South Newnham Neighbourhood Plan Submission version

Cambridge Past, Present & Future is Cambridge’s largest civic society. We are a charity run by local people who are passionate about where they live. We operate in the greater Cambridge area and working with our members, supporters and volunteers we:
• Are dedicated to protecting and enhancing the green setting of Cambridge for people and nature.
• Care about Cambridge and are an independent voice for quality of life in the strategic planning of Greater Cambridge.
• Are working to protect, celebrate and improve the important built heritage of the Cambridge area.
• Own and care for green spaces and historic buildings in and around the city for people and nature, including Wandlebury Country Park, Coton Countryside Reserve, Cambridge Leper Chapel & Barnwell Meadows, Bourn Windmill and Hinxton Watermill.

Cambridge Past, Present & Future object to Policy SNNP4: Creating Local Green Spaces due to the inclusion of site LGS2 Skater’s Meadow Footpath. This does not meet the criteria for Local Green Spaces as set out in the NPPF – mainly point 106(b) below:

105. The designation of land as Local Green Space through local and neighbourhood plans allows communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them. Designating land as Local Green Space should be consistent with the local planning of sustainable development and complement investment in sufficient homes, jobs and other essential services. Local Green Spaces should only be designated when a plan is prepared or updated, and be capable of enduring beyond the end of the plan period.
106. The Local Green Space designation should only be used where the green space is:
a) in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves;
b) demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and
c) local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.

We disagree with the ‘Evidence Base for Development Policies’ document (see paragraph 2.3 page 20) and believe that site LGS2 does not meet the criteria for the following reasons:
• It is described as a public footpath not a green area.
• It is used as public footpath and an informal car park (i.e. it is not a green area). We attach two photos which clearly show this to be the case. It is not demonstrably special nor hold a particular local significance. It is not beautiful, of historical significance or recreational value. As a car park it is not tranquil or have abundant wildlife.

The Consultation Statement states that there is no ownership recorded for Skaters’ Meadow Footpath (page 14). We have been advised that the de facto landowners of the site are Cambridge Past, Present & Future and St Catherine’s College.

We request that Skater’s Meadow Footpath is removed from Policy SNNP4.

We share the community’s concerns regarding this space, namely that it is unsafe, unmanaged and sometimes used for anti-social behaviour. We also share the community’s desire to resolve these issues and for this space to be changed for the better. We understand their fears about the future of this space and why they have attempted to use the Neighbourhood Plan as a tool for a solution but that does not make it a green space and it should not be designated as such in the Plan.

There are many potential solutions for this space and there are conflicting views within the community about how to solve them. There are also other communities who use this space who are not local to the area and who will have no say on this neighbourhood plan, they also ought to have a say on its future. Designating the space as a Local Green Space would limit some of the options for improving the space, or make it harder to achieve them, and in our view, this is not in the best interests of achieving a solution and therefore not in the best interests of the wider community.

We have submitted evidence at the consultation stage, and we met with representatives of the Neighbourhood Forum to explain our position to them and so it is disappointing that they have not acted upon our evidence. We understand the difficulties of getting a neighbourhood plan adopted and we believe that achieving this has taken precedent over openly discussing the future of this space with all relevant communities and stakeholders, which would likely have resulted in further delay to the plan and possibly the risk that it might have permanently stalled.

We are very supportive of the plan overall and those involved deserve great credit in steering it to this stage.

I trust that you will take our comments into consideration.