Chapter 1-3

Comment

Representation ID: 167929

Received: 20/06/2019

Respondent: Marine Management Organisation

As these works do not fall between mean high water levels, and are nowhere near marine activities, we feel this is not our area to comment.

Comment

Representation ID: 167933

Received: 21/06/2019

Respondent: Forestry Commission

The Forestry Commission does not have resources to respond to Neighbourhood plans. If ancient woodland within your boundary Forestry Commission has prepared joint standing advice with Natural England on ancient woodland and veteran trees. This advice is a material consideration for planning decisions across England.

The Standing Advice website will provide you with links to Natural England's Ancient Woodland Inventory, assessment guides and other tools to assist you in assessing potential impacts. The assessment guides sets out a series of questions to help planners assess the impact of the proposed development on the ancient woodland.

Comment

Representation ID: 167935

Received: 27/06/2019

Respondent: Natural England

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.

Natural England is a statutory consultee in neighbourhood planning and must be consulted on draft neighbourhood development plans by the Parish/Town Councils or Neighbourhood Forums where they consider our interests would be affected by the proposals made. Natural England does not have any specific comments on this draft neighbourhood plan.
However, we refer you to the attached annex which covers the issues and opportunities that should be considered when preparing a Neighbourhood Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 167936

Received: 27/06/2019

Respondent: National House Building Council

Thank you for your email and apologies for the delay in our response.

We have been informed that this would be a planning issue and not something that the NHBC would be involved with.

We are sorry that we cannot assist you in this instance.

Comment

Representation ID: 167938

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

General overarching comments on Plan

Concerns about lack of overarching Policies map - suggested site specific designations that could be included

Concerns about some maps in Plan

Need for clearer supporting text to some policies

How Village Design Guidance SPD has been included. Some site specific comments

Question regarding the Vision

Chapter 5 very long - consider separate chapters. Paragraph numbering could confuse.

Support

Representation ID: 168118

Received: 23/07/2019

Respondent: Mr Cedric Foster

I totally support all the contents of this neighbourhood plan.

I congratulate everyone involved in getting to this final stage.

Comment

Representation ID: 168119

Received: 18/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Cambridgeshire Lead Local Flood Authority is surprised at lack of detail on flood risk and drainage in Plan.

Plan should shrive to promote SuDS - an approach to manage surface water run-off which seeks to mimic natural drainage systems and retain water on or near the site. Significant advantages over conventional piped drainage systems in reducing flood risk.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 168120

Received: 23/07/2019

Respondent: National Grid

Specific Comments
An assessment has been carried out with respect to National Grid's electricity and gas transmission apparatus which includes high voltage electricity assets and high pressure gas pipelines.

National Grid has identified that it has no record of such apparatus within the Neighbourhood Plan area.

Comment

Representation ID: 168122

Received: 26/07/2019

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the production of this neighbourhood plan, but do not wish to provide detailed comments at this time. We would refer you to any previous comments submitted at Regulation 14 stage.

Comment

Representation ID: 168167

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: British Horse Society

Suggested amendments to the Plan to include equestrians

Support

Representation ID: 168175

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: British Horse Society

On behalf of the British Horse Society, I fully support the comments contained in the response made by Lesley Golding of Barton and District Bridleways Group.
(Representation nos. 68167 - 68174)

Please will you ensure that the needs of equestrians (both riders and carriage drivers) are included in the final Histon and Impington NP.

Support

Representation ID: 168188

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Histon & Impington Parish Council

Support Neighbourhood Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 168203

Received: 31/07/2019

Respondent: Katie Ackermann

Guided Busway is continually referred to and cycleway/pedestrians. This is a bridleway and therefore accessible to horse riders.

Frequently ride through Histon - no mention of horse riders in report - many of cyclists and pedestrians.

Horse riders are vulnerable road users, and would prefer to avoid traveling on roads - only made possible with access to safe and suitable off road tracks (NMU paths ). Horse riders forgotten in village planning - most vulnerable. Horse riders have access to roads, byways and bridleways - horse riders allowed access to cyclists on bridleways and there has been no report of injury to a third party by a horse.

Many bridleways/byways split by ever-growing road structure - no choice but to travel on busy roads. Number of deaths shows important to provide safe routes for equestrians.

Please do reconsider the wording used throughout this report to consider bridleways and equestrians.