1. Foreword and Introduction

Strongly support principle of design guide. Introduction needs to clarify whether the Design Guide applies within the Parish Boundary or within the Village Envelope/development boundary as the latter includes parts of Pampisford and Babraham Parishes. I am pretty sure that the Design Guide covers the latter, but this does need to be made explicit.

If we are to increase the demographic bulge in the High Street, we must address the narrowness of pedestrian and traffic access to the South end of the village (High Street). Of particular concern is the area just south of Shingay here. For parents with hildren, people with pets and for cyclists this area is already very dangerous. Increasing the population will exacerbate this.

From what I have seen, the group has the best interests of the village as a priority

How will developers be required to comply? There is insufficient parking now either in public areas or adjacent to houses. More is needed. Fig 24 shows Sawston Free Church (URC/M) [the former Methodist Church was approximately where Cambridge Bsoc is now.0 Accessible property is essential. So are accessible streets. Why move the War Memorial. IT will make problems for busies. What are desire lines (Guidance 5.2)?

Cambridgeshire LLFA welcomes the promotion of the sustainable drainage techniques in the FVDG.

SuDS are an approach to managing the surface water run off which seeks to mimic natural drainage systems and retain water on or near the site as opposed to traditional drainage techniques which involve piping the water off the site asap.

SuDS offer significant advantage over conventional piped drainage system in reducing flood risk by attenuating the rate and quantity of surface water run off.

The variety of SuDS techniques available means that virtually any development should be able to include a scheme based around these principles.

This response is based solely on the VDG. There are numerous, well documented reasons why equestrian access should be included in protecting and improving access including impact on the rural economy, public money should benefit all users, health and wellbeing, local and national Planning Policies. Should the Parish Council require further details or information, the British Horse Society would be pleased to answer questions or make a presentation with a view to working with the PC to improve countryside access.
It is hugely disturbing to note that unlike other Village Design Guides, the Sawston VDG draft makes absolutely no reference to public rights of way (RoW). Given the vast amount of recent publicity about the importance of active travel on the physical and mental wellbeing of the population, it is astonishing that Sawston has ignored the need to protect the existing network and the opportunities to enhance it. Unlike other Village Design Guides, there is no 'wish list' of multi user access routes which could be provided by future development project funding.

Reference is made to the long views over fields, the rivers and the countryside but no proposals as to how access to such areas could be achieved. No mention is made of the potential for access to the GCP SE Transport proposals which include multi user access alongside any bus route. We believe this is a missed opportunity to provide for future generations.

The only reference to access routes appears to be:
Guidance
8.1 The water meadows to the west of the village are key to Sawston's character and should be preserved.
8.6 Existing cycle and footways should be retained and routes enhanced through development both through the vllage and at the village edge.
The Cambridgeshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan states that the bridleway network is fragmented and in need of improvement. Development and the creation of shared pedestrian / cycle paths further fragments that network. We therefore object to the creation of shared pedestrian cycle paths and call for the creation of NMU paths (non motorised user paths available to pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians). In particular, we strongly object to the creation of shared cycle and pedestrian routes on verges previously available to equestrians resulting in horses and their riders being forced into the path of traffic passing them on their right side with the added danger of cyclists and possibly cargo bikes passing on their left hand side at the same time.
We would like to see all the existing shared pedestrian and cycle paths made available to equestrians, confirmed by use of the three‐user roundel (as per photo).
Sawston is lucky enough to have a well established and heavily used riding school which provides opportunities for adults and children to learn to ride. Children can also benefit from the School's association with the Pony Club of Great Britain. Currently, there are no safe, off road paths for hacking opportunities nor any call for such paths to be provided. However, if FP 196/14 or FP 196/12 were upgraded to bridleways and connected via the already well used path to Babraham Road or via the proposed development on Babraham Road, a route using RoW and quiet roads could create a link to the Restricted Byway 12/10. Note that on this draft VDG that
Restricted Byway 12/10 is incorrectly labelled as a 'Permissive Footpath', severely devaluing what is in fact currently the only fully NMU‐accessible public right of way leading out from this village. We would support a safe multi user crossing of the A1301 to Spicers - this could be in the form of a reduced Pegasus Crossing. With the potential improved leisure access at the Spicers site, a safe off road path for all NMUs from Stapleford to Sawston would be welcome.

A safe multi user link to the new Oasis recreation area (where horses are welcome) would be another opportunity. We would also support a safe NMU route from Stapleford to Sawston to link the Oasis area with the Spicers facilities. A multi‐user riverside path would be a great facility for all users.
Footpath 196/1 leads to Footpath 199/2 and on to Bridleway 199/3 Little Shelford. It would be of immense benefit to cyclists and horse riders if this path were upgraded to Bridleway to enable access to the wider Bridleway network. It would also enable riders and cyclists from Little Shelford to safely access the Oasis. Although this route crosses the railway line, it is an at grade crossing.

The proposed rural hub should include the opportunity for safe off road leisure access as well. Although this is proposed as a facility for commuters, commuting traffic is tidal, time of day restricted, often limited to a few hours per day and is not used at the weekends or summers evenings. Restricting use by other user groups represents poor value from public funds, and thus every opportunity should be taken to make new routes available to all off‐peak leisure users.
Cambridgeshire County Council has a Local Transport Policy (LTP), which sets out their transport objectives, policies and strategy for the county. A sister document of the LTP is the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP). The County Council updated its ROWIP in 2016 in line with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. You may wish to consult this document when drafting policies dealing with Non‐Motorised Users (NMU) and the Public Rights of Way network.
https://cambridgeshire.gv.uk/residents/travel‐road‐and‐parking/transport‐plans‐and‐policies/localtransport‐plan
Particular interest should be given to Policies S0A1 'Making the Countryside More Accessible', S0A2 'A Safer Activity', S0A3 '57,000 New homes', S0A4 'Knowing what's out there', S0A5 'Filling in the Gaps', and S0A8 'A Better Countryside Environment'- all of which include the need for access for equestrians.

Dear Cllr Hawkins
RE: Village Design Guide SPD Consultations for Caldecote, Fulbourn, Gamlingay, Over, Papworth Everard, Sawston and Swavesey
We are Cambridge's largest civic society run by local people who are passionate about where they live, and interested in making places more attractive, enjoyable and distinctive. Working with our members, supporters and volunteers we:
* Manage green spaces and historic buildings in and around the city for people and nature
* Champion high quality planning and the sustainable development of Cambridge and its surrounds
* Run a successful education and events programme teaching people of all ages about local heritage

Cambridge Past, Present & Future have spoken with a representative from one of the villages involved in this process and as a result, CambridgePPF is confident that the views of local residents has been considered and we support the process that has been carried out to draft these SPDs.
We believe that these will be valuable in influencing, for the better, the design of any future developments in and around these settlements. We therefore support these village SPDs.
We would like to make one general comment that would apply to all village design SPDs, relating to green infrastructure. The need to connect green infrastructure within the villages is very important if we are to nneet aspirations to halt the loss of biodiversity and ideally see a net-gain.
This means making sure that new developments are laid out in such a way that they do not sever green infrastructure and ideally, they help to connect it. This includes "private" spaces such as gardens as well as public spaces such as parks and verges. We would recommend that the principle of retaining or enhancing the connectivity of habitats within and adjacent to the villages is incorporated into these SPDs.

Overall bpha are supportive of the approach taken within the South Cambridgeshire Village Design Statements.
bpha is a registered not for profit affordable housing provider with over 18,000 homes within the Cambridge to Oxford arc. We are committed to building and maintaining quality affordable homes in thriving communities.
More information can be found at — www.bpha.org.uk

bpha have a commitment to provide well-designed high quality housing for our customers. Our approach to delivery is informed by key financial viability considerations. We look forward to working with SCDC to deliver a range of housing opportunities for your residents that is financially sustainable and reflects that addresses the design issues raised in the statement.

As an organisation bpha are looking to increase the number of homes that we provide through land-led opportunities. The Village Design Guides provide a useful insight into the important design issues at a neighbourhood level that we will consider early in the development design and planning process. We remain committed to working with SCDC in order to find appropriate design responses to housing development.

We are currently in contract with various developers across multiple sites in the South Cambridgeshire area. Most notable locally is that bpha are contracted to deliver all affordable homes on Phase 1 at Northstowe. Via our Market sale arm Bushmead Homes we have acquired open market sites in Over, Swavesey and Gamlingay to deliver market sale and affordable homes.

Please find attached below comments on the Village Design Statements. Should you have any questions on the points raised please do not hesitate in contacting me.

In terms of an overall comment the Village Design Statements cover seven villages across South Cambridgeshire. What would be helpful is also identifying important design considerations for those villages that sit outside the areas covered by the Village Design Statements. We are currently actively looking at rural exception sites across South Cambridgeshire and such guidance would be useful.

In relatoin to the content of the Village Design Statements. The broad comments that can be read across all the statements can be summarised into the following categories:

Affordable Housing - the deliery of new affordable housing is key to the delivery of the strategic objectives of bpha. In terms of village sustainability the delivery of affordable homes to meet the needs of the local community is vital. This requires the delivery of a broad range and tenure of homes.

While there is reference to the importance of well-designed affordable housing such as in the case of Robinson Court, Gamlingay, many of the statements are silent on the issue of affordable housing. The planning system should balance the demand of particular the types of affordable housing within a village with the requirements of the densikty parameters set out in the Village Design Statements. Therefore the approach to meeting specific housing needs should be addressed in the Village Design Statements. Consideration to the Nationally Prescribed Space Standards, Lifetime Homes and Building Regulation accessibility/adaptability ought to considered.

Materials - the approach to taken to the appropriate materials to be used within new developments is broadly supported. It is welcomed that the document refers to the type of materials that are likely to be acceptable without specifying specific products.

The availability of materials is a critical factor for development delivery, with the lead in times for materials such as bricks having a significant impact on a development programme. Therefore we would welcome a dialogue with SCDC early in the development process of a broad palette of products that would be acceptable. This is cruicial for our cost planning of developments.

The Village Design Statements should also recognise that in relation to innovation in the building industry through Modern Methods of Construction to include off-site and modular housing. A sustainability balance should be struck between innovation and following a rigid design approach.

Public Realm Investment - In the case of the larger villages reference such as Sawston and Fulbourn reference is made to the need for public realm improvements being made to the local centre. We would strongly support improvements being made the public realm to contribute towards the viability of local service provision within village centres.

In terms of specific comments, we have the following comments on the individual Village Design Statements:

Caldecote

Support the principles of partnership working on flood management. There is no mention of affordable housing within the statement this should be addressed.

Fulbourn

The following statement is made 'The need for a housing mix including suitable dwellings for the elderly and for younger households' is identifed as not an issue to be addressed with the Village Design Statement. This is not correct as the approach taken to density in the Statements will affect the delivery of certain types of affordable housing.

The objective for an improved High Street is supported as improvements to the public realm will support the financial viability of local services as it will create a better environment to visit.

In relation to improvements to existing stock there needs to be a consideration of wider issues such as External Wall Insulation and the acceptability of such changes.

At paragraph 10.13 reference is made to self build reference in addition the reference should be extended to include custom build.

Gamlingay

Broad support to the reference that affordable housing can play in village i.e. Robinson Court. The reference to taking influence from non-residential uses in housing such as agricultural and live work influences is welcomed

Over

At paragraph 4.5 it is stated 'Development should seek to maintain and enhance wildlife corridors in ways that are not costly to maintain.' The importance of wildlife corridors is supported as is the recognition that this should be undertaken in a cost effective way.

We support the proposals for better linkages to the guided busway. Mobility is critical for access to jobs and services and it is recognised that access to a car is lower for those on lower incomes.

At paragraph 8.7 it is stated 'Surface of green lanes should be permeable and easy to maintain'. We support the provision of a green land network this should consider the whole life costing of mterials to be used. In addition consideration should be given to the materials being acceptable for cycling. Sustrans give useful guidance in the following document: www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/files/migrated-pdfs/Technical%20Note%208%20-%20Path%20surfaces(1).pdf

Papworth Everard

The statement makes a strong emphasis on corridors for movement, the point made above on Over is of relevance here.

Sawston

The use of terraces to raise densities is supported.
The proposed public realm improvements and frontages is supported although an appropriate upfront capital budget is important it is also critical that there is a long-term revenue maintenance budget

Swavesey

Support the need for collaborative working on flood risk. In relation to the requirement for low carbon housing this should take into account the need for schemes to be viable with a sustainable maintenance strategy. Consider design implications of electrical generation (solar PVs) due to the shift to electric cars etc.

For the Attention of Hana Loftus,

Thank you for consulting the Forestry Commission on the village design guides. Our points are general points which might apply to more than one village design guide.

Some of the villages have said they want to plant trees and have listed that they want native tree species and have listed which ones, one of these we looked at included ash. It should be noted that ash is no longer available as an option for planting as there is a moratorium on the of movement of ash due to ash dieback Hymenoscyphus fraxineus which causes a lethal disease of ash in a number of ash species. Sycamore is an accepted substitute for ash as this species provides a similar ecosystem for the many species found on the ash tree and is an honorary native species. The other tree which has been listed in one village is cedar, for clarity this is not a native species, but then many very attractive trees are not native.

What is more important going forward one of the main criteria which needs to be considered in species choice will be climate change. The key concern is the right species for the soil and climate conditions. The Forestry Commission recommends that to address the issue of resilience to climate change there is a need to look at the provenance of species, which means there is a need to use, for example, oak trees sourced from 2-3 degrees south e.g. ( south of Paris). There is an online tool available to choose the right species for the soils and site conditions called Ecological Site Classification tool http://www.forestdss.org.uk/geoforestdss/esc4.jsp. This tool can suggest suitable species with the right inputs.

Our second main point is regarding Ancient Semi Natural Woodland. Where villages have Ancient Woodland in close proximity, the design guides need to refer to the government policy set out in the Joint Standing Advice of Natural England and the Forestry Commission https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences, this advice also covers Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS) and veteran trees. We also note that though Natural England is mentioned at the end of some design guides with regard to Ancient Woodland and that they need consulting, this relates mainly to a SSSI whereas the Forestry Commission is a non-statutory consultee for any planning proposed within 500metres of any Ancient Woodland or PAWs, however reference should be made to the Standing Advice in the first instance.

Lastly, going back to the theme of climate change we hope that all the villages will consider how they can use trees to reduce the impact of climate change and also reduce their carbon footprint trees can be a significant asset to a community both in terms of shade, pollution absorption and place setting. I have attached a research paper which gives more information. Mainly its about urban areas but it will also apply to large new developments.

If there is an option a community woodland https://www.communitywoodland.org/why/ can also add a significant asset to a village for health and in terms of carbon footprint and natural capital.

I hope you find this useful.

Dear Hana Loftus

South Cambridgeshire District Council - Village Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 11 April 2019, which was received by Natural England on 11 April 2019.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Our remit includes protected sites and landscapes, biodiversity, geodiversity, soils, protected species, landscape character, green infrastructure and access to and enjoyment of nature.

While we welcome this opportunity to give our views, the topic this Supplementary Planning Document covers is unlikely to have major effects on the natural environment, but may nonetheless have some effects. We therefore do not wish to provide specific comments, but advise you to consider the following issues:

Green Infrastructure
This SPD could consider making provision for Green Infrastructure (GI) within development. This should be in line with any GI strategy covering your area.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that local planning authorities should plan 'positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure'. The Planning Practice Guidance on Green Infrastructure provides more detail on this.

Urban green space provides multi-functional benefits. It contributes to coherent and resilient ecological networks, allowing species to move around within, and between, towns and the countryside with even small patches of habitat benefitting movement. Urban GI is also recognised as one of the most effective tools available to us in managing environmental risks such as flooding and heat waves. Greener neighbourhoods and improved access to nature can also improve public health and quality of life and reduce environmental inequalities.

There may be significant opportunities to retrofit green infrastructure in urban environments. These can be realised through:
* green roof systems and roof gardens;
* green walls to provide insulation or shading and cooling;
* new tree planting or altering the management of land (e.g. management of verges to enhance biodiversity).

You could also consider issues relating to the protection of natural resources, including air quality, ground and surface water and soils within urban design plans.

Further information on GI is include within The Town and Country Planning Association's "Design Guide for Sustainable Communities" and their more recent "Good Practice Guidance for Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity".

Biodiversity enhancement
This SPD could consider incorporating features which are beneficial to wildlife within development, in line with paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. You may wish to consider providing guidance on, for example, the level of bat roost or bird box provision within the built structure, or other measures to enhance biodiversity in the urban environment. An example of good practice includes the Exeter Residential Design Guide SPD, which advises (amongst other matters) a ratio of one nest/roost box per residential unit.

Landscape enhancement
The SPD may provide opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment; use natural resources more sustainably; and bring benefits for the local community, for example through green infrastructure provision and access to and contact with nature. Landscape characterisation and townscape assessments, and associated sensitivity and capacity assessments provide tools for planners and developers to consider how new development might makes a positive contribution to the character and functions of the landscape through sensitive siting and good design and avoid unacceptable impacts.

For example, it may be appropriate to seek that, where viable, trees should be of a species capable of growth to exceed building height and managed so to do, and where mature trees are retained on site, provision is made for succession planting so that new trees will be well established by the time mature trees die.

Other design considerations
The NPPF includes a number of design principles which could be considered, including the impacts of lighting on landscape and biodiversity (para 125).

Strategic Environmental Assessment/Habitats Regulations Assessment
A SPD requires a Strategic Environmental Assessment only in exceptional circumstances as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance here. While SPDs are unlikely to give rise to likely significant effects on European Sites, they should be considered as a plan under the Habitats Regulations in the same way as any other plan or project. If your SPD requires a Strategic Environmental Assessment or Habitats Regulation Assessment, you are required to consult us at certain stages as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance.

Should the plan be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment, then, please consult Natural England again.

Please send all planning consultations electronically to the consultation hub at consultations@naturalengland.org.uk.

I would like these comments be made applicable to each of the Design Guides (Caldecote, Fulbourn, Gamlingay, Over, Papworth Everard, Sawston and Swavesey).
Developers should ensure that crime prevention is considered as an integral part of the initial design of any development and not as an afterthought. Development should incorporate the principles of 'Secured by Design'. In particular they will need to demonstrate how their development proposal has addressed the following issues, in order to design out crime to avoid the creation of opportunities for crime:
* Natural Surveillance of public and semi‐private spaces, in particular, entrances to a development, paths, play areas, open spaces and car parks.
* Defensible space and the clear definition, differentiation and robust separation of public, private and semiprivate space, so that all the spaces are clearly defined and adequately protected in terms of their use and ownership.
* Consideration for some lighting, in particular shared parking courts and footpaths.
* Design and layout of pedestrian, cycle and vehicle routes into and within the site, including how these integrate with existing patterns in the village.
* Landscaping and planting, in particular, potential hiding places and dark or secluded areas should not be created.

Sport England supports the development of safe pedestrian and cycle routes through all developments, but the reference should be widened to refer also to the need to design new development to improve opportunities for all types of formal and informal sport and physical activity..
Sport England, in conjunction with Public Health England, has produced 'Active Design' (October 2015), a guide to planning new developments that create the right environment to help people get more active, more often, in the interests of health and wellbeing. The guidance sets out ten key principles for ensuring new developments incorporate opportunities for people to take part in sport and physical activity. The Active Design principles are aimed at contributing towards the Government's desire for the planning system to promote healthy communities through good urban design. Sport England would commend the use of the guidance in the master planning process for new residential developments, and the document should be referenced in these village design guides. The document can be downloaded via the following link: http://www.sportengland.org/activedesign