Object

Representation ID: 56601

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

GAM3 Local Character

First bullet of the policy - The VDG identifies a number of architectural and spatial characteristics which are important to local character. The policy is being contradictory by stating in the first sentence that development will be supported where it follows the guidance in the VDG but then identifying only existing vernacular buildings as reference points for new design in the bullet point.

Second bullet point of policy - Protecting the unique structural layout of the village with the distinct gap between the main village and its hamlets is a key issue for the Plan. An inset map accompanying this policy annotated to show clearly the unique character of the parish with the main village and hamlets would have helped to clarify the purpose of the policy. Such a clear map is included within the VDG (Figure 6 page 9).

Second bullet point of policy - In the third sentence mention is made of preserving key views to and from the village and referring to both Maps 4 and 7. Only one map needs to be referenced in the policy and we would suggest Map 7.

These views also appear to be mentioned /protected by Policy GAM11. The views are listed in Appendix 2 and shown on the Key Policies areas Map 7. The last sentence of paragraph 4.32 states that the views are not just listed in Appendix 2 but illustrated which they are not. In neither policy GAM3 nor policy GAM11 is there a list of the views to be protected nor such a list in the supporting text. We consider without this information that this would be a difficult policy to implement successfully for developers drafting schemes and development management officers determining planning applications that may include proposals that impact views.

We are aware that additional assessment work was carried out following the Regulation 14 consultation and this has been submitted as an evidence document – Landscape and Visual Analysis (LVA) (July 2021). Most of the views listed in Appendix 2 of the Plan were identified in the VDG but the recent analysis identified two additional viewpoints, but no indication is given within the Plan as to which of the views these are. These are mentioned in the LVA as Key Views 6 and 7 but the Key View 7 Mill Bridge does not appear to have made it into the Plan as only 6 views are listed in Appendix 2. It is not clear whether View 7 would impact the Mill Hill employment Policy GAM5. It would help the future user of the plan if each view listed in Appendix 2 had a specific reference within a single policy and an inset map clearly showed each view. A brief description of each view could be included in the supporting text setting out its value. Such information is set out in the LVA. There should be a clearer link between the LVA and the policy protecting views.

Views appear to be to north and east of village. The policy protecting the hamlets is to the west and south which results in a cordon of protection around the village. We are concerned that this may not leave any room for future development. Developers could question the sustainability of the Plan if too much is protected.