Chapter 4 Conserving the village character

Showing comments and forms 1 to 15 of 15

Comment

Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Representation ID: 167639

Received: 18/03/2019

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

We welcome the production of this neighbourhood plan, and are pleased to note that the historic environment of the parish is referred to throughout as well as specifically in Section 4. Aside from congratulating those involved however, we do not wish to provide detailed comments at this time. We would refer you to any previous advice submitted at Regulation 14 stage, and for any further information to our detailed guidance on successfully incorporating historic environment considerations into your neighbourhood plan, which can be found here: https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/planning/plan-making/improve-your-neighbourhood

Attachments:

Object

Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Representation ID: 167645

Received: 22/03/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation:

Policy COH/1-7: Local Green Space

Seeking an amendment to Policy COH/1-7 and COH/2-1 to facilitate the provision of primary education facilities in the village.

Attachments:

Object

Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Representation ID: 167648

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: Southern & Regional Developments

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy Ltd

Representation:

Policy COH/1-1: Landscape character

The weight granted to the preservation of landscape setting is inappropriate. Note context of the appeal site decision at Rampton Road.

Attachments:

Object

Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Representation ID: 167656

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Representation:

Policy COH/1-1 Landscape Character

Development can often be delivered without loss of openness, landscape character or views considered important to local community. Use of appropriate design to take into consideration wider landscape features of surrounding area.

Concern policy has protectionist stance - how will decision makers apply policy in consistent manner? Opinions on landscape are highly subjective - need further clarity about how these views are considered special to local community. Lead to inconsistency in decision making process. View needs some form of physical attribute to take it out of the ordinary rather than protecting open countryside for its own sake.

Need to modify policy - over restrictive. Contrary to basic conditions.

Object

Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Representation ID: 167657

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Representation:

Policy COH/1-2 Heritage Assets

Do not consider second element of policy which seeks to require development proposals to go 'over and above protection in NPPF and Local Plan is appropriate. Approach is not in accordance with requirements of NPPF. Policy should be modified so development proposals are considered in accordance with requirements of national/ local policy and guidance. As such this policy is not in accordance with basic condition (a) - having regard to national policies and advice.

Object

Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Representation ID: 167659

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Representation:

Policy COH/1-6 Village Character - village core or centre.

Concerns about policy requirement to include electric charging points - not supported by robust evidence. Need to engage with energy suppliers to determine network capacity before proposing policy. Charging demand if excessive could overload capacity of existing infrastructure - lead to need for new sub-station. Cost of new infrastructure may impact adversely on delivery of development proposals and thus impact delivery of sustainable development. Need for flexibility in Plan to ensure policy is not too prescriptive making development unviable.

Recommend that reference to electric charging facilities be deleted. Conflicts with basic conditions

Object

Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Representation ID: 167665

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: This Land

Agent: Bidwells

Representation:

Policy COH/1.7 Local Green Space

This Land have controlling interest in land to NE of Rampton Rd which has outline planning permission for 154 dwellings. Currently in discussion with Parish Council over best use of site.

Supports principle of policy however discussions with the Parish Council and community are on-going - no final detailed layout for whole site fixed - current policy wording does not allow for sufficient flexibility to allow for improved layout. Need for flexibility through planning application process to modify boundary of these designations to facilitate delivery of housing alongside securing improved configuration of sports facilities etc.

Suggest change to wording of policy.


Attachments:

Comment

Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Representation ID: 167670

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation:

Policy COH/1-1: Landscape character

a) SCDC supports the aim of the policy to protect views that contribute to the character and attractiveness of Cottenham. It would have been helpful if the selection of views had been supported by evidence setting out how the important views have been selected.

b) It is not clear where criterion d) would apply as development can only provide planting within the application site. If this is the intention then we feel the policy should be clear in its wording.

Comment

Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Representation ID: 167671

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation:

Policy COH/1-2: Heritage Assets

a)It would have assisted the understanding of the policy if evidence had been included to support why applications to demolish pre-1945 buildings are to be treated differently from other buildings in the Conservation Area. It is not clear whether these are the typical buildings described in paragraph 1-2a?

b)The wording in the part a) of this policy is confusing. By linking the two elements of part a) of this policy with the word 'or' the policy as drafted could allow for buildings in a good state of repair to be demolished as long as the replacement building uses the reclaimed materials. Is this the intention of the policy?

Comment

Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Representation ID: 167672

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation:

Policy COH/1-3: Non-designated heritage assets

SCDC supports the identification of such assets in the Plan. We feel that a larger scale map showing clearly the location and extent of each asset would assist the user of the Plan to identify whether a proposal might impact on a building in the policy.

Comment

Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Representation ID: 167673

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation:

Policy COH/1-4: Village Character - alterations and extensions

It would have benefited the supporting text to this policy if both the Village Design Statement SPD and the AECOM Heritage and Character Assessment had been more fully referenced.

Comment

Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Representation ID: 167674

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation:

Policy COH/1-5: Village character - new build

SCDC support the overall object of this policy to provide guidance for new buildings so that they can enrich the character of Cottenham. However, the policy as written would result in a terrace of four dwellings potentially failing this policy despite such a proposal positively adding to the street scene. Is this the intent of the Policy?

Comment

Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Representation ID: 167675

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation:

Policy COH/1-6: Village character - the village core or centre
a) This would benefit from a larger scale map to identify clearly the four focal points in the village. Figure 11 is of too small a scale.

b)It is difficult to see how the criteria in the policy will be achieved as many of the requirements are not deliverable as they are reliant on others to deliver (E.g. County highways). Also the focal points and centre are within the village core with limited space for extra features.

c)The identification of the four focal points was not included in the Regulation 14 consultation and it is unclear as to whether the local community has not had the opportunity to comment on the policy or the focal points identified.

Comment

Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Representation ID: 167676

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation:

Policy COH/1-7: Local Green Space (LGS)

a)SCDC welcomes the policy but its wording is not clear. The policy includes both a revised boundary to a LGS designated in the Local Plan and a new LGS assessed in the neighbourhood plan. The justification for both of these sites is included in the supporting text to the policy which is to be welcomed.

b)The supporting text does not mention the adopted LGS policy NH/12 in the Local Plan which would help to put in context this specific local policy.

c)It would help the understanding of the policy greatly if a larger and more detailed map was included to identify both LGSs - the revised boundary for the Recreation Ground and the new boundary for the Les King Wood - Figure 12 is very confusing.

Comment

Cottenham Neighbourhood Plan - submission consultation

Representation ID: 167677

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation:

Policy COH/1-8:Protected Village Amenity Areas (PVAA)

a) The supporting text to this policy would benefit from having mention of the relevant policy in the Local Plan - Policy NH/11: Protected Village Amenity Areas.

b) There does not appear to be a justification for including The Dunnocks as a new PVAA. It does not appear in the VDS as open space valued by the community.