Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Object. Policy needs to take account of alternative reversible uses of agricultural land i.e. where the best and most versatile agricultural land is not being used to maximum effect and could be used for another purpose (i.e. equestrianism) which could easily allow the land to revert back to agricultural use in the future, this should be supported.

Object.

The policy wording with regard to extensions within the Green Belt takes no account of the permitted development rights of the households located within the Green Belt. Permitted development rights can now allow a dwelling to be significantly increased in scale, but this piecemeal approach often results in an unattractive overall design. In this instance, utilising the floor area permissible under permitted development rights to allow a holistic extension is preferable but the policy makes no provision for this.

With regard to rural worker dwellings the requirement for it to be ‘no larger than that required to meet the reasonable demands of the enterprise’ is misleading. Many rural enterprises require staff to live on site to carry out highly skilled work around the clock, in particular during breeding/gestation/rearing periods etc. Most of these workers have therefore worked in the industry for many years to gain the necessary knowledge and experience and therefore more often than not, they have partners and/or families. These highly skilled workers would, understandably, be unwilling to take a role which required them to live separately from their families. Therefore, for these businesses to be able to operate, provision must be made for the workers and their immediate families, not just the workers themselves as is suggested by the policy wording. Whilst it is recognised that the policy needs to ensure only essential workers are accommodated on a site, it should not be unrealistic in its expectation of the age and likely family status of these individuals and must accommodate for their rights in terms of housing. Otherwise the purpose of including such a policy becomes mute as it won’t be able to deliver on the identified need.

Temporary dwellings – suggestion that the policy reads that a temporary dwelling be allowed for three years from the date of a new business commencing operation/the date of the permission whichever is later. Too often, a permission allows for a temporary dwelling for three years, but by the time the conditions are discharged and the buildings/ infrastructure for the new business is in place following the granting of permission, the business has only 12-18 months of operation to demonstrate a profit before the temporary permission expires. Thereafter they are subject to a requirement to demonstrate three years of financial information to confirm viability, but the temporary dwelling permission did not provide them with sufficient time to secure three full years of operation. This then becomes a catch-22. The new policy should pre-empt this and provide a solution.