Gamlingay Neighbourhood Plan Submission version

Representation ID: 56545

Received: 19/11/2021

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

Policy GAM10 requires new residential and business units to contribute towards the provision and maintenance of new paths for the purpose of cycling, walking and horse riding between the village, hamlets, employment sites and neighbouring villages. It sets
out the level of contribution required. Appendix 3 sets out further information on developer contributions.

Cambridgeshire County Council objects to Policy GAM10 as it is not considered to meet basic Condition A. Paragraph 005 (Reference ID: 41-005-20190509) and Paragraph 001 (Reference ID: 10-001-20190509) of the NPPG advise respectively that: “Neighbourhood plans may also contain policies on the contributions expected from development, but these and any other requirements placed on development should accord with relevant strategic policies and not undermine the deliverability of the neighbourhood plan, local plan or spatial development strategy.”

“Plans should set out the contributions expected from development. This should include setting out the levels and types of affordable housing provision required, along with other infrastructure (such as that needed for education, health, transport, flood and water management, green and digital infrastructure). These policy requirements should be informed by evidence of infrastructure and affordable housing need, and a proportionate assessment of viability that takes into account all relevant policies, and local and national
standards, including the cost implications of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and
section 106…”

Insufficient evidence has been provided on how the proposed contributions relate to the strategic policies within the Local Plan or how they will impact the deliverability of the neighbourhood plan, local plan, or spatial development strategy. Furthermore, a
proportionate assessment of viability has not been provided. The lack of evidence also conflicts with Paragraph 31 of the NPPF and Paragraph 041 (Ref. 41-041-20140306) of the NPPG.

The policy is also ambiguous as the term “business developments” has not been defined so it is not clear what it is intended to include. Paragraph 16(d) of the NPPF and Paragraph 041 (Ref. 41-041-20140306) of the NPPG require policies be clear and unambiguous, so that it is obvious how the decision maker should apply them.
It should be noted that the former First School Playing Field was not identified as recreation space within the Council’s Recreation and Open Space Study (July 2013) nor within the Services and Facilities Study (March 2014).