Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version

Comment

Representation ID: 168703

Received: 20/04/2021

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

It is welcomed that previous comments in respect of the character areas at WNTE and the date of the station planning permission have been reflected in the Reg. 16 document.
Reference should, however, also be made to the RLW Outline Planning Application (ref: S/2075/18/OL) having now achieved a resolution to grant permission (subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement) at committee on 29 January 2021.

Object

Representation ID: 168704

Received: 20/04/2021

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

Policy WAT1
Addition of sub-paragraph d: “a direct motorised route for public transport vehicles only from Waterbeach village to Waterbeach New Town” is welcomed in acknowledging the ability for direct public transport connections. Reference to segregation should however be removed, and instead made to prioritising non-motorised users (alongside public transport). It should also be acknowledged that the station full planning permission secures access from the village to the relocated station, allowing for pedestrian, cycle, public transport and motorised private vehicle connection, with scope for up to 50 dwellings to be served by the consented station access road (once the A10 access is in place).

Object

Representation ID: 168705

Received: 20/04/2021

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

Policy WAT4
It should be noted that the planning permission for relocation of the station utilises parts of these routes for village access to the new station, including approved highway works, and that a financial contribution to further works along Way Lane and St Andrews Hill is also secured in association with this planning permission, and could be used to implement such pedestrian and cycle prioritisation measures.
Extension of the area of walking to school routes shown within the associated plan requires further justification, having particular regard to the longer sections of Denny End Road and Bannold Road now included.

Object

Representation ID: 168706

Received: 20/04/2021

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

Policy WAT5
The overarching objective of providing safe and attractive walking and cycling routes to schools is supported. It is welcomed that some revisions to this policy have been made, in respect of avoiding the need for children having to cross primary and secondary roads to attend school being “minimised”, although it is considered that elements of this policy remain too restrictive, including reference to “not locating school entrances on through routes”. These requirements should be removed, and reference made to the need to devise an appropriate design response for each school site.

Object

Representation ID: 168707

Received: 20/04/2021

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

Policy WAT14: WDP1
Revisions to the Design Principles which provide a degree of flexibility are acknowledged and welcomed. However, we wish to re-state our view that there remains potential to make this more flexible through specific reference to the scope to embrace new technologies, improve environmental performance and define areas of varying character, all of which are essential in achieving the vision for Waterbeach New Town and respecting the village’s own identity.

Object

Representation ID: 168708

Received: 20/04/2021

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

Policy WAT14 : WDP4
We wish to acknowledge that the additional text relating to Waterbeach New Town is a positive amendment in presenting and clarifying this distinction. However, it is considered that there remains potential to strengthen this through reference to the Waterbeach New Town SPD and in turn possibly also to the relevance of the parameters established through the respective outline planning permissions that will govern some aspects of how this principle is applied.

Object

Representation ID: 168709

Received: 20/04/2021

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

Policy WAT21
This has been updated to reflect the SPD, whilst supporting text (at paras. 6.21.14 and 6.21.15) acknowledges the situation agreed for U&C and the resultant need for flexibility to reflect viability and agreement on a case by case basis.
No reference is, however, made to the headline terms agreed in the context of the RLW committee resolution, which could be added in for the avoidance of doubt.
Policy WAT 21 itself needs to be strengthened through reference to viability, meeting changing needs over time and supporting text should include reference to the headline terms agreed in the context of the RLW committee resolution.

Object

Representation ID: 168710

Received: 20/04/2021

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

Core Objective 2
This should refer to prioritising non-motorised users and public transport rather than non-vehicular routes.

Object

Representation ID: 168711

Received: 20/04/2021

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

Objective 1.v.
We wish to re-iterate our previous comments and suggest changing Objective 1.v to read: There should be safe, attractive and direct routes between the Village and New Town prioritised for non-motorised users.

Object

Representation ID: 168712

Received: 20/04/2021

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

Objective 1.vi.
The statement under Objective 1.vi is confusing, in asserting that vehicle access should be convenient but not direct, and would benefit from further explanation. In this regard, and as noted in connection with Objective 1.v, we would highlight the specific example of direct vehicular access for village residents to the relocated railway station, allowed for under the station planning permission, and in turn also the reference within Local Plan Policy SS/6 3 to direct road access on a limited and controlled basis.