Object

Representation ID: 56603

Received: 23/11/2021

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

GAM4 Local Employment Sites

Station Rd, Church Street, Drove Road and Green End Industrial sites are each treated slightly differently in Policy GAM4 Local Employment Sites. In our earlier comments we had suggested that each site should have its own separate policy. We are aware that each site has its own character and requirements and constraints. Proposals will need to be suitable in scale for each location. Those sites on the edge of the village will need different consideration to those within the village. The policy currently drafted says all proposals are expected to protect and safeguard landscape features and designations. Each employment site may have different requirements/ constraints which are not clearly shown within this policy. Our Economic Development Officer does not consider that the policy as currently worded makes it clear what is appropriate development for each site. Such clarity would help any developer/ business/planner understand the key site issues early on. This would help expedite any application process and avoid unnecessary costs for all parties. If the aim is to support local businesses, the provision of as much information as possible up front is important.

Drove Road is outside of the development framework boundary of the village The Local Plan Policy S/7: Development Frameworks allows for site allocations to be permitted outside of the framework if they are within a made neighbourhood plan. Further development at Drove Road in GAM4 could be contrary to this strategic policy in the Local Plan if it is not a specific allocation.

The Drove Road employment site appears to be shown as two distinct sites on Map 5A, but without specific identification this is an assumption having to be made by the user of the Plan. The existing policy had evolved to refer specifically to the expansion of businesses in situ. We are aware that there has been concerns about the proposals in the local community which led to the site being included in GAM4 rather than GAM5. It is stated in paragraph 4.47 that the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) concluded that development of previously undeveloped land at Drove Road has increased potential to lead to the loss of productive agricultural land, has increased potential to impact on biodiversity habitats and local character without mitigation measures. Whilst Drove Road is not being designated as a new employment area and policy GAM11 refers to Biodiversity net gain, given the results of the SEA specifically reference Drove Road, we consider that there needs to be specific reference in GAM4 on mitigating the impact of the expansion of businesses on biodiversity habitats/biodiversity net gain.

For Drove Road there are specific criteria that must be followed if a development proposal is to be successful. In the supporting text the justification for permitting an increase of 25% of the existing footprint is that put forward by local businesses in the area. Would 25% be suitable for all buildings within the Drove Rd sites? It is unclear whether an assessment has been carried out to confirm this. If development has to follow specific design criteria to be of an appropriate scale (what scale is appropriate?) and integrated into the landscape (how to achieve this). It should be spelt out more clearly within the policy and explained in the supporting text. This will assist a developer to ensure a proposal meets the requirements of this policy and for a development management officer or the Planning Committee at SCDC to determine a planning application against this policy. Would a version of Local Plan Policy E/12: New Employment Development in Villages relating to just the expansion of existing premises on Drove Road be more straightforward or indeed would the Local Plan policy be sufficient? There could be an explanation of what is considered appropriate scale in the supporting text.