S/RRA: Allocations in the rest of the rural area

We do not object to any of the specific allocations proposed within the First Proposals.

However what we do object to is:
● In general, allocations that would impact the Green Belt in any way
● A set of specific site proposals that have been rejected by SCDC, but would cause untold harm if they were ever to be incorporated as part of this or any future local plan.
In relation to the second point above, the specific site proposals we refer to are those with site references / JDI numbers as follows:

● 40041 – Kings Gate site, Villa Road, Impington
● 40232 – Land west of South Road, Impington
● 40236 – Land north-east of Villa Road, Impington
● 40239 – Kingsgate Land off Villa Road, Impington

Each of these site proposals would cause significant damage to the local community and environment and none offer anything that cannot be far better achieved at other site locations (as the First Proposals appear to correctly recognise). Main concerns common to these sites include:
● All lie wholly (or at least 98% or more) on Green Belt land
● All would result in material damage to the Landscape and Townscape, resulting in a Red flag for this criterion in the HELAA report in all 4 cases. As noted by the HELAA report, this area of Green Belt land is “typical” of the “Fen Edge” character, and there is no getting away from the fact that a development of any of these sites would cause this to be lost.
● All would result in a huge relative increase in traffic volumes on currently quiet residential roads (potentially through the South Road play area (destroying green open space) or Villa Road – both areas where small children play). The HELAA report recognises this through assigning Red or Amber flags for Site Access in all 4 cases.
● All would add further pressure on water and drainage in an area already prone to flooding (as the HELAA report notes, with Red or Amber flags)
● All would contribute to increased traffic load on the A14 North bypass (a strategic highway that is already over capacity No matter what arguments land-owners put forward, it is clear that large new developments of the type proposed in these areas cannot possibly lead to a net zero increase on traffic on the Strategic Highways, therefore these sites would appear to be worthy of automatic disqualification (all other issues, of which there are a lot, put aside)
● All would place more pressure on existing facilities such as the local GP and schools
● Two of the four site proposals are for 450 and 700 new houses (40232 and 40239 respectively). These large scale developments would be totally out of keeping with the rest of the village.