Vision and objectives

Comment

Representation ID: 168648

Received: 14/04/2021

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

10. References in the vision to new development not being overbearing or overwhelming are unclear in applicability to the new town as are references to development complementing rural vistas and the existing Fen Edge landscape. We had suggested in earlier comments that the vision should make reference to the vision for the new town included in the adopted Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Plan. This has not been referred to in either the vision or the supporting text.

Support

Representation ID: 168672

Received: 19/04/2021

Respondent: Ely Diocesan Board of Finance

Agent: Carter Jonas

Support in particular objective 2 - improvements to the cycling and footpath network and objective 10 - affordable ,community led and self building housing for the village.
Broadly support the other objectives too.

Comment

Representation ID: 168683

Received: 19/04/2021

Respondent: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)

The recognition of the need to provide increased health provision capacity as part of the Waterbeach New Town is recognised and acknowledged. The details of which will need to be discussed with the NHS Cambridge and Peterborough CCG and the developer as part of the Waterbeach New Town Planning process to ensure that the right provision is made at the right time to support the growth location. In the interim period, the GP practice is working with the CCG to reconfigure the premises and are confident that as a result will have the capacity to support the existing practice demands and the expected increase in patient numbers until the new premises are developed. Once the new premises are operational (currently scheduled for 2027) it is proposed that the existing surgery in Waterbeach will close.

Object

Representation ID: 168710

Received: 20/04/2021

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

Core Objective 2
This should refer to prioritising non-motorised users and public transport rather than non-vehicular routes.

Object

Representation ID: 168711

Received: 20/04/2021

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

Objective 1.v.
We wish to re-iterate our previous comments and suggest changing Objective 1.v to read: There should be safe, attractive and direct routes between the Village and New Town prioritised for non-motorised users.

Object

Representation ID: 168712

Received: 20/04/2021

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

Objective 1.vi.
The statement under Objective 1.vi is confusing, in asserting that vehicle access should be convenient but not direct, and would benefit from further explanation. In this regard, and as noted in connection with Objective 1.v, we would highlight the specific example of direct vehicular access for village residents to the relocated railway station, allowed for under the station planning permission, and in turn also the reference within Local Plan Policy SS/6 3 to direct road access on a limited and controlled basis.