Foxton Neighbourhood Plan - Submission Consultation 2021

Comment

Representation ID: 168601

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Mapping issues

SCDC had previously suggested need to consider larger scale maps to cover whole of parish to provide a comprehensive Policies Map – maybe at A3 scale so easy to read. Figures 30A and 30B remain at a small scale that make it difficult to define the precise boundaries of designations.

Alternatively, suggested consideration of approach used in Local Plan Policies Map where individual villages can be covered by several A4 maps at legible and easy to read scales.

Figures 11i-11v could benefit from each being A4 size with crisp boundaries. Keys all have become somewhat blurry. Also Ordinance Survey mapping copyright is indistinct on all maps.

Comment

Representation ID: 168602

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy FOX2
Supportive of policy but concerns on implementation and clarity. Not clear how information required should be provided by applicant.
Does it comply with WMS 25/3/15?
Need to define zero carbon emissions. What evidence would need to be submitted for compliance with policy?
Bullet 3 - Replace fabric efficiency with energy efficiency
Bullet 4 - BREEAM excellent hard to achieve with small developments - use only for large?
Bullet 6 - Add anything locally specific to Local Plan Policy NH/15?
Bullet 7 - Suggest amend wording for clarity
Evidence to support policy? Will impact future viability of developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 168603

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy FOX/4
First paragraph repeat of Local Plan Policy NH/14
Non-designated assets shown on Policies Map as letters - not showing boundaries of asset - suggest changing for clarity.
Could include description of each non-designated asset in Plan?
Figure 13 - What are the features shown on map as red asterisks?
Need to define what is meant by 'harm ' in policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 168604

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy FOX/5
The policy implies that it will be all scales of development that would need to be considered under this policy - is this the intention?
In the first bullet point mention is made of the terms ‘hard edge’ and ‘blend’- these terms should be defined.
Does the second bullet point about Green Belt sensitive edges add any locally specific detail? There is a Local Plan policy that considers such land - Policy NH/8. (BC test)
Final section about development in the open countryside – what development would be expected here? There are Local Plan policies that cover this issue. E.g. Policy S/7 and Policy NH/3. (BC test)

Comment

Representation ID: 168605

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy FOX/7
Many different terms used in Plan for green open space. Plan would benefit from tighter descriptions of open space to be protected.
Factual inaccuracy in paragraph 5.38
Policy does not need to repeat protection given in Local Plan Policies NH/11 and NH/12.
Define 'built up area of the village'. Are all new sites designated shown on the Map?
Conservation Appraisal - not Assessment.

Comment

Representation ID: 168606

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy FOX/8
This is somewhat repeating the biodiversity policies in the Local Plan
Supporting paragraph 5.5 states that there are no biodiversity designated sites within the Parish boundary; however, the River Rhee/Cam which forms the northern boundary of the Parish is designated as a County Wildlife Site. This should be included within the paragraph.
In the policy references to ‘net gain in biodiversity’ should be changed to ‘measurable net gain in biodiversity’ as per paragraph 174 (b) and 175 (d) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018. The difference between ‘net gain’ and ‘measurable net gain’ is considerable.

Comment

Representation ID: 168607

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy FOX/9
Does this comply with WMS 25/3/15? Neighbourhood plans can not set out any additional local technical standards or requirements.
Viability of policy? Does it apply to all buildings?

Comment

Representation ID: 168608

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy FOX/10
Mention is made in the final paragraph of this policy to Standard M4(2). See comments for Policy FOX/9 regarding the Written Ministerial Statement 25 March 2015. If this is not the case, should the term ‘where appropriate’ be added to allow for flexibility where there may be a need for exceptions to the policy?

Comment

Representation ID: 168609

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy FOX/11
This is repeating Local Plan Policy H/11 about exception sites although there are some locally specific elements. We continue to have concerns that the policy by discouraging all development in the chalklands area is too restrictive. In the future it may be that to meet the local housing needs of the parish that sites in the chalkland area may have to be considered.

Comment

Representation ID: 168610

Received: 16/02/2021

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy FOX/12
In the first sentence of the policy the term ‘significant harm’ is used. This term should be defined for clarity.
The policy asks for evidence, but it is unclear what actual evidence would be required to support this policy.
Policy SC/3 in the Local Plan protects community facilities. The neighbourhood plan policy does include facilities specific to Foxton but repeats only part of the local plan policy criteria – It could be interpreted as a weaker policy. It would be preferable to highlight the specific facilities in Foxton and cross refer to Policy SC/3.