Planning policies - Design, Conservation, Heritage, Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity
Comment
Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version
Representation ID: 168657
Received: 14/04/2021
Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council
Policy WAT 14- Waterbeach design principles.
• Second part of policy – There is no definition of what is meant by ‘contribute in a positive way’. How would a planning officer when determining an application know what this means? We had suggested that this term could be replaced by ‘have regard to’. (BC test)
• The Waterbeach Heritage and Character Assessment is one of the evidence documents for the Plan and is mentioned in the policy. We would query the weight that can be given to a planning policy that includes this assessment since the opportunity has not been given to interested stakeholders/parties to challenge the contents of this document. If there is key information that a developer should be aware of in this assessment they would be best summarised and included within the Plan. The supporting text does include some of the contents of the assessment and also that of the Design Principles document which is not specifically mentioned in the policy. This makes for confusing reading. Each has slightly different distinct areas identified in the parish. It would be necessary to cross refer to each of the actual document to find the details. A Plan should be easy to use and not expect the user to have to consult several other documents.
• The policy is for all development proposals in the plan area. For Waterbeach new town, there already exists the design guidance in policy SS/6 of the Local Plan (adopted in 27/09/2018) and the adopted (in 06/02/2019) ‘Waterbeach New Town’ SPD which contain suitable policies and guidance to guide the future design, layout, landscaping and use of materials in its development and has been subject to extensive consultation. It would not be necessary to provide such additional design guidance for the New Town area. The policy wording could be amended to reflect this.
Comment
Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version
Representation ID: 168658
Received: 14/04/2021
Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council
20. Policy WAT 14 – Schedule 1
• It is suggested that the status of the design principles would be clearer if they were to be included within the policy rather than in the explanatory text of the policy. They are from the Design Principles document which is part of the evidence base for your Plan. (BC test)
• Design Principles WDP1, WDP4, WDP8 and WDP14 - These design principles seek to guide and restrict the design, layout and use of materials in the new town by reference to the existing village of Waterbeach despite the new town on completion being considerably larger in area and population and a clearly a construct of the 21st century rather than of organic growth over many centuries. In practice the new town will have its own distinct identity and character as is made clear by sections 2 and 9 of Local Plan policy SS/6 Waterbeach New Town.
In order for the Neighbourhood Plan to be in general conformity with policies SS/6 and HQ1 Design Principles of the Local Plan these particular design principles should not apply to the development of the new town. The Local Plan and the Waterbeach New Town SPD already contain suitable policies and guidance to guide the future design, layout, landscaping and use of materials in its development.
Comment
Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version
Representation ID: 168659
Received: 14/04/2021
Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council
• Design principle WDP5 - As written this principle would apply to uncontroversial domestic extensions and alterations to modern ‘suburban’ type buildings with limited heritage, aesthetic or cultural value (in circumstances where planning permission is required), and so be unduly burdensome to local residents and businesses. The safeguards it is seeking to secure are already addressed by the policies of the Local Plan and by other elements of WHCD13. Suggest that this design principle be deleted or made more specific.
• WDP7 – Our landscape officer has suggested that as hedgerows are also important particularly on the edge of the village this could be added to this principle.
• WDP8 – Also a suggestion that the boundary planting should be mixed native hedgerows.
Comment
Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version
Representation ID: 168660
Received: 14/04/2021
Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council
Policy WAT15 Development and landscape quality
• Part 1 of policy - It was suggested that rather than using the term ‘they accord’ to use ‘have regard to’ as this is more of a usual planning term.
• It is suggested that the status of the landscape principles provided in Schedule 2 would be clearer if they were to be included within the policy rather than in the explanatory text of the policy.
• Character Area table 1 - Our landscape officer has suggested some amendments to principles within this table
i. Bullet 3 – What are the prominent landscape features, views and landmarks? For a future user of the Plan it may be helpful to have a map indicating the key features in the parish from the WHCA Design Principles document.
ii. Bullet 4 – Suggestion that reference is made to a management and maintenance plan.
iii. Bullet 5 – This should be indicating protecting and retaining landscape features
iv. Bullet 6 – Suggestion that the proportion of front garden should reflect the existing layout.
Comment
Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version
Representation ID: 168661
Received: 14/04/2021
Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council
Policy WAT 17 Protected Village Amenity Area of green space at main entrance to the barracks off Denny End Road
The wording of this policy could be simplified if reference was made to the relevant PVAA policy in the Local Plan – NH/11 after the second line ‘… designated as a protected village amenity area under Policy NH/11 of the Local Plan’. There is no requirement then to repeat the requirements of Policy NH/11 in this policy. The title too could be simplified as the term green space detracts from the PVAA designation. Map 6.11 also refers to green space rather than new PVAA
Comment
Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version
Representation ID: 168662
Received: 14/04/2021
Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council
Policy WAT 18 Protected open space in Waterbeach village
We are unsure of the distinction between these open spaces and that protected in WAT 17. As long as the areas are within the development framework they could be considered as PVAAs. Allotments and the Recreation Ground will already be protected from development under the Local Plan Policy SC/8 Protection of Existing Recreation Areas, Playing Fields, Allotments and Community Orchards.
Comment
Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version
Representation ID: 168663
Received: 14/04/2021
Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council
24. Policy WAT 20 – Sites of value to biodiversity
• The policy specifically asks applicants to retain and enhance the biodiversity value of the network of deciduous woodland species and habitats in the parish. It is unclear why these have been highlighted What evidence has been provided to justify this within the policy?
• Map 6.13 does not appear to show any County Wildlife Sites although a symbol in the key. Our ecology team has indicated that within the parish there are a number of County Wildlife Sites and these should referenced clearly in the Plan and shown on this map - River Cam CWS (east), Clayhithe Pollard Willows CWS (south-east) and Beach Ditch and Engine Drain CWS (north-west)
Object
Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version
Representation ID: 168678
Received: 19/04/2021
Respondent: Ely Diocesan Board of Finance
Agent: Carter Jonas
Policy WAT18
EDBF object to the designation of the Glebe Rd allotments as protected open space. Land is within Green Belt and therefore protected from inappropriate development by Local Plan Policy S/4. Land is outside of the development framework and therefore only countryside uses appropriate.
Policy SC/8 in Local Plan protects allotments. WAT18 is duplicating and being more restrictive.
Request that Policy WAT18 is deleted and that all references that identify Glebe Road Allotments as important open space including Map 6.12 are also deleted.
Support
Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version
Representation ID: 168687
Received: 20/04/2021
Respondent: Mrs Barbara Brown
Car Dyke Roman Canal - importance of preserving this Ancient Monument. This area has huge importance to our village and community, that is why it it is top of the list for preservation on the Neighbourhood plan.
I wish to put forward a number of comments concerning the above mentioned plan. It is my hope that these comments go forward to the committee.
1) As a resident of this village and a member of this vibrant, friendly community, I wish to highly recommend this accurate and forward thinking view and plan for our village.
Sadly for nearly the last decade, we have felt that we are the forgotten and ignored community.
WPC and the residents of Waterbeach, plus tens of thousands of surrounding local village residents have fought hard to try to contain this over development. Unbelievably there are still NO plans for any infrastructure.
2) Road safety.
What steps will be taken to stop an ever increasing RatRun from the A14 via Horningsea Road speeding into Waterbeach to join the A10 and inevitably this New Town massive development. Traffic in all areas around the A10 will double with this overpopulation.
The Neighbourhood Plan - Restrict traffic in Cody Road to village residents only.
The Neighbourhood Plan -No New Town Traffic entering Waterbeach through Cody Road.
We wish to see a 20 mph speed limit in our village, particularly in the High Street. One way traffic on Greenside ( by White Horse pub) to help make the heart of our village safer from speeding inconsiderate non-resident drivers.
Time limited parking in layby, by pharmacy and post office.
Double yellow lines (safety barriers ) around all junctions in the Preservation Area of the village , especially where there is now inconsiderate and dangerous parking in that area. Many residents have no clear driving view right or left on leaving their street or lane and entering this area because of dangerous parking on both sides of the High Street. It is especially dangerous for pedestrians to cross a very narrow road with cars parked on both sides of the green
The Milton roundabout is still not finished. The merging of traffic from the A14 on an incredible short merging lane, will develop into an accident black spot! Constant lorries exiting A14 will ignore or not see traffic exiting the roundabout, via green traffic lights.
We hear that there are now plans for a new police headquarters to be built next to the Milton park&ride, so we will have to deal with bluelight traffic constantly using this dangerous road.
It is now time for a direct plan to be made and secured for a Bypass from Milton to Ely.
3) Environment. Car Dyke Roman Canal
The importance of preserving this Ancient Monument. This area has huge importance to our village and community, that is why it it is top of the list for preservation on the Neighbourhood plan.
It is a conservation area, an incredible Fenland landscape, massive horizons and a unique place of peace and reflection.
It's ancient hedgerow has a complete biodiversity to protect. Such a diverse numbers of birds , butterfly and insects.
During lockdown this area next to the recreation ground has been a focal part of the village, it has always been a wonderful place for walkers, especially dog walkers and for horse riding. It is a wonderful bridleway. But more important during these difficult times it has brought a special quietness and mental well being to all different age groups, toddlers up to senior citizens. All within walking distance of the village centre. This last part of our south wild fen that must be preserved for children and greatgrandchildren. Once it goes its gone forever.
At one time this area was considered to be one of many crazy areas put forward as part of a Greenway cycling lane for the New Town.
Thousands of cyclists, e scooters etc. using this area as a thoroughfare is totally abhorrent and destructive to this important environment and heritage site.
Waterbeach overwhelmingly voted to have the area adjacent to the railway line as the new Greenway. Council land I believe, flood plain When, if ever there is an upgrade to the A10 there should be a dedicated cycle lane separated from traffic.
Crossing Car Dyke road junction with pedestrian/ traffic lights replicating Denny End/A10 lights for pedestrians and traffic filter lane At the same time slowing speeding A10 traffic and stopping horrendous traffic accidents that still continue too happen on this dangerous poorly marked road . The traffic will actually come to a stop, with the filter lane safely seeing traffic crossing to the opposite lane to head towards Ely.
We have learnt the hard lessons ,about safety since Butt Lane and Denny End have gained multiple traffic lights the roads have become much safer. It is now the turn of Car Dyke road junction that desperately needs upgrading.
Roundabouts they just not up to the job, cars speed and at busy times they block the roundabout so nothing is moving. You see it in Cambridge eveyday.I
Cycles from Milton cycle way will safely enter the village near the Slap Up Pub pathway or onwards to Denny End.
That way we would have 2 safe cycle ways, with the added bonus of reducing the number of cycles on the tow path and improving the environment by the river.
May I also suggest that at these times the area of walkway for residents through Cody Way to New Town , has plenty of attractive natural looking bench's for tired family's but especially pensioners To sit and chat.
4)Travel
We need a secure New Station bus shuttle for residents who usually walk to our own train station for work and pleasure. We are informed that there is now not going to be a multi car park for the new station, so I take it our village roads will be used as a free car park for passengers. Especially Bannold Road.
RLW were given planning permission for this development because they Bragged that they would totally fund the New station out of their combined huge profits. Now we are informed that this is not happening and now we, the council tax payers are funding this unwanted station. Is this Tory government aware of these changes. We take it that is why no plans for a upgrade or bypass far the A10 or Waterbeach is even forseen in the future.
We have a perfect upgraded station in our village at Station Road, even full crossing barriers, to be updated.
Any sensible owner of that line would keep it open and maintained, in case of emergency ( sadly many have happened on this line exactly where the new station is planned ) passengers having to leave the train many times each year at Waterbeach and catch buses to further their journey +. Emergency services attending victims Thousands of villagers would still like to have a limited off peak service, perhaps twice a day or weekly and a limited weekend timetable from out convenient station. Otherwise many will no longer use either stations, instead traveling by car, bus, or use the much quicker Milton Park&Ride ( cheaper)
Where all the residents of this New Town are going to park all their many cars is a complete mystery to us , we are told (No plans are ever displayed) that no garage or parking is allowed next to their homes. Because everyone will be walking & cycling everywhere, whatever the weather. So one can imagine vast car parks dotted around this development, probably overlooking our village.
Thank you for reading this and passing on to committee.
Object
Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version
Representation ID: 168697
Received: 20/04/2021
Respondent: Southern & Regional Developments
Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy Ltd
Policy WAT14
Objection is made to this policy as currently drafted as it is considered that the wording is overly prescriptive. An element of flexibility should be acknowledged within the wording of the policy in particular within the design principles set out at Schedule 1.
Object
Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version
Representation ID: 168698
Received: 20/04/2021
Respondent: Southern & Regional Developments
Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy Ltd
Policy WAT15
Objection is made to this policy as currently drafted as it is considered that the wording is overly prescriptive. An element of flexibility should be acknowledged within the wording of the policy in particular within the design principles set out at Schedule 2.
Comment
Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version
Representation ID: 168699
Received: 20/04/2021
Respondent: Southern & Regional Developments
Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy Ltd
Policy WAT16
Midload Farm and Town Holt should be recognised as important edge of settlement sites on the eastern edge of Waterbeach village. The development of the Bannold Road site could contribute to the setting of the eastern edge Waterbeach through the implementation of an effective landscape strategy.
Comment
Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version
Representation ID: 168700
Received: 20/04/2021
Respondent: Southern & Regional Developments
Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy Ltd
Policy WAT20
The development of the Bannold Road site will enable the effective long-term management of the woodland identified as Site 8 on Table 6.3 within the Neighbourhood Plan
Object
Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version
Representation ID: 168707
Received: 20/04/2021
Respondent: RLW Estates
Agent: Boyer Planning
Policy WAT14: WDP1
Revisions to the Design Principles which provide a degree of flexibility are acknowledged and welcomed. However, we wish to re-state our view that there remains potential to make this more flexible through specific reference to the scope to embrace new technologies, improve environmental performance and define areas of varying character, all of which are essential in achieving the vision for Waterbeach New Town and respecting the village’s own identity.
Object
Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version
Representation ID: 168708
Received: 20/04/2021
Respondent: RLW Estates
Agent: Boyer Planning
Policy WAT14 : WDP4
We wish to acknowledge that the additional text relating to Waterbeach New Town is a positive amendment in presenting and clarifying this distinction. However, it is considered that there remains potential to strengthen this through reference to the Waterbeach New Town SPD and in turn possibly also to the relevance of the parameters established through the respective outline planning permissions that will govern some aspects of how this principle is applied.
Object
Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version
Representation ID: 168716
Received: 20/04/2021
Respondent: Urban & Civic
Agent: DAVID LOCK ASSOCIATES
Policy WAT19
changes made to this policy from Reg 14. U&C’s representations have been noted. Further text has been provided to explain the rationale behind the policy. The ambition to avoid the provision of ‘wet’ drainage basins in isolation, which serve no other purpose, from being defined as public open space is accepted and acknowledged by U&C. Unfortunately, the policy as worded goes much further, and precludes recognition of drainage features that have dual purpose and can make a very positive contribution to amenity and well-being. For this reason, the February 2020 objection, reproduced in column 2, is maintained.