Comment
Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options
Representation ID: 60526
Received: 13/12/2021
Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
Agent: Turley
The content of this policy is supported by Taylor Wimpey. It is also positive that the policy references the Greater Cambridge Landscape Character Assessment as a clear point of reference in responding to this policy.
A slight amendment is however suggested to the wording to provide flexibility. The third bullet point is suggested to be amended to state that developments will be required to ‘retain and enhance landscape features within new developments that positively contribute to the quality and character of the area, wherever possible’. The wording as it currently stands suggests that any landscape features on sites should be retained and enhanced, whereas the proposed amendment ensures that features of limited value may be appropriately removed, or indeed where features of value may need to be removed, for example to facilitate access. The proposed wording is consistent with that currently set out under Policy GP/QP.
It is also noted that the policy makes reference to the need for protecting ‘important green gaps’. The only green gap referenced is Longstanton and Northstowe and therefore it is assumed the policy should be updated to refer to a singular gap.
The content of this policy is supported by Taylor Wimpey in order to address landscape character through development. It is also positive that the policy references the Greater Cambridge Landscape Character Assessment as a clear point of reference in responding to this policy.
A slight amendment is however suggested to the wording to again provide flexibility. The third bullet point is suggested to be amended to state that developments will be required to ‘retain and enhance landscape features within new developments that positively contribute to the quality and character of the area, wherever possible’. The wording as it currently stands suggests that any landscape features on sites should be retained and enhanced, whereas the proposed amendment ensures that features of limited value may be appropriately removed, or indeed where features of value may need to be removed, for example to facilitate access. The proposed wording is consistent with that currently set out under Policy GP/QP.
It is also noted that the policy makes reference to the need for protecting ‘important green gaps’. The only green gap referenced is Longstanton and Northstowe and therefore it is assumed the policy should be updated to refer to a singular gap.