Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Search representations

Results for NW Bio and its UK Subsidiary Aracaris Capital Ltd search

New search New search

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

S/JH: New jobs and homes

Representation ID: 58424

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: NW Bio and its UK Subsidiary Aracaris Capital Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

In order to reverse the talent and company drain described above, it is suggested that the emerging GCLP should have selected the higher growth level option to support economic growth, address housing affordability, and reduce in-commuting.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

S/DS: Development strategy

Representation ID: 58433

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: NW Bio and its UK Subsidiary Aracaris Capital Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

Land to the north of Mill Lane, Sawston (HELAA site 40341)

Small scale housing allocations should be made in the more sustainable villages in the Rural Southern Cluster including at Sawston, because it is accessible by sustainable modes of transport, there is a need to support the existing services and facilities within the villages, and there is an identified need for affordable housing in the villages which would not be met via other means.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

S/RSC: Village allocations in the rural southern cluster

Representation ID: 58439

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: NW Bio and its UK Subsidiary Aracaris Capital Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

Mill Lane Site, Sawston (HELAA Site 40341)

Additional small scale housing allocations should be made in the more sustainable villages within the Rural Southern Cluster, including Sawston, because it is already accessible by existing sustainable modes of transport, it is well related to employment opportunities, there is a need to support the existing services and facilities within the village, and there is an identified need for affordable housing in the village which would not be met via other means. The affordable housing needs for Sawston would not be met by the preferred allocation identified in emerging GCLP (carried forward from the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018).

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

S/RSC: Village allocations in the rural southern cluster

Representation ID: 58442

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: NW Bio and its UK Subsidiary Aracaris Capital Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

Mill Lane Site, Sawston (HELAA Site 40341)

Additional small scale housing allocations should be made in the more sustainable villages within the Rural Southern Cluster, including Sawston, because it is already accessible by existing sustainable modes of transport, it is well related to employment opportunities, there is a need to support the existing services and facilities within the village, and there is an identified need for affordable housing in the village which would not be met via other means. The affordable housing needs for Sawston would not be met by the preferred allocation identified in emerging GCLP (carried forward from the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018).

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

I/ST: Sustainable transport and connectivity

Representation ID: 58443

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: NW Bio and its UK Subsidiary Aracaris Capital Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

It is requested that the promoted development by NW Bio at the Mill Lane Site, Sawston is allocated for residential development, in order to support the aims of Policy I/ST e.g. reduce transport emissions, reduce the need to travel, and encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Sustainability Appraisal

Representation ID: 58459

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: NW Bio and its UK Subsidiary Aracaris Capital Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

It is considered that the Sustainability Appraisal has not sought to make emerging GCLP more sustainable, and in respect of villages it appears that the assessment against sustainability objectives is not robust because it does not critically review the evidence provided by the Councils. For example, some villages have good access by sustainable modes of transport and contain a good range of services and facilities, there is an identified need for affordable housing in most villages which is ignored in the assessment process, and there is limited capacity within existing settlement boundaries for villages to accommodate additional development.

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