Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Search representations

Results for Clarendon Land search

New search New search

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

STRATEGY

Representation ID: 57326

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Clarendon Land

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

The ‘vision’ and ‘aims’ should be amended to make reference to supporting rural communities and to ensure there is sufficient and proportionate growth to ensure they thrive in the future and are not left to stagnate. The GCLP should encourage proportionate housing growth supported by investment in local infrastructure at established rural sustainable settlements.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

S/DS: Development strategy

Representation ID: 57346

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Clarendon Land

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

The strategy is flawed as it concentrates significant development in new settlements and large edge of Cambridge sites and will allow sustainable rural villages to stagnate which is not in compliance with the Framework. The 10% target set out in the Framework is not met in relation to providing smaller sites. This will have an impact on:

• Housing Delivery
• Affordability
• Vibrancy and vitality of these rural settlements
• Future sustainable working/living patterns

The site selection rationale is questionable. There is no justification as to the selection of the allocations in group villages over other similar available sites.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Sustainability Appraisal

Representation ID: 57357

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Clarendon Land

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

The SA is flawed as it is based on the preconceived judgement that development in villages is unsustainable due to car dependency. It is acknowledged in the SA that affordability is a key issue in Greater Cambridge (Chapter 3) but this does not form a key measure to rate sustainability.
The SA is a lengthy and unwieldy document and the conclusions is not considered adequate to summarise such a complex document and subject and has not provided a full analysis of all the differing factors which relate to a complicated spatial strategy with a multitude of development options.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.