Comment

Representation ID: 59353

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy FUL/05 Local Green Spaces and Protected Village Amenity Areas

For planning officers dealing with planning applications, it could be confusing if similar criteria are used in different policies and not clearly stated once in one policy. For example, criteria c in this policy about trees and hedgerows is already referred to in part in 1d of Policy FUL/04. There is no need to repeat policy requirements in separate policies as the Plan will be read as a whole and as appropriate to an application.

Part 2a – This criterion cross refers to Policy FUL/07 but we are unsure why this is required as these issues are not specifically mentioned in this policy?

Parts 2c – This appears to be repeating the requirements in Part 1d +1e of Policy FUL/04 regarding trees?

Part 2d – This criterion previously had ‘diverse’ built frontages which has now been replaced by ‘fragmented’. We still have concerns about how such terms could be interpreted. Is it clear what the policy is asking for and it might be better if these areas of fragmented frontage were perhaps defined on a map?

Part 3 – We remain concerned about an unduly heavy emphasis on contemporary design in policies FUL06 and FUL/07. Neither ‘contemporary’, used in FUL/07, nor ‘creative and contemporary’ used in FUL/06, is defined in the Glossary, and it is not clear whether the term ‘contemporary’ means ‘in the modernist tradition’, or ‘in vogue at the time of the present neighbourhood plan’, or ‘eschewing emulation of previous architectural styles’, or something else. There are many places in the village, including within the conservation areas and the vicinity of listed buildings, where modernist buildings or extensions, or innovative development beyond that tradition might be very appropriate and enhance the historic environment, but there are other places where this approach would not be the most appropriate, and some designs styled ‘contemporary’ would be harmful to the setting of some of the listed buildings and the overall character of the area.

The wide variety of architectural styles in the village is acknowledged and we agree that Fulbourn’ s character will be preserved and enhanced by continuing variety of building styles, including innovative development and that in the modernist tradition. However, foregrounding ‘contemporary’ design as Policy FUL/06 does and requiring a ‘contemporary’ approach to be considered in extensions, as Policy FUL/07 does, is unduly prescriptive, and could lead to planning decisions which are harmful to the setting of listed buildings or the character of the conservation area. We question whether this level of prescription in design is consistent with local plan policy or national planning guidance.

It is suggested that part 3 of the policy should explicitly state that those instances when a contemporary response is not appropriate i.e., “…and where this would negatively impact on designated and non-designated heritage assets".

Part 4 of policy - A section has been added to this policy to include a reference to buildings identified as non-designated heritage assets (NDHA) in the Fulbourn CAA. These NDHAs have not been shown on a map or listed within the Plan which we consider is a missed opportunity to add weight to their protections and future enhancement. (See maps on pages 5-7 of the CAA and Chapter 9 with the NDHA listed on pages 36-37 of the CAA).