As residents my wife and I have a vested interest in the local character and infrastructure of the former LSA ('FLSA') area.

We believe that the character of the area should be maintained while evolving to take into account of the current, and future, needs of the residents.

In summary, we are highly supportive of the FLSA Neighbourhood Plan subject to tightening it up in certain areas to avoid dangerous loopholes. Our only, but significant, concern is ensuring that the NP is watertight and can be used to prevent what we are seeing as the increasing attempts by property developers to build properties in the area and maximise their profits without any concern for the existing residents. The danger that we foresee is that there will be one, strict but fair, rule for those existing residents who wish to play by the rules and a different set of rules for developers only interested in making a quick return.

In light of the above we have the following comments in relation to the proposed policies:

Policy 1
We feel that the requirements set out in the policy protect the rural nature of the FLSA while allowing for the improvement of existing properties in a sympathetic manner to the area. Allowing residents to upgrade their properties can only add to the attractiveness of the area and we are supportive of this proposal.

Policy 2
We feel that this is a fair compromise allowing residents to develop their plots. However, as the South Cambs Planning Department will be well aware, there has been a sustained campaign by certain plot owners to build as many residential properties on a single plot as they can push through the planning system with the sole objective of maximising their commercial gain. These schemes include continued attempts to show the plots as having been subdivided to convince the planning authorities to accept as many properties on a plot as possible and using poor quality materials to maximise the profits of these developers.

Not only would allowing more than two dwellings per plot significantly alter the nature of the FLSA but it also would put increasing pressure on the infrastructure.

It is our view that it is crucial that the Neighbourhood Plan explicitly limits the number of residential buildings to a maximum of two dwellings per original ten acre plot.

Policy 3
We have become aware of certain attempts to apply to regulatory bodies to change the attribution of the FLSA roads i.e. to make them bridleways. We would urge the Parish Council and SCDC to resist these plans strongly as they would fundamentally alter the nature of the FLSA. Currently the roads are used in the main by residents for access and businesses located on the FLSA for their transportation needs. To a lesser extent they are also used by villagers from the Abingtons for recreational purposes and by horse owners who's horses are liveried on the FLSA. Currently this ecosystem is balanced and works well. However, to change the balance, for instance in favour of equestrian activities, could open the area up to a great deal of outside riders, leading to greater danger of accidents from motor vehicles and/or to pedestrians and would give an extraordinary advantage to the minority users of the FLSA roads.

Policy 2 (last paragraph)
We believe that there is a significant and dangerous loop hole in the Neighbourhood plan. There are some agricultural plots on the FLSA that have never had a residential building built on them or where land has been previously sub-divided from an original plot without the residential building or piggery.

Some of this land has already been acquired by speculators who are looking to build 'barns' on them with a view to taking advantage of the permitted development legislation and convert them into residential dwellings in the future. Without any appropriate regulation this could lead to a great many additional dwellings being slipped through this loophole by unscrupulous developers. We would strongly argue that the PC and SCDC should legislate that if any new 'barns' are built on such land they should have a prohibition attached to them preventing any future change of use to residential dwellings. We would argue that a similar prohibition should be attached to any existing 'barns' on such land. As can be seen from a quick walk around the FLSA the existing stock of older barns were hardly the structures envisaged by the permitted development legislation (e.g. stone barns) but often are no more than temporary open breeze block and corrugated iron structures entirely unfit for conversion. However, once again, there is the potential for this becoming a rogues charter.

We would submit that this paragraph should be clarified to ensure that it covers land within the NP area but which does not currently contain a residential property and/or piggery. It has become clear that developers are trying to use the development legislation to convert existing (sub-standard 'barns') into dwellings and/or are acquiring such property and building a number of 'barns' on them with the view to converting them to dwellings in the future. This would clearly run a coach and horses through the NP which attempts to provide a balances approach to development on the old LSA area. I am not an expert on the planning law but imagine it is a case of which regulation takes precedent - the local NP or general development law. We do not have any intention of developing our plot but are in support of the measured development set out in the NP. It is incredibly frustrating that that fair and reasonable approach is being undermined by unscrupulous property developers.