welcomes Figure 22 which shows the site location however Figure 23 showing indicative redevelopment is also included but not mentioned in policy or supporting text. The Plan would be clearer if the policy or supporting text explained its status.

b)There is a lack of clarity concerning housing numbers when compared to Policy COH/2-3

Comment

Representation ID: 167685

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/3-2: Supermarket

We consider that this policy somewhat duplicates Local Plan Policy E/22: Applications for new Retail Development and we are unsure as to what this policy adds that is specific to Cottenham other than that it allows for residential uses on upper floors of a supermarket?

Comment

Representation ID: 167686

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/3-2.1: Watson's Yard / Fire Station site (site X5 in Figure 14)

a)SCDC is concerned that this site is not big enough for all the uses that are proposed for the site. Figure 25 showing indicative redevelopment is included in the Plan but not mentioned in the policy or supporting text. The Plan would be clearer if the policy or supporting text explained its status.

b)As this is the only site being proposed for a supermarket, is it necessary to have COH/3-2 too?

c)There is a lack of clarity concerning housing numbers when compared to COH/2-3

Comment

Representation ID: 167687

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policies COH/4-1.1; COH/4-2; COH/4-3 and COH4-4

There are many policies relating to potential development in and around a concentrated area in the village and it is difficult to understand clearly the story of all the existing and proposed uses. It would be very helpful if there was a comprehensive large scale map or series of maps included in the Plan illustrating all the uses and how they relate to one another.

Comment

Representation ID: 167688

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy COH/4-1.1: Recreation and Sports Hub

a)This policy has been introduced following the Regulation 14 consultation. The supporting text does not help to explain the hub and all the proposed uses for the area and therefore it's interpretation into planning decisions could be compromised.

b)Figure 27 does not clearly show the different uses and the boundaries for each use at the Recreation Ground.