Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - Submission version

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 46

Object

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59326

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: Ely Diocesan Board of Finance

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

.

Change suggested by respondent:

Requested Change
It is requested that Draft FNP is amended to include a strategy to meet the identified affordable housing needs for those with a local connection, to support and not prevent additional employment development, and to ensure the delivery of an extension to the recreation ground and a new multi-purpose health centre, to achieve Planning Objectives No.4, No.5 and No.6.

Requested Change
The following changes are requested to Figure 8.
The proposed ‘important visual gap’ designation is deleted.
The ‘locally important view’ at Ref. B3 (Eastwards from Cambridge Road towards the Windmill) is deleted.
All the ‘locally’ important views’ could be deleted since they are already contained in the Fulbourn Village Design Statement.
The proposed important countryside frontage designation at Capital Park is deleted.

Requested Change
The following changes are requested to Policy FUL/01
It is requested that the proposed ‘important visual gap’ designation is deleted from Policy FUL/01 and from Figures 8 and 9.
It is requested that the proposed important countryside frontage designation around the boundary of Capital Park is deleted from Policy FUL/01 and from Figures 8 and 9.
It is requested that ‘locally important view’ at Ref. B3 (Eastwards from Cambridge Road towards the Windmill) is deleted from Bullet Point No.4 in Policy FUL/01 and from Figures 8 and 9.
All the ‘locally’ important views’, including Ref B2 (Eastwards from Shelford Road towards the south-west village edge) and Ref. C4 (Westwards from Cambridge Road towards the Windmill), could be deleted since they are already contained in the Fulbourn Village Design Statement.
It is requested that references to openness and appearance of fields that contribute to the setting of the ‘locally important views’ is deleted from Bullet Point No.5.
It is requested that reference to compliance with the Fulbourn Village Design Guide is deleted from Bullet Point No.6.

Requested Change
It is requested that Policy FUL/02 is deleted because it repeats development plan policies and national and local guidance on development outside village boundaries and design matters.

Requested Change
It is requested that, in the absence of funding or a delivery mechanism for the implementation of the indicative green infrastructure network, Policy FUL/03 and Figure 11 should be deleted.
The following changes are requested to Figure 11:
The indicative green infrastructure network designation for land at south of Fulbourn Old Drift (adjacent to Capital Park) and land south of Cambridge Road (adjacent to Fulbourn) in the ownership of EDBF is deleted.

Requested Change
It is requested that Section 10 is amended to include a clear commitment that all identified local affordable housing needs will be met by 2031, and to assess and allocate housing sites where affordable housing or a proportion of affordable housing can be delivered. If it is not possible to identify enough land to meet affordable housing needs because of policy constraints, then Section 10 should include a commitment to support the release of land from the Green Belt through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan process to ensure the delivery of additional affordable housing in Fulbourn.

Requested Change
It is requested that Policy FUL/13 is deleted to avoid repeating adopted development plan policy.

Requested Change
It is requested that Policy FUL/14 and the supporting text is amended to explain how the proposed extension to the recreation ground will be delivered, including confirmation of landowner agreement and an indication of sources of funding to enable delivery of these facilities. In the absence of any mechanism for the delivery of the extension to the recreation ground, it is requested that this site allocation is deleted from Policy FUL/14 and from Figures 8 and 19.

Requested Change
It is requested that Policy FUL/15 and the supporting text is amended to explain how the proposed multi-purpose health centre would be delivered, including an indication of sources of funding, potential suitable relocation sites, and potential suitable enabling residential sites. In the absence of any strategy or mechanism for the delivery of the multi-purpose health centre, it is requested that Policy FUL/15 is deleted.

Full text:

REPRESENTATIONS TO REG.16 DRAFT SUBMISSION FULBOURN NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

Planning Objectives
OBJECT

Paragraph 5.6 of the Draft Submission Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan (Draft FNP) identifies the planning objectives for the document. There are three planning objectives that are relevant to these representations for Ely Diocesan Board of Finance (EDBF), which are as follows: 4. Have a mix of housing that is affordable, available, and suitable for all ages and appropriate to the village location; 5. Support business development and employment opportunities; and 6. Improve amenities and community facilities.

As highlighted in the representations to Section 10: Housing, Draft FNP does not allocate any land for housing development, and the outstanding housing commitments for major development (at the Ida Darwin Hospital and land off Teversham Road sites) already define affordable housing obligations with only a small proportion specifically directed to those with a local connection to Fulbourn. As such, Draft FNP would have no influence on the delivery of affordable housing in Fulbourn because decisions about housing and affordable housing within the village have already been taken. Draft FNP does not seek to address the current identified needs for affordable housing for those with a local connection or the concerns raised by residents and employers about housing affordability. It is considered that Planning Objective No.4 is ineffective because affordable housing needs for those with a local connection will remain unmet during the plan period to 2031.

As highlighted in the representations to Policy FUL/13: Large Employment Sites, Draft FNP contains no employment allocations, and seeks to add new additional policy designations that are designed to prevent new employment development from coming forward through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan process. It is considered that Draft FNP does not support business development and employment opportunities and seeks to prevent the expansion of existing employment areas including Capital Park in the future, and as such Planning Objective No.5 is ineffective.

As highlighted in the representations to Policies FUL/14: Community Facilities and FUL/15: Healthcare Facilities, it is not clear whether there is landowner agreement for the proposed extension to the recreation ground, how or where the proposed new multi-purpose health centre would be provided, or where the community aspiration for additional allotments would be located. It is noted that the housing commitments at the Ida Darwin Hospital and land off Teversham Road sites already define planning obligations for health and community facilities, and include health service funding for Cherry Hinton Health Centre. Draft FNP contains no strategy to ensure the delivery or funding of these community facilities during the plan period to 2031, and as such Planning Objective No.6 is ineffective because the amenities and community facilities in the village would not be improved. Draft FNP ignores the fact that new recreation, health, and community facilities are typically delivered in conjunction with new development or funded in part by planning obligations derived from new development, but does not consider this approach to deliver new or improved facilities.

Requested Change
It is requested that Draft FNP is amended to include a strategy to meet the identified affordable housing needs for those with a local connection, to support and not prevent additional employment development, and to ensure the delivery of an extension to the recreation ground and a new multi-purpose health centre, to achieve Planning Objectives No.4, No.5 and No.6.

Figure 8: Neighbourhood Plan Policy Map Summary
OBJECT

EDBF owns land south of Fulbourn Old Drift (adjacent to Capital Park) and land south of Cambridge Road (north of Shelford Road and adjacent to Fulbourn). A site location plan showing both sites is enclosed with these representations. These sites are located within the Green Belt as defined on the Proposals Map of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan. As set out below, these sites would be directly affected by some of the proposed new policy designations within Draft FNP.

The land owned by EDBF at Fulbourn has been promoted for through the call for sites process of the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan for the following uses: the land south of Fulbourn Old Drift is promoted for office and research related employment development as an extension to Capital Park, with a new access and strategic landscaping; and, the eastern field at the land south of Cambridge Road is promoted for residential development including affordable housing and self/custom build plots, with a primary school, local centre, community facilities, open space and other green infrastructure.

The land south of Fulbourn Old Drift is included within the proposed ‘important visual gap’ designation, the site boundary is proposed to be defined as an important countryside gap, and a ‘locally important view’ is identified from Cambridge Road to the south of the site (Ref. B3).

The land south of Cambridge Road is within two ‘locally important views’, one from Shelford Road towards the village (Ref. B2) and another from the edge of the village on Cambridge Road (Ref. C4).

The adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 includes policies on the Green Belt (Policy S/4) and Development Frameworks (Policy S/7). The adopted Policies Map defines the boundaries for both these designations. Policy S/4 refers to national Green Belt policy, which is set out in Section 13 of the NPPF. The principles of openness, preventing unrestricted sprawl and the coalescence of settlements, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and protecting the setting of settlements is already established in national Green Belt policy – see Paragraphs 137 and 138. Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that plans should “serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant)”. Paragraph 041 (Ref ID: 41) of the Planning Practice Guidance states that “It [neighbourhood plan policies] should be concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence”. It is not necessary for Figure 8 (or Figure 9) to repeat development plan designations or national guidance on the Green Belt. There is no evidence to explain why the ‘important visual gap’ designation is necessary when the existing Green Belt designation already addresses openness and coalescence. Therefore, Figure 8 is not consistent with national guidance and does not meet Basic Condition (a). It is requested that the proposed ‘important visual gap’ designation is deleted from Figure 8.

Evidence Paper 1: Key Village Views, prepared to support Draft FNP, claims to provide the evidence for the ‘locally important views’ designation. However, it is noted that there are no photographs or illustrative material provided in Evidence Paper 1 to show those important views or to highlight their particular importance. The ‘view’ from Cambridge Road adjacent to the southern boundary of Capital Park in the direction of Fulbourn (Ref. B3) is of the main road with trees and hedgerows either side, and a substantial area of trees and vegetation to the north and agricultural fields to the south; it is noted that no part of Fulbourn village is visible from this location, and there are no landmarks or features that make this ‘view’ particularly important to justify special protection. The ‘view’ from Shelford Road towards the village (Ref. B2) includes Fulbourn Windmill and the main road, agricultural fields, and the edge of the village; it is noted that some of the housing on the edge of the village is clearly visible with no landscaping provided at the site boundary. The ‘view’ west from the edge of the village on Cambridge Road (Ref. C4) includes Fulbourn Windmill and the main road with hedgerows either side; it is noted that the Windmill is clearly visible from this location and that ‘view’ should be retained, but the edge of Cambridge and the wider countryside is not visible from this location because of the topography (Cambridge is visible from the Windmill not from the edge of the village). It should be noted that all of the ‘locally important views’ are of land within the Green Belt and outside the defined Development Framework boundary for the village. In addition, the Fulbourn Village Design Statement, which is related to Policy HQ1: Design Principles of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, already identifies these same ‘views’. Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that plans should “serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant)”. Paragraph 041 (Ref ID: 41) of the Planning Practice Guidance states that “It [neighbourhood plan policies] should be concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence”. It is not necessary for ‘locally important views’ to be identified in areas defined as Green Belt, and where development plan design policies and related guidance already deals with the protection of landscape, heritage assets, character etc. There is no evidence to justify the ‘locally important view’ at Ref. B3 (Eastwards from Cambridge Road towards the Windmill) when no part of Fulbourn village or Fulbourn Windmill is visible from this location. The Fulbourn Village Design Statement, which is adopted guidance, already identifies these same ‘views’ and it is not necessary to repeat that guidance in Draft FNP. Therefore, Figure 8 is not consistent with national guidance and does not meet Basic Condition (a). It is requested that ‘locally important view’ at Ref. B3 (Eastwards from Cambridge Road towards the Windmill) is deleted from Figure 8. All the ‘locally’ important views’ could be deleted since they are already contained in the Fulbourn Village Design Statement.

Evidence Paper 2: Important Countryside Frontages, prepared to support Draft FNP, claims to provide the evidence for the proposed new important countryside frontage designations, including at the boundary of Capital Park. Policy NH/13 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan sets out the policy for important countryside frontages. Important countryside frontages are defined where land with a strong countryside character penetrates the urban area or where land provides an important rural break between detached parts of a development framework boundary. It is noted that the site boundary of Capital Park is not identified as an important countryside frontage in the adopted Local Plan. Capital Park is located within the Green Belt, the countryside does not penetrate the urban area in this location, and there are no defined settlement framework boundaries in this location or adjacent areas. The distance between the defined settlement framework boundaries, located on the edge of Cambridge at Yarrow Road and on the western edge of Fulbourn, is approximately 1.4km and as such are not nearby to one another. Therefore, the land south of Fulbourn Old Drift and adjacent to Capital Park does not satisfy any of the criteria for designation as an important countryside frontage. Paragraph 041 (Ref ID: 41) of the Planning Practice Guidance states that “It [neighbourhood plan policies] should be concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence”. The evidence put forward to justify the proposed important countryside frontage designation at Capital Park is not robust, and is not consistent with the criteria for such a designation. It is requested that the proposed important countryside frontage designation at Capital Park is deleted from Figure 8.

Requested Change
The following changes are requested to Figure 8.

The proposed ‘important visual gap’ designation is deleted.

The ‘locally important view’ at Ref. B3 (Eastwards from Cambridge Road towards the Windmill) is deleted.

All the ‘locally’ important views’ could be deleted since they are already contained in the Fulbourn Village Design Statement.

The proposed important countryside frontage designation at Capital Park is deleted.

Policy FUL/01. Protecting the Distinctiveness and Landscape Setting of Fulbourn
OBJECT

Policy FUL/01 seeks to protect the setting of Fulbourn, and refers to an important visual gap, important countryside frontages, locally important views, and openness and appearance of fields. It also refers to the guidance provided in the Fulbourn Village Design Guide.

EDBF owns land south of Fulbourn Old Drift (adjacent to Capital Park) and land south of Cambridge Road (north of Shelford Road and adjacent to Fulbourn), which are affected by the proposed new policy designations identified in Policy FUL/01. The land south of Fulbourn Old Drift is included within the proposed ‘important visual gap’ designation, the site boundary is proposed to be defined as an important countryside gap, and a ‘locally important view’ is identified from Cambridge Road to the south of the site (Ref. B3). The land south of Cambridge Road is within two ‘locally important views’, one from Shelford Road towards the village (Ref. B2) and another from the edge of the village on Cambridge Road (Ref. C4).

In summary, the Green Belt and the Development Framework boundaries in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 already limits the extent of development around the village, and severely restrict the possibility of any major new development coming forward in the future other than existing commitments which already have planning permission. It is noted that Draft FNP makes no allocations for residential, employment or any other types of development. There are policies in the adopted Local Plan that do allow recreation facilities and rural exception affordable housing in the Green Belt. The designated village amenity areas, local green space and important countryside frontage designations in the adopted Local Plan identify areas within the Development Framework boundary of the village where additional development of all types is prevented. As explained in these representations, it is considered that Draft FNP seeks to identify additional policy designations around all parts of the village to prevent any major development from coming forward or being allocated through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan process.

Bullet Point No.2 of Policy seeks to identify an ‘important visual gap’ designation on the edge of Cambridge, which overlaps with the existing Green Belt designation. The adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 includes policies on the Green Belt (Policy S/4) and Development Frameworks (Policy S/7). The adopted Policies Map defines the boundaries for both these designations. Policy S/4 refers to national Green Belt policy, which is set out in Section 13 of the NPPF. The principles of openness, preventing unrestricted sprawl and the coalescence of settlements, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and protecting the setting of settlements is already established in national Green Belt policy – see Paragraphs 137 and 138. Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that plans should “serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant)”. Paragraph 041 (Ref ID: 41) of the Planning Practice Guidance states that “It [neighbourhood plan policies] should be concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence”. It is not necessary for Figure 8 (or Figure 9) to repeat development plan designations or national guidance on the Green Belt. There is no evidence to explain why the ‘important visual gap’ designation is necessary when the existing Green Belt designation already addresses openness and coalescence. Therefore, Figure 8 is not consistent with national guidance and does not meet Basic Condition (a). It is requested that the proposed ‘important visual gap’ designation is deleted from Policy FUL/01 and from Figures 8 and 9.

Bullet Point No.3 of Policy FUL/01 relates to Important Countryside Frontages, which are identified in Figures 8 and 9, and refers to Policy NH/13 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan. Evidence Paper 2: Important Countryside Frontages claims to provide the evidence for the proposed new important countryside frontage designations, including at the boundary of Capital Park. Policy NH/13 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan sets out the policy for important countryside frontages. Important countryside frontages are defined where land with a strong countryside character penetrates the urban area or where land provides an important rural break between detached parts of a development framework boundary. It is noted that the site boundary of Capital Park is not identified as an important countryside frontage in the adopted Local Plan. Capital Park is located within the Green Belt, the countryside does not penetrate the urban area in this location, and there are no defined settlement framework boundaries in this location or adjacent areas. The distance between the defined settlement framework boundaries, located on the edge of Cambridge at Yarrow Road and on the western edge of Fulbourn, is approximately 1.4km and as such are not nearby to one another. Therefore, the land south of Fulbourn Old Drift and adjacent to Capital Park does not satisfy any of the criteria for designation as an important countryside frontage. Paragraph 041 (Ref ID: 41) of the Planning Practice Guidance states that “It [neighbourhood plan policies] should be concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence”. The evidence put forward to justify the proposed important countryside frontage designation at Capital Park is not robust, and is not consistent with the criteria for such a designation. It is requested that the proposed important countryside frontage designation around the boundary of Capital Park is deleted from Policy FUL/01 and from Figures 8 and 9.

Bullet Point No.4 of Policy FUL/01 refers to locally important views, which are identified in Figure 9. Evidence Paper 1: Key Village Views, prepared to support Draft FNP, claims to provide the evidence for the ‘locally important views’ designation. However, it is noted that there are no photographs or illustrative material provided in Evidence Paper 1 to show those important views or to highlight their particular importance. The ‘view’ from Cambridge Road adjacent to the southern boundary of Capital Park in the direction of Fulbourn (Ref. B3) is of the main road with trees and hedgerows either side, and a substantial area of trees and vegetation to the north and agricultural fields to the south; it is noted that no part of Fulbourn village is visible from this location, and there are no landmarks or features that make this ‘view’ particularly important to justify special protection. The ‘view’ from Shelford Road towards the village (Ref. B2) includes Fulbourn Windmill and the main road, agricultural fields, and the edge of the village; it is noted that some of the housing on the edge of the village is clearly visible with no landscaping provided at the site boundary. The ‘view’ west from the edge of the village on Cambridge Road (Ref. C4) includes Fulbourn Windmill and the main road with hedgerows either side; it is noted that the Windmill is clearly visible from this location and that ‘view’ should be retained, but the edge of Cambridge and the wider countryside is not visible from this location because of the topography (Cambridge is visible from the Windmill not from the edge of the village). It should be noted that all of the ‘locally important views’ are of land within the Green Belt and outside the defined Development Framework boundary for the village. In addition, the Fulbourn Village Design Statement, which is related to Policy HQ1: Design Principles of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, already identifies these same ‘views’. Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that plans should “serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant)”. Paragraph 041 (Ref ID: 41) of the Planning Practice Guidance states that “It [neighbourhood plan policies] should be concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence”. It is not necessary for ‘locally important views’ to be identified in areas defined as Green Belt, and where development plan design policies and related guidance already deals with the protection of landscape, heritage assets, character etc. There is no evidence to justify the ‘locally important view’ at Ref. B3 (Eastwards from Cambridge Road towards the Windmill) when no part of Fulbourn village or Fulbourn Windmill is visible from this location. The Fulbourn Village Design Statement, which is adopted guidance, already identifies these same ‘views’ and it is not necessary to repeat that guidance in Draft FNP. Therefore, Figure 8 is not consistent with national guidance and does not meet Basic Condition (a). It is requested that ‘locally important view’ at Ref. B3 (Eastwards from Cambridge Road towards the Windmill) is deleted from Figure 8. All the ‘locally’ important views’ could be deleted since they are already contained in the Fulbourn Village Design Statement.

Bullet Point No.5 of Policy FUL/01 seeks to avoid adverse impacts on the openness and appearance of fields that contribute to the setting of the ‘locally important views’. The adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 includes policies on the Green Belt (Policy S/4) and Development Frameworks (Policy S/7). The adopted Policies Map defines the boundaries for both these designations. Policy S/4 refers to national Green Belt policy, which is set out in Section 13 of the NPPF. The principles of openness, preventing unrestricted sprawl and the coalescence of settlements, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and protecting the setting of settlements is already established in national Green Belt policy – see Paragraphs 137 and 138. Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that plans should “serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant)”. It is not necessary for Bullet Point No.5 of Policy FUL/01 to repeat development plan and national guidance on openness of the Green Belt or development plan policies restricting development outside village boundaries. Therefore, Policy FUL/01 is not consistent with national guidance and does not meet Basic Condition (a). It is requested that references to openness and appearance of fields that contribute to the setting of the ‘locally important views’ is deleted from Bullet Point No.5.

Bullet Point No.6 refers to the Fulbourn Village Design Guide. The Guide is adopted as a supplementary planning document, and provides design guidance for the village in the context of Policy HQ1: Design Principles of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan. Therefore, any development proposals in Fulbourn would already be assessed against Policy HQ1 and the guidance in the Fulbourn Village Design Guide. Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 of the NPPF seeks to avoid the duplication of policies, and therefore it is not necessary for Bullet Point No.6 of Policy FUL/01 to repeat existing development plan policy and adopted guidance, and does not meet Basic Condition (a). It is requested that reference to compliance with the Fulbourn Village Design Guide is deleted from Bullet Point No.6. Furthermore, the Fulbourn Village Design Guide does not provide the evidence to explain or justify the ‘important visual gap’ and ‘locally important views’ designations referred to in Policy FUL/01.

Requested Change
The following changes are requested to Policy FUL/01

It is requested that the proposed ‘important visual gap’ designation is deleted from Policy FUL/01 and from Figures 8 and 9.

It is requested that the proposed important countryside frontage designation around the boundary of Capital Park is deleted from Policy FUL/01 and from Figures 8 and 9.

It is requested that ‘locally important view’ at Ref. B3 (Eastwards from Cambridge Road towards the Windmill) is deleted from Bullet Point No.4 in Policy FUL/01 and from Figures 8 and 9.

All the ‘locally’ important views’, including Ref B2 (Eastwards from Shelford Road towards the south-west village edge) and Ref. C4 (Westwards from Cambridge Road towards the Windmill), could be deleted since they are already contained in the Fulbourn Village Design Statement.

It is requested that references to openness and appearance of fields that contribute to the setting of the ‘locally important views’ is deleted from Bullet Point No.5.

It is requested that reference to compliance with the Fulbourn Village Design Guide is deleted from Bullet Point No.6.

Policy FUL/02: Development outside the Development Framework
OBJECT

As set out in the representations to Policy FUL/01, the Green Belt and the Development Framework boundary around Fulbourn are already defined in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, and the type and mix of uses permitted in these locations is already defined in development plan policy and national guidance. Policy HQ1 of the adopted Local Plan already adequately deals with design matters, and further guidance is provided in the National Design Guide and in Planning Practice Guidance. The Fulbourn Village Design Guide provides local guidance. Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that plans should “serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant)”. It is not necessary for Policy FUL/02 to repeat development plan policies or national and local guidance on development outside village boundaries or design matters. Therefore, Policy FUL/02 is not consistent with national guidance and does not meet Basic Condition (a).

Requested Change

It is requested that Policy FUL/02 is deleted because it repeats development plan policies and national and local guidance on development outside village boundaries and design matters.

Policy FUL/03: Creating a Connected Green Infrastructure Network
OBJECT

Policy FUL/03 seeks to deliver a green infrastructure network around Fulbourn, and Figure 11 (and Figure 8) identifies the locations for the indicative network. Parts of the land owned by EDBF at south of Fulbourn Old Drift (adjacent to Capital Park) and land south of Cambridge Road (adjacent to Fulbourn) is included within the indicative green infrastructure network.

The indicative green infrastructure network designation, as shown on Figure 11 does not correspond to the emerging strategic green infrastructure initiatives identified through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan – see pg. 73 to 80 of Greater Cambridge Green Infrastructure Opportunities Mapping Part 2 Recommendations Report (available at https://consultations.greatercambridgeplanning.org/sites/gcp/files/2021-09/GREATE~3_0.PDF). Strategic Green Infrastructure Initiative No.4: Enhancement of the Eastern Fens is located on the eastern edge of Fulbourn, and includes designated nature conservation sites of Fulbourn Fen SSSI, Great Wilbraham Common SSSI and Wilbraham Fens SSSI. The Part 2 Recommendations Report identifies delivery partners, a strategy and funding for Strategic Green Infrastructure Initiative No.4. The focus for the delivery and funding of green infrastructure projects around Fulbourn will be Strategic Green Infrastructure Initiative No.4 and the designated nature conservation sites managed by local wildlife organisations on the eastern edge of the village. It is not clear how the indicative green infrastructure network identified in Figure 11 and through Policy FUL/03 would be funded or delivered.

Policy FUL/03 refers to development supporting the delivery of the green infrastructure network, including new open space, wildlife areas, biodiversity net gain, and new walking/cycling routes to the countryside. However, there are no allocations for development in Draft FNP that might support the delivery of the indicative green infrastructure network or any biodiversity net gain. In the absence of any allocations for development it is not clear how the indicative green infrastructure network identified in Figure 11 would be delivered. As set out above, Strategic Green Infrastructure Initiative No.4 to be identified as part of the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan will be the focus for any funding on the eastern edge of Fulbourn. Any funding for wildlife enhancement through the environmental stewardship scheme or any similar rural initiative is outside the scope of the planning system.
It is not clear whether there has been any discussion or agreement with affected landowners about the delivery of the indicative green infrastructure network on their land. For example there has been no contact with EDBF in respect of the green infrastructure network proposed for their land. It is not clear how the green infrastructure network at the site would be delivered without landowner agreement and in the absence of development.
Therefore, there is no funding or delivery mechanism identified in Draft FNP for the implementation of the indicative green infrastructure network, and in the absence of such a mechanism Policy FUL/03 and Figure 11 should be deleted. It is requested that the indicative green infrastructure network designation for land at south of Fulbourn Old Drift (adjacent to Capital Park) and land south of Cambridge Road (adjacent to Fulbourn) in the ownership of EDBF is deleted from Figure 11.

It would be possible to deliver green infrastructure in conjunction with the developments promoted by EDBF as follows: an extension to Capital Park for office and research related employment development; and residential development of the eastern field at the land south of Cambridge Road adjacent to Fulbourn. This approach to the delivery of green infrastructure is not an option identified or supported in Draft FNP.

Requested Change

It is requested that, in the absence of funding or a delivery mechanism for the implementation of the indicative green infrastructure network, Policy FUL/03 and Figure 11 should be deleted.

The following changes are requested to Figure 11:

The indicative green infrastructure network designation for land at south of Fulbourn Old Drift (adjacent to Capital Park) and land south of Cambridge Road (adjacent to Fulbourn) in the ownership of EDBF is deleted.

Section 10: Housing
OBJECT

Section 10 of Draft FNP relates to housing, and Policy FUL/09 relates to housing developments including local housing needs. In summary, Section 10 refers to housing needs data and committed housing developments in Fulbourn. It is noted that despite the current and longstanding need for affordable housing in the village, there are no housing allocations or strategy to deliver housing or affordable housing in Draft FNP.
South Cambridgeshire District Council’s ‘Housing Statistical Information Leaflet’ (December 2019) provides the most recent information on local affordable housing needs i.e. those with a local connection to villages in the District, including Fulbourn, Teversham and Great Wilbraham – see https://www.scambs.gov.uk/media/18316/affordable-housing-housing-statistical-information-leaflet-december-2019.pdf. The current local housing needs for these three villages is as follows: Fulbourn – 65; Teversham – 21; and Great Wilbraham – 4. The Affordable Housing Needs Survey carried out by ACRE in December 2015 is out of date. The affordable housing needs of Teversham and Great Wilbraham could be met in Fulbourn, since these two villages are referred to in local connection criteria for recent affordable housing planning obligations. The current local affordable housing need should be stated as 90 dwellings. It should be noted that this current need does not consider future needs that are likely to arise during the plan period.

Paragraph 10.3 refers to the number of dwellings to be provided at three existing housing commitments, and it is assumed that affordable housing needs would be met from these developments. However, as set out below, that is not the case. The details of the three committed housing commitments are as follows:
• App Ref. S/3396/17/FL: A rural exception housing scheme off Balsham Road for 14 affordable dwellings. The s106 Agreement includes a planning obligation requiring the affordable housing to be occupied by those that can demonstrate a local connection to Fulbourn. The development is complete.
• App Ref. S/0202/17/OL: An application for 110 dwellings off Teversham Road, with 30% affordable housing which equates to 33 affordable dwellings. The s106 Agreement includes an affordable housing obligation requiring the first 8 affordable dwellings only to be offered to those that can demonstrate a local connection, with the remainder of the affordable housing available for district-wide housing needs.
• S/0670/17/OL: An application for 203 dwellings at the former Ida Darwin Hospital site, with 40% affordable housing which equates to 81 dwellings. The s106 Agreement does not include any obligations specifying that affordable housing must be offered to those with a local connection, and therefore the affordable housing is available for district-wide needs.

Therefore, all the Balsham Road development was available to meet local housing needs, a small proportion of the Teversham Road development will be available for local housing needs, and none of the Ida Darwin Hospital development will be specifically allocated to meet local housing needs. It is acknowledged that those with a local connection to Fulbourn, Teversham and Great Wilbraham might apply for an affordable dwelling at the Teversham Road and Ida Darwin Hospital developments, but it is likely that most affordable dwellings provided at these developments will be allocated to meet district-wide housing needs. The affordable housing needs of 22 households with a local connection to Fulbourn would be met from these three developments, and the affordable housing needs of some others with a local connection would probably also be met, but it is very likely that a substantial proportion of current local housing needs will remain unmet. It is inevitable that additional affordable housing needs will arise soon, from within Fulbourn and across the district.

As set out elsewhere in these representations, there are existing development plan policies and national designations that limit the amount of new housing that can be provided within and on the edge of Fulbourn e.g. Green Belt, Development Frameworks, Conservation Area, Listed Buildings, Local Green Space, Protected Village Amenity Area, Important Countryside Gap etc, and Draft FNP seeks to create additional restrictive policy designations e.g. ‘locally important views’. Any rural exception housing scheme is still required to address impacts on Green Belt openness and satisfy all other policy designations, and is reliant on a willing landowner to gift land for this purpose. It is likely that any redevelopment or infill development opportunities within Fulbourn would be small scale and fall below the threshold where affordable housing is required. In these circumstances, it is not clear how, where or when the current identified affordable housing needs of the village will be met, and Draft FNP takes no action to ensure that affordable housing needs are met. It is considered that the problems and consequences associated with not providing enough affordable housing in Fulbourn – as highlighted in Paragraphs 10.18 to 10.20 of Draft FNP - will continue for the foreseeable future.

Paragraph 8 of the NPPF identifies the three strands of sustainable development, and the social objective includes meeting housing needs. Paragraph 15 expects plans to provide a framework for addressing housing needs. Paragraph 60 sets out the Government’s objective to boost significantly the supply of housing. Paragraph 62 expects planning policies to reflect the needs for different types of housing including affordable housing. As explained above, the affordable housing needs of Fulbourn are known, but Draft FNP contains no allocations or policies to ensure the delivery of additional affordable housing. Therefore, Section 10 is inconsistent with national guidance and so does not meet Basic Condition (a), and would not achieve sustainable development because affordable housing needs would remain unmet and so does not meet Basic Condition (d).

Requested Change

It is requested that Section 10 is amended to include a clear commitment that all identified local affordable housing needs will be met by 2031, and to assess and allocate housing sites where affordable housing or a proportion of affordable housing can be delivered. If it is not possible to identify enough land to meet affordable housing needs because of policy constraints, then Section 10 should include a commitment to support the release of land from the Green Belt through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan process to ensure the delivery of additional affordable housing in Fulbourn.

Policy FUL/13: Large Employment Sites
OBJECT

Policy FUL/13 of Draft FNP relates to large employment sites including Capital Park. EDBF is promoting an extension to Capital Park for office and research related employment through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan process. Policy FUL/13 refers to existing employment policies in the adopted Local Plan and to sustainable travel outcomes for any employment development at the large employment sites. Policy E/13: New Employment Development on the Edges of Villages in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan already sets out the requirements for new employment development proposed in edge of village locations, including considering impacts on character and appearance and accessibility by walking and cycling. Policy TI/2: Planning for Sustainable Trave of the adopted Local Plan already includes requirements associated with accessibility by sustainable modes of transport and highway impacts for all types of development, including employment. Section 9 of the NPPF provides national policy to promote sustainable transport, including encouraging walking, cycling and public transport, locating development to reduce the need to travel, and avoiding severe impacts on the highway network. Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 states that plans should “serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant)”. Policy FUL/13 serves no clear purpose, and duplicates existing Policies E/13 and TI/2 of the adopted Local Plan and Section 9 of the NPPF, and as such it is inconsistent with national guidance and so does not meet Basic Condition (a). It is requested that Policy FUL/13 is deleted to avoid repeating adopted development plan policy and national policy.

It is noted that Draft FNP contains no employment allocations, and seeks to add new additional policy designations that are designed to prevent new employment development from coming forward through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan process. The proximity of Fulbourn to the employment in and on the edge of Cambridge provides an opportunity to increase travel by walking, cycling and public transport for journeys to work. There are regular bus services to Cambridge from Fulbourn, and there is a cycle route between Fulbourn and Cambridge. The Greater Cambridge Partnership has proposed a greenway (walking and cycling route) between Fulbourn and Cambridge. The Greater Cambridge Partnership’s Making Connections project seeks to improve the frequency of bus services from Fulbourn, including to Cambridge, Cambridge Station, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and the proposed Cambridge South Station. It is considered that Draft FNP ignores the opportunity to connect housing and employment uses by sustainable modes of transport because it does not support further housing or employment development at Fulbourn. The promoted developments by EDBF at land south of Fulbourn Old Drift (for employment development) and at land south of Cambridge Road (for residential, primary school and community uses etc) could delivery additional improvements to the walking, cycling and public transport infrastructure in these locations to further encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport for travel to work.

Requested Change

It is requested that Policy FUL/13 is deleted to avoid repeating adopted development plan policy.

Policy FUL/14: Community Facilities
OBJECT

Policy FUL/14 allocates land for an extension to the recreation ground, which is identified on Figures 8 and 19. The rationale for seeking an extension to the recreation ground is explained in Paragraph 12.5. It is noted that some improvements to community facilities will be delivered soon via planning obligations from the committed developments at the Ida Darwin Hospital site and at land of Teversham Road. The s106 Agreement for the Ida Darwin Hospital site includes planning obligations relating to open space and play areas to be provided on site, but there are no obligations relating to sport and recreation facilities. The s106 Agreement for the land off Teversham Road development includes a sports space contribution for the refurbishment or extension of the sports pavilion, but no obligations relating to land for sport and recreation facilities. There are no other large scale developments planned or proposed within Fulbourn, and the Draft FNP makes no allocations where planning obligations could be sought to contribute towards the proposed extension to the recreation ground.

It is not clear from Policy FUL/14 or the supporting text whether there is landowner agreement or funding to enable the delivery of the extension to the recreation ground. There should be some evidence that the land required for the proposed extension to the recreation has been discussed with the landowner and that there is at least an agreement in principle. As set out above, the two major developments in Fulbourn do not make any planning obligations towards the funding of an extension to the recreation ground. If there is no landowner agreement or source of funding to purchase the land and provide the extension to the recreation ground it is unlikely that it would be delivered, and as such will remain an aspiration only.

Paragraph 93 of the NPPF expects planning policies to support the delivery of the social, recreational, and cultural facilities and services the community needs. As set out above, the delivery of the proposed extension to the recreation ground is uncertain. For this reason, Policy FUL/14 is inconsistent with national guidance and so does not meet Basic Condition (a). Therefore, in the absence of any mechanism for the delivery of the extension to the recreation ground, it is requested that this site allocation is deleted from Policy FUL/14 and from Figures 8 and 19.
It should be possible for an extension to the recreation ground to be delivered in conjunction with development in this location, but that is not an option that is put forward in Draft FNP. The land owned by EDBF at south of Cambridge Road could make planning contributions towards sport and recreation facilities in the village if it was allocated for a mixed use development. The promoted development by EDBF at land south of Cambridge Road also includes open space and other green infrastructure, but could also provide land for other facilities if required e.g. allotments. The option of additional development in Fulbourn providing for additional open space, allotments and other community facilities is not identified or considered in Draft FNP.

Requested Change

It is requested that Policy FUL/14 and the supporting text is amended to explain how the proposed extension to the recreation ground will be delivered, including confirmation of landowner agreement and an indication of sources of funding to enable delivery of these facilities. In the absence of any mechanism for the delivery of the extension to the recreation ground, it is requested that this site allocation is deleted from Policy FUL/14 and from Figures 8 and 19.

Policy FUL/15: Healthcare Facilities
OBJECT

Policy FUL/15 relates to existing and future healthcare facilities in the village, and seeks to support additional health related facilities either on the site of the existing health centre or at another location within the village. Paragraphs 12.7 and 12.8 seeks to explain the rationale for additional health facilities, and refers to enabling residential development to support the delivery of additional facilities. The aspiration for a new health centre for the village has existed for several years.

It is noted that some improvements to community facilities will be delivered soon via planning obligations from the proposed developments at the Ida Darwin Hospital site and at land off Teversham Road. The s106 Agreements for both these developments include planning obligations towards the health services at Cherry Hinton Health Centre, but not for the Fulbourn Health Centre. There are no other large scale developments planned or proposed within Fulbourn, and the Draft FNP makes no allocations for residential development where planning obligations could be sought to contribute towards additional health facilities.

It is not clear whether any local health service or provider has identified a need for additional or new health facilities in Fulbourn and has a strategy to deliver such a facility; recent planning obligations have been directed to Cherry Hinton Health Centre. It is not clear whether funding is available to support the delivery of the proposed new multi-purpose health centre, either on the existing site or elsewhere within the village. If a new site is required, it is not clear whether land or a suitable site is available. There are no significant previously developed land opportunities available in the village, existing development plan policies and national designations limit development opportunities outside the village boundary e.g. Green Belt and Development Frameworks, and Draft FNP seeks to create additional restrictive policy designations e.g. ‘locally important views’. Furthermore, Draft FNP makes no allocations for residential development that might enable the delivery of a multi-purpose health centre. If there is no strategy or mechanism for the provision of a new multi-purpose health centre in the village it is unlikely that it would be delivered, and as such will remain an aspiration only.

Paragraph 93 of the NPPF expects planning policies to support the delivery of community facilities including health facilities and the delivery of health strategies. As set out above, the delivery of the proposed multi-purpose health centre is uncertain. For this reason, Policy FUL/15 is inconsistent with national guidance and so does not meet Basic Condition (a). Therefore, in the absence of any strategy or mechanism for the delivery of the multi-purpose health centre, including land for a new building or land for enabling residential development, it is requested that Policy FUL/15 is deleted.

Draft FNP does not consider the option of a multi-purpose health centre being delivered in conjunction with additional residential development. For example, if allocated for residential development the land owned by EDBF south of Cambridge Road could make planning contributions towards additional health facilities in the village, or could provide land for a multi-purpose health centre in conjunction with the promoted mixed use development and local centre for the site.

Requested Change

It is requested that Policy FUL/15 and the supporting text is amended to explain how the proposed multi-purpose health centre would be delivered, including an indication of sources of funding, potential suitable relocation sites, and potential suitable enabling residential sites. In the absence of any strategy or mechanism for the delivery of the multi-purpose health centre, it is requested that Policy FUL/15 is deleted.

Object

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59327

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: KG Moss Will Trust & Moss Family

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

.

Change suggested by respondent:

Requested Change
It is requested that Draft FNP is amended to include a strategy to meet the identified affordable housing needs for those with a local connection and to ensure the delivery of an extension to the recreation ground and a new multi-purpose health centre, in order to achieve Planning Objectives No.4 and No.6.

Requested Change
The following changes are requested to Figure 8.
The ‘locally important views’ designation at land off Home End (Ref. C8) is deleted.
The adopted Important Countryside Frontage designation at land off Home End is deleted.
The indicative green infrastructure network designation for land at Court Meadow House off Balsham Road is deleted.
The proposed extension to the recreation ground is deleted.

Requested Change
The following changes are requested to Policy FUL/01
It is requested that any references to adopted Important Countryside Frontages from Policy NH/13 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan are deleted from Bullet Point No.3.
It is requested that the ‘locally important views’ designation at land off Home End (Ref. C8) is deleted from Bullet Point No.4 and from Figures 8 and 9.
It is requested that references to openness and appearance of fields that contribute to the setting of the ‘locally important views’ is deleted from Bullet Point No.5.
It is requested that reference to compliance with the Fulbourn Village Design Guide is deleted from Bullet Point No.6.

Requested Change
It is requested that Policy FUL/02 is deleted because it repeats development plan policies and national and local guidance on development outside village boundaries and design matters.

Requested Change
It is requested that, in the absence of funding or a delivery mechanism for the implementation of the indicative green infrastructure network, Policy FUL/03 and Figure 11 should be deleted
The following changes are requested to Figure 11:
The indicative green infrastructure network designation for land at Court Meadow House off Balsham Road is deleted.

Requested Change
It is requested that Section 10 is amended to include a clear commitment that all identified local affordable housing needs will be met by 2031, and to assess and allocate housing sites where affordable housing or a proportion of affordable housing can be delivered. If it is not possible to identify a sufficient amount of land to meet affordable housing needs because of policy constraints, then Section 10 should include a commitment to support the release of land from the Green Belt through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan process to ensure the delivery of additional affordable housing in Fulbourn.

Requested Change
It is requested that Policy FUL/14 and the supporting text is amended to explain how the proposed extension to the recreation ground will actually be delivered, including confirmation of landowner agreement and an indication of sources of funding to enable delivery of these facilities. In the absence of any mechanism for the delivery of the extension to the recreation ground, it is requested that this site allocation is deleted from Policy FUL/14 and from Figures 8 and 19.

Requested Change
It is requested that Policy FUL/15 and the supporting text is amended to explain how the proposed multi-purpose health centre would actually be delivered, including an indication of sources of funding, potential suitable relocation sites, and potential suitable enabling residential sites. In the absence of any strategy or mechanism for the delivery of the multi-purpose health centre, it is requested that Policy FUL/15 is deleted.

Full text:

REPRESENTATIONS TO REG.16 DRAFT SUBMISSION FULBOURN NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

Planning Objectives
OBJECT

Paragraph 5.6 of the Draft Submission Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan (Draft FNP) identifies the planning objectives for the document. There are two planning objectives that are relevant to these representations for the KG Moss Will Trust and the Moss Family, which are as follows: 4. Have a mix of housing that is affordable, available and suitable for all ages and appropriate to the village location; and 6. Improve amenities and community facilities.

As highlighted in the representations to Section 10: Housing, Draft FNP does not allocate any land for housing development, and the outstanding housing commitments for major development (at the Ida Darwin Hospital and land off Teversham Road sites) already define affordable housing obligations with only a small proportion specifically directed to those with a local connection to Fulbourn. As such, Draft FNP would have no influence on the delivery of affordable housing in Fulbourn because decisions about housing and affordable housing within the village have already been taken. Draft FNP does not seek to address the current identified needs for affordable housing for those with a local connection or the concerns raised by residents and employers about housing affordability. It is considered that Planning Objective No.4 is ineffective because affordable housing needs for those with a local connection will remain unmet during the plan period to 2031.

As highlighted in the representations to Policies FUL/14: Community Facilities and FUL/15: Healthcare Facilities, it is not clear whether there is landowner agreement for the proposed extension to the recreation ground, how or where the proposed new multi-purpose health centre would be provided, or where the community aspiration for additional allotments would be located. It is noted that the housing commitments at the Ida Darwin Hospital and land off Teversham Road sites already define planning obligations for health and community facilities, and include health service funding for Cherry Hinton Health Centre. Draft FNP contains no strategy to ensure the delivery or funding of these community facilities during the plan period to 2031, and as such Planning Objective No.6 is ineffective because the amenities and community facilities in the village would not be improved. Draft FNP ignores the fact that new recreation, health and community facilities are typically delivered in conjunction with new development or funded in part by planning obligations derived from new development, but does not consider this approach to deliver new or improved facilities.

Requested Change

It is requested that Draft FNP is amended to include a strategy to meet the identified affordable housing needs for those with a local connection and to ensure the delivery of an extension to the recreation ground and a new multi-purpose health centre, in order to achieve Planning Objectives No.4 and No.6.


Figure 8: Neighbourhood Plan Policy Map Summary
OBJECT

KG Moss Will Trust owns land off Home End and the Moss Family own land at Court Meadow House off Balsham Road in Fulbourn. A site location plan for each site is enclosed with these representations.
The land off Home End is included within a ‘locally important view’ (Ref. C8), and the Important Countryside Frontage designation in this location (from Policy NH/13 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Plan) is shown on Figure 8.

Evidence Paper 1: Key Village Views, prepared to support Draft FNP, claims to provide the evidence for the ‘locally important views’ designation. However, it is noted that there are no photographs or illustrative material provided in Evidence Paper 1 to show those important views or to highlight their particular importance. The ‘view’ from land off Home End and ‘locally important view’ Ref. C8 is of buildings, a paddock, a car park, and a sport and recreation ground including cricket and football pitches, a skateboard park, bowling green, tennis courts, and multi-use games area, an equipped play area, and a sports pavilion building. The ‘view’ from this location is dominated by the sport and recreation facilities, and there are no landmarks or features that make this ‘view’ particularly important to justify special protection. The Fulbourn Village Design Statement is not supported by any landscape or visual assessments to inform the ‘key outward view from the village’ designation from the land off Home End location, and so does not provide the evidence to inform the ‘locally important view’ designations at Ref. C8 in Draft FNP. In the absence of any evidence the proposed ‘locally important view’ designation at Ref. C8 is not consistent with national guidance (see Paragraph 041 (Ref ID: 41) of the PPG) and does not meet Basic Condition (a). It is requested that the ‘locally important views’ designation at land off Home End (Ref. C8) is deleted from Figure 8.

Figure 8 shows the Important Countryside Frontage designation at land off Home End, as derived from Policy NH/13 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Plan. Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 in the NPPF expects development plans, including neighbourhood plans, to avoid unnecessary duplication of policies. The Important Countryside Frontage Designation at land off Home End is already identified on the Proposals Map of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, and therefore it is not necessary for Figure 8 in Draft FNP to replicate that designation. The inclusion of the adopted Important Countryside Frontage at land off Home End is not consistent with national policy (see Paragraph 16(f) of the NPPF) and as such does not meet Basic Condition (a). It should be noted that the made Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan does not refer to or repeat the important countryside frontage designations in that village; a consistent approach should be applied for all neighbourhood plans in South Cambridgeshire and all references to adopted important countryside frontages in Draft FNP should be deleted. Despite the above, it is considered that the land off Home End does not actually meet the criteria to be designated as an important countryside frontage for the following reasons. The site is surrounded by buildings and a car park. There are sport and recreation facilities and associated car parking areas between the site and the countryside beyond. The surrounding rural area is not clearly visible from the site because the sports and recreation facilities intervene, and therefore there cannot be a ‘significant connection’ between the site and the rural area. The characteristics of this site have changed significantly since the Important Countryside Frontage was first designated. It is requested that the adopted Important Countryside Frontage designation at land off Home End is deleted from Figure 8.

The land at Court Meadow House off Balsham Road is partly covered by the indicative green infrastructure network designation of Policy FUL/03 and is adjacent to a proposed extension to the recreation ground allocation of Policy FUL/15.

As set out in the representations to Policy FUL/03, the indicative green infrastructure network designations, as shown on Figure 8 do not correspond to the emerging strategic green infrastructure initiatives identified through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan e.g. Strategic Green Infrastructure Initiative No.4: Enhancement of the Eastern Fens located on the eastern edge of Fulbourn. The designated nature conservation sites included in Strategic Green Infrastructure Initiative No.4 are Fulbourn Fen SSSI, Great Wilbraham Common SSSI and Wilbraham Fens SSSI. The desire in Draft FNP to connect the designated nature conservation sites with green infrastructure corridors is understood. However, it is not clear how the indicative green infrastructure network identified in Figure 8 and through Policy FUL/03 would be delivered. The focus for funding of green infrastructure projects in and around Fulbourn will be the strategic initiatives identified through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan, including Strategic Green Infrastructure Initiative No.4 that coincides with designated nature conservation sites managed by local wildlife organisations. Any funding for wildlife enhancement through the environmental stewardship scheme or any similar rural initiative is outside the scope of the planning system. The planning obligations associated with the two housing commitments at Fulbourn (the Ida Darwin Hospital site and at land off Teversham Road) are already defined, including those related to green infrastructure, and as such no funding for the indicative green infrastructure network designations would be available from these developments. There are no allocations for development in Draft FNP that might support the delivery of the indicative green infrastructure network or any biodiversity net gain. It is not clear whether there has been any discussion or agreement with affected landowners about the delivery of the indicative green infrastructure network on their land; for example there has been no contact with the Moss Family in respect of the green infrastructure network proposed through land at Court Meadows House off Balsham Road. Therefore, there is no funding or delivery mechanism identified in Draft FNP for the implementation of the indicative green infrastructure network, and in the absence of such a mechanism the proposed network should be deleted from Figure 8. It is requested that the indicative green infrastructure network designation for land at Court Meadow House off Balsham Road is deleted from Figure 8. It would be possible to deliver green infrastructure in conjunction with development at land at Court Meadow House and consistent with the proposed green infrastructure network at the site e.g. a wildlife corridor alongside the existing hedgerows and bridleway, but that approach is not an option identified or supported in Draft FNP.

As set out in the representations to Policy FUL/14, it is not clear whether there is landowner agreement or funding to enable the proposed delivery of the extension to the recreation ground as identified in Figure 8. The planning obligations for local sport and recreation facilities from the two committed housing developments in Fulbourn (at the Ida Darwin Hospital site and at land off Teversham Road) are already specified in the respective s106 Agreements, and do not relate to an extension of the recreation ground. There are no other large scale developments planned or proposed within Fulbourn, and the Draft FNP makes no allocations where planning obligations could be sought to contribute towards the proposed extension to the recreation ground. Therefore, in the absence of any mechanism for the delivery of the extension to the recreation ground, it is requested that this site allocation is deleted from Figure 8. An extension to the recreation ground could be delivered in conjunction with development at land off Balsham Road, including land at Court Meadow House, but that approach is not an option identified or supported in Draft FNP.

Requested Change

The following changes are requested to Figure 8.
The ‘locally important views’ designation at land off Home End (Ref. C8) is deleted.
The adopted Important Countryside Frontage designation at land off Home End is deleted.
The indicative green infrastructure network designation for land at Court Meadow House off Balsham Road is deleted.
The proposed extension to the recreation ground is deleted.


Policy FUL/01: Protecting the Distinctiveness and Landscape Setting of Fulbourn
OBJECT

Policy FUL/01 seeks to protect the setting of Fulbourn, and refers to important countryside frontages, locally important views, and openness and appearance of fields. It also refers to the guidance provided in the Fulbourn Village Design Guide.

In summary, the Green Belt and the Development Framework boundaries in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 already limits the extent of development around the village, and severely restrict the possibility of any major new development coming forward in the future other than existing commitments which already have planning permission. It is noted that Draft FNP makes no allocations for residential or any other types of development. There are policies in the adopted Local Plan that do allow recreation facilities and rural exception affordable housing in the Green Belt. The designated village amenity areas, local green space and important countryside frontage designations in the adopted Local Plan identify areas within the Development Framework boundary of the village where additional development of all types is prevented. As explained in these representations, it is considered that Draft FNP seeks to identify additional policy designations around all parts of the village in order to prevent any major development from coming forward or being allocated through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan process.

Bullet Point No.3 of Policy FUL/01 relates to Important Countryside Frontages and refers to Policy NH/13 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan. It is not clear whether Policy FUL/01 relates to the adopted Important Countryside Frontages as defined in the Local Plan, those proposed new Important Countryside Frontages to be defined in Draft FNP, or both adopted and proposed. Figure 8 of Draft FNP includes the adopted and proposed Important Countryside Frontage designations, but Figure 9 only includes the proposed designations. Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that plans should “serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant)”. It is not necessary for Policy FUL/01 to refer to adopted Important Countryside Frontages, when a policy already exists in Policy NH/13 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan. If Policy FUL/01 is intended to apply to adopted Important Countryside Frontage designations, then this would represent a duplication of policies and is not consistent with national guidance and so does not meet Basic Condition (a). If Policy FUL/01 does not apply to adopted Important Countryside Frontage designations then that needs to be made clear in the policy text. As set out in the representations to Figure 8: Neighbourhood Plan Policy Map Summary, the KG Moss Will Trust land off Home End does not actually meet the criteria to be designated as an important countryside frontage because the surrounding rural area is not clearly visible from the site since the sports and recreation facilities intervene.

Bullet Point No.4 of Policy FUL/01 refers to locally important views, which are identified in Figure 9. The land off Home End is included within a ‘locally important view’ (Ref. C8). Evidence Paper 1: Key Village Views, prepared to support Draft FNP, claims to provide the evidence for the ‘locally important views’ designation. However, it is noted that there are no photographs or illustrative material provided in Evidence Paper 1 to show those important views or to highlight their particular importance. The ‘view’ from land off Home End and ‘locally important view’ Ref. C8 is of buildings, a paddock, a car park, and a sport and recreation ground including cricket and football pitches, a skateboard park, bowling green, tennis courts, and multi-use games area, an equipped play area, and a sports pavilion building. The ‘view’ from this location is dominated by the sport and recreation facilities, and there are no landmarks or features that make this ‘view’ particularly important to justify special protection. The Fulbourn Village Design Statement is not supported by any landscape or visual assessments to inform the ‘key outward view from the village’ designation from the land off Home End location, and so does not provide the evidence to inform the ‘locally important view’ designations at Ref. C8 in Draft FNP. Paragraph 041 (Ref ID: 41) of the Planning Practice Guidance states that “It [neighbourhood plan policies] should be concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence”. In the absence of any evidence the proposed ‘locally important view’ designation at Ref. C8 is not consistent with national guidance and does not meet Basic Condition (a). It is requested that the ‘locally important views’ designation at land off Home End (Ref. C8) is deleted from Policy FUL/01 and from Figures 8 and 9.

Bullet Point No.5 of Policy FUL/01 seeks to avoid adverse impacts on the openness and appearance of fields that contribute to the setting of the ‘locally important views’. The adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 includes policies on the Green Belt (Policy S/4) and Development Frameworks (Policy S/7). The adopted Policies Map defines the boundaries for both these designations. Policy S/4 refers to national Green Belt policy, which is set out in Section 13 of the NPPF. The principles of openness, preventing unrestricted sprawl and the coalescence of settlements, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and protecting the setting of settlements is already established in national Green Belt policy – see Paragraphs 137 and 138. Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that plans should “serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant)”. It is not necessary for Bullet Point No.5 of Policy FUL/01 to repeat development plan and national guidance on openness of the Green Belt or development plan policies restricting development outside village boundaries. Therefore, Policy FUL/01 is not consistent with national guidance and does not meet Basic Condition (a). It is requested that references to openness and appearance of fields that contribute to the setting of the ‘locally important views’ is deleted from Bullet Point No.5.

Bullet Point No.6 refers to the Fulbourn Village Design Guide. The Guide is adopted as a supplementary planning document, and provides design guidance for the village in the context of Policy HQ1: Design Principles of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan. Therefore, any development proposals in Fulbourn would already be assessed against Policy HQ1 and the guidance in the Fulbourn Village Design Guide. Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 of the NPPF seeks to avoid the duplication of policies, and therefore it is not necessary for Bullet Point No.6 of Policy FUL/01 to repeat existing development plan policy and adopted guidance, and does not meet Basic Condition (a). It is requested that reference to compliance with the Fulbourn Village Design Guide is deleted from Bullet Point No.6.

Furthermore, the Fulbourn Village Design Guide was not informed by any landscape or visual evidence, and some of the terminology used in the document to describe parcels of land is not explained or robust. For example, Figure 17 of the Guide identifies the land off Home End as ‘fields with sensitive visual relationship with the village’ and as a ‘key outwards views from the village’, and the land off Balsham Road as part of a ‘key views to the village’. The land off Home End is surrounded by buildings and a car park with sport and recreation facilities beyond, and as such the site is not sensitive and it has limited physical or visual relationship with the countryside and does not represent a ‘key’ outward view from the village. The views of the village from Balsham Road are limited, and could not be described as ‘key’ views. The Fulbourn Village Design Guide does not provide the evidence to explain or justify the designations referred to in Policy FUL/01.

Requested Change

The following changes are requested to Policy FUL/01
It is requested that any references to adopted Important Countryside Frontages from Policy NH/13 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan are deleted from Bullet Point No.3.
It is requested that the ‘locally important views’ designation at land off Home End (Ref. C8) is deleted from Bullet Point No.4 and from Figures 8 and 9.
It is requested that references to openness and appearance of fields that contribute to the setting of the ‘locally important views’ is deleted from Bullet Point No.5.
It is requested that reference to compliance with the Fulbourn Village Design Guide is deleted from Bullet Point No.6.


Policy FUL/02: Development outside the Development Framework
OBJECT

As set out in the representations to Policy FUL/01, the Green Belt and the Development Framework boundary around Fulbourn are already defined in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, and the type and mix of uses permitted in these locations is already defined in development plan policy and national guidance. Policy HQ1 of the adopted Local Plan already adequately deals with design matters, and further guidance is provided in the National Design Guide and in Planning Practice Guidance. The Fulbourn Village Design Guide provides local guidance. Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that plans should “serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant)”. It is not necessary for Policy FUL/02 to repeat development plan policies or national and local guidance on development outside village boundaries or design matters. Therefore, Policy FUL/02 is not consistent with national guidance and does not meet Basic Condition (a).

Requested Change

It is requested that Policy FUL/02 is deleted because it repeats development plan policies and national and local guidance on development outside village boundaries and design matters.


Policy FUL/03: Creating a Connected Green Infrastructure Network
OBJECT

Policy FUL/03 seeks to deliver a green infrastructure network around Fulbourn, and Figure 11 (and Figure 8) identifies the locations for the indicative network. A large part of the land owned by the Moss Family at Court Meadow House off Balsham Road is included within the indicative green infrastructure network.

The indicative green infrastructure network designation, as shown on Figure 11 does not correspond to the emerging strategic green infrastructure initiatives identified through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan – see pg. 73 to 80 of Greater Cambridge Green Infrastructure Opportunities Mapping Part 2 Recommendations Report (available at https://consultations.greatercambridgeplanning.org/sites/gcp/files/2021-09/GREATE~3_0.PDF). Strategic Green Infrastructure Initiative No.4: Enhancement of the Eastern Fens is located on the eastern edge of Fulbourn, and includes designated nature conservation sites of Fulbourn Fen SSSI, Great Wilbraham Common SSSI and Wilbraham Fens SSSI. The Part 2 Recommendations Report identifies delivery partners, a strategy and funding for Strategic Green Infrastructure Initiative No.4. The focus for the delivery and funding of green infrastructure projects around Fulbourn will be Strategic Green Infrastructure Initiative No.4 and the designated nature conservation sites managed by local wildlife organisations on the eastern edge of the village. It is not clear how the indicative green infrastructure network identified in Figure 11 and through Policy FUL/03 would be funded or delivered.
Policy FUL/03 refers to development supporting the delivery of the green infrastructure network, including new open space, wildlife areas, biodiversity net gain, and new walking/cycling routes to the countryside. However, there are no allocations for development in Draft FNP that might support the delivery of the indicative green infrastructure network or any biodiversity net gain. In the absence of any allocations for development it is not clear how the indicative green infrastructure network identified in Figure 11 would be delivered. As set out above, Strategic Green Infrastructure Initiative No.4 to be identified as part of the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan will be the focus for any funding on the eastern edge of Fulbourn. Any funding for wildlife enhancement through the environmental stewardship scheme or any similar rural initiative is outside the scope of the planning system.

It is not clear whether there has been any discussion or agreement with affected landowners about the delivery of the indicative green infrastructure network on their land. For example there has been no contact with the Moss Family in respect of the green infrastructure network proposed through land at Court Meadows House off Balsham Road. It is not clear how the green infrastructure network at the site would be delivered without landowner agreement and in the absence of development.

Therefore, there is no funding or delivery mechanism identified in Draft FNP for the implementation of the indicative green infrastructure network, and in the absence of such a mechanism Policy FUL/03 and Figure 11 should be deleted. It is requested that the indicative green infrastructure network designation for land at Court Meadow House off Balsham Road is deleted from Figure 11.
It would be possible to deliver green infrastructure in conjunction with development at land at Court Meadow House and consistent with the proposed green infrastructure network at the site e.g. a wildlife corridor alongside the existing hedgerows and bridleway, but that approach is not an option identified or supported in Draft FNP.

Requested Change

It is requested that, in the absence of funding or a delivery mechanism for the implementation of the indicative green infrastructure network, Policy FUL/03 and Figure 11 should be deleted
The following changes are requested to Figure 11:
The indicative green infrastructure network designation for land at Court Meadow House off Balsham Road is deleted.


Section 10: Housing
OBJECT

Section 10 of Draft FNP relates to housing, and Policy FUL/09 relates to housing developments including local housing needs. In summary, Section 10 refers to housing needs data and committed housing developments in Fulbourn. It is noted that despite the current and longstanding need for affordable housing in the village, there are no housing allocations or strategy to deliver housing or affordable housing in Draft FNP.

South Cambridgeshire District Council’s ‘Housing Statistical Information Leaflet’ (December 2019) provides the most recent information on local affordable housing needs i.e. those with a local connection to villages in the District, including Fulbourn, Teversham and Great Wilbraham – see https://www.scambs.gov.uk/media/18316/affordable-housing-housing-statistical-information-leaflet-december-2019.pdf. The current local housing needs for these three villages is as follows: Fulbourn – 65; Teversham – 21; and Great Wilbraham – 4. The Affordable Housing Needs Survey carried out by ACRE in December 2015 is out of date. The affordable housing needs of Teversham and Great Wilbraham could be met in Fulbourn, since these two villages are referred to in local connection criteria for recent affordable housing planning obligations. The current local affordable housing need should be stated as 90 dwellings. It should be noted that this current need does not take into account future needs that are likely to arise during the plan period.

Paragraph 10.3 refers to the number of dwellings to be provided at three existing housing commitments, and it is assumed that affordable housing needs would be met from these developments. However, as set out below, that is not the case. The details of the three committed housing commitments are as follows:
• App Ref. S/3396/17/FL: A rural exception housing scheme off Balsham Road for 14 affordable dwellings. The s106 Agreement includes a planning obligation requiring the affordable housing to be occupied by those that can demonstrate a local connection to Fulbourn. The development is complete.
• App Ref. S/0202/17/OL: An application for 110 dwellings off Teversham Road, with 30% affordable housing which equates to 33 affordable dwellings. The s106 Agreement includes an affordable housing obligation requiring the first 8 affordable dwellings only to be offered to those that can demonstrate a local connection, with the remainder of the affordable housing available for district-wide housing needs.
• S/0670/17/OL: An application for 203 dwellings at the former Ida Darwin Hospital site, with 40% affordable housing which equates to 81 dwellings. The s106 Agreement does not include any obligations specifying that affordable housing must be offered to those with a local connection, and therefore the affordable housing is available for district-wide needs.

Therefore, all of the Balsham Road development was available to meet local housing needs, a small proportion of the Teversham Road development will be available for local housing needs, and none of the Ida Darwin Hospital development will be specifically allocated to meet local housing needs. It is acknowledged that those with a local connection to Fulbourn, Teversham and Great Wilbraham might apply for an affordable dwelling at the Teversham Road and Ida Darwin Hospital developments, but it is likely that the majority of affordable dwellings provided at these developments will be allocated to meet district-wide housing needs. The affordable housing needs of 22 households with a local connection to Fulbourn would definitely be met from these three developments, and the affordable housing needs of some others with a local connection would probably also be met, but it is very likely that a substantial proportion of current local housing needs will remain unmet. It is inevitable that additional affordable housing needs will arise in the near future, from within Fulbourn and across the district.

As set out elsewhere in these representations, there are existing development plan policies and national designations that limit the amount of new housing that can be provided within and on the edge of Fulbourn e.g. Green Belt, Development Frameworks, Conservation Area, Listed Buildings, Local Green Space, Protected Village Amenity Area, Important Countryside Gap etc, and Draft FNP seeks to create additional restrictive policy designations e.g. ‘locally important views’. Any rural exception housing scheme is still required to address impacts on Green Belt openness and satisfy all other policy designations, and is reliant on a willing landowner to gift land for this purpose. It is likely that any redevelopment or infill development opportunities within Fulbourn would be small scale and fall below the threshold where affordable housing is required. In these circumstances, it is not clear how, where or when the current identified affordable housing needs of the village will be met, and Draft FNP takes no action to ensure that affordable housing needs are actually met. It is considered that the problems and consequences associated with not providing enough affordable housing in Fulbourn – as highlighted in Paragraphs 10.18 to 10.20 of Draft FNP - will continue for the foreseeable future.

Paragraph 8 of the NPPF identifies the three strands of sustainable development, and the social objective includes meeting housing needs. Paragraph 15 expects plans to provide a framework for addressing housing needs. Paragraph 60 sets out the Government’s objective to boost significantly the supply of housing. Paragraph 62 expects planning policies to reflect the needs for different types of housing including affordable housing. As explained above, the affordable housing needs of Fulbourn are known, but Draft FNP contains no allocations or policies to ensure the delivery of additional affordable housing. Therefore, Section 10 is inconsistent with national guidance and so does not meet Basic Condition (a), and would not achieve sustainable development because affordable housing needs would remain unmet and so does not meet Basic Condition (d).

Requested Change

It is requested that Section 10 is amended to include a clear commitment that all identified local affordable housing needs will be met by 2031, and to assess and allocate housing sites where affordable housing or a proportion of affordable housing can be delivered. If it is not possible to identify a sufficient amount of land to meet affordable housing needs because of policy constraints, then Section 10 should include a commitment to support the release of land from the Green Belt through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan process to ensure the delivery of additional affordable housing in Fulbourn.


Policy FUL/14: Community Facilities
OBJECT

Policy FUL/14 allocates land for an extension to the recreation ground, which is identified on Figures 8 and 19. The rationale for seeking an extension to the recreation ground is explained in Paragraph 12.5. KG Moss and subsequently the KG Moss Will Trust previously owned parcels of land at the existing recreation ground, which were subject to compulsory purchase or private sale now being used for recreational, car parking and allotment purposes. It is noted that some improvements to community facilities will be delivered in the near future via planning obligations from the committed developments at the Ida Darwin Hospital site and at land of Teversham Road. The s106 Agreement for the Ida Darwin Hospital site includes planning obligations relating to open space and play areas to be provided on site, but there are no obligations relating to sport and recreation facilities. The s106 Agreement for the land off Teversham Road development includes a sports space contribution for the refurbishment or extension of the sports pavilion, but no obligations relating to land for sport and recreation facilities. There are no other large scale developments planned or proposed within Fulbourn, and the Draft FNP makes no allocations where planning obligations could be sought to contribute towards the proposed extension to the recreation ground.

It is not clear from Policy FUL/14 or the supporting text whether there is landowner agreement or funding to enable the delivery of the extension to the recreation ground. There should be some evidence that the land required for the proposed extension to the recreation has been discussed with the landowner and that there is at least an agreement in principle. As set out above, the two major developments in Fulbourn do not make any planning obligations towards the funding of an extension to the recreation ground. If there is no landowner agreement or source of funding to purchase the land and provide the extension to the recreation ground it is unlikely that it would be delivered, and as such will remain an aspiration only.

Paragraph 93 of the NPPF expects planning policies to support the delivery of the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs. As set out above, the delivery of the proposed extension to the recreation ground is uncertain. For this reason, Policy FUL/14 is inconsistent with national guidance and so does not meet Basic Condition (a). Therefore, in the absence of any mechanism for the delivery of the extension to the recreation ground, it is requested that this site allocation is deleted from Policy FUL/14 and from Figures 8 and 19.

An extension to the recreation ground could be delivered in conjunction with development in this location. The land owned by KG Moss Will Trust off Home End could make planning contributions towards sport and recreation facilities in the village. The land owned by the Moss Family at Court Meadow House off Balsham Road could provide planning contributions and additional land to support the delivery of the extension to the recreation ground. The option of additional development in Fulbourn providing for the extension to the recreation ground is not identified or considered in Draft FNP.

Requested Change

It is requested that Policy FUL/14 and the supporting text is amended to explain how the proposed extension to the recreation ground will actually be delivered, including confirmation of landowner agreement and an indication of sources of funding to enable delivery of these facilities. In the absence of any mechanism for the delivery of the extension to the recreation ground, it is requested that this site allocation is deleted from Policy FUL/14 and from Figures 8 and 19.


Policy FUL/15: Healthcare Facilities
OBJECT

Policy FUL/15 relates to existing and future healthcare facilities in the village, and seeks to support additional health related facilities either on the site of the existing health centre or at another location within the village. Paragraphs 12.7 and 12.8 seeks to explain the rationale for additional health facilities, and refers to enabling residential development to support the delivery of additional facilities. KG Moss previously owned the land around the current health centre and a majority of the land used for the large housing development to the north side of Cambridge Road on the Fulbourn side of Windmill Hill bounded by Haggis Gap which was subject to compulsory purchase. This development has since been redeveloped. The aspiration for a new health centre for the village has existed for a number of years.
It is noted that some improvements to community facilities will be delivered in the near future via planning obligations from the proposed developments at the Ida Darwin Hospital site and at land off Teversham Road. The s106 Agreements for both these developments include planning obligations towards the health services at Cherry Hinton Health Centre, but not for the Fulbourn Health Centre. There are no other large scale developments planned or proposed within Fulbourn, and the Draft FNP makes no allocations for residential development where planning obligations could be sought to contribute towards additional health facilities.

It is not clear whether any local health service or provider has identified a need for additional or new health facilities in Fulbourn and has a strategy to deliver such a facility; recent planning obligations have been directed to Cherry Hinton Health Centre. It is not clear whether funding is available to support the delivery of the proposed new multi-purpose health centre, either on the existing site or elsewhere within the village. If a new site is required, it is not clear whether land or a suitable site is available. There are no significant previously developed land opportunities available in the village, existing development plan policies and national designations limit development opportunities outside the village boundary e.g. Green Belt and Development Frameworks, and Draft FNP seeks to create additional restrictive policy designations e.g. ‘locally important views’. Furthermore, Draft FNP makes no allocations for residential development that might enable the delivery of a multi-purpose health centre. If there is no strategy or mechanism for the provision of a new multi-purpose health centre in the village it is unlikely that it would be delivered, and as such will remain an aspiration only.

Paragraph 93 of the NPPF expects planning policies to support the delivery of community facilities including health facilities and the delivery of health strategies. As set out above, the delivery of the proposed multi-purpose health centre is uncertain. For this reason, Policy FUL/15 is inconsistent with national guidance and so does not meet Basic Condition (a). Therefore, in the absence of any strategy or mechanism for the delivery of the multi-purpose health centre, including land for a new building or land for enabling residential development, it is requested that Policy FUL/15 is deleted.

Draft FNP does not consider the option of a multi-purpose health centre being delivered in conjunction with additional residential development. For example, if allocated for residential development the land owned by KG Moss Will Trust off Home End could make planning contributions towards additional health facilities in the village, and the land owned by the Moss Family at Court Meadow House off Balsham Road could provide land for a multi-purpose health centre as part of a mixed use development.

Requested Change

It is requested that Policy FUL/15 and the supporting text is amended to explain how the proposed multi-purpose health centre would actually be delivered, including an indication of sources of funding, potential suitable relocation sites, and potential suitable enabling residential sites. In the absence of any strategy or mechanism for the delivery of the multi-purpose health centre, it is requested that Policy FUL/15 is deleted.

Support

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59329

Received: 09/11/2021

Respondent: Cambridgeshire Constabulary

Representation Summary:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - Section 12 Paragraph 130(f) which states: -

Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments:
create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

In relation to the design and layout of new developments including homes, commercial space, schools, hospitals and sheltered accommodation we make the following comment:

Security and Crime prevention measures should be considered at the earliest opportunity as an integral part of any initial design for a proposed development. It should incorporate the principles of ‘Secured by Design’ and demonstrate how the development proposals address the following issues, in order to design out and reduce the incidence and fear of crime:

• Physical protection: Places that include necessary, well-designed security features.
• Access and movement: Places with well-defined routes, spaces and entrances that provide for convenient movement without compromising security.
• Safe routes: Creating safe routes that are as straight as possible, wide, well lit, without hiding places and well-maintained and overlooked for security and provide a sense of security for all users.
• Structure: Places that are structured so that different uses do not cause conflict.
• Lighting: Ensuring appropriate and non-obtrusive lighting levels are achieved.
• Private space: Creating a clear separation between public and private spaces, avoiding public routes next to back gardens.
• Surveillance: Places where all publicly accessible spaces are overlooked.
• Ownership: Places that promote a sense of ownership, respect, territorial responsibility and community.
• Activity: Places where the level of human activity is appropriate to the location reduces the risk of crime and creates a sense of safety at all times.
• Management and maintenance: Places that are designed with management and maintenance in mind, to discourage crime in the present and the future.

In practice this means that Secured by Design status for new developments can be achieved through careful design. Developers should, at an early stage, seek consultation and advice from the Police Designing out Crime Officers at Cambridgeshire Police Headquarters on designing out crime.

Full text:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Fulbourn Neighbourhood plan.

In regards to Policy we would wish to mention:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - Section 12 Paragraph 130(f) which states: -

Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments:
'create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.'

In relation to the design and layout of new developments including homes, commercial space, schools, hospitals and sheltered accommodation we make the following comment:

Security and Crime prevention measures should be considered at the earliest opportunity as an integral part of any initial design for a proposed development. It should incorporate the principles of ‘Secured by Design’ and demonstrate how the development proposals address the following issues, in order to design out and reduce the incidence and fear of crime:

• Physical protection: Places that include necessary, well-designed security features.
• Access and movement: Places with well-defined routes, spaces and entrances that provide for convenient movement without compromising security.
• Safe routes: Creating safe routes that are as straight as possible, wide, well lit, without hiding places and well-maintained and overlooked for security and provide a sense of security for all users.
• Structure: Places that are structured so that different uses do not cause conflict.
• Lighting: Ensuring appropriate and non-obtrusive lighting levels are achieved.
• Private space: Creating a clear separation between public and private spaces, avoiding public routes next to back gardens.
• Surveillance: Places where all publicly accessible spaces are overlooked.
• Ownership: Places that promote a sense of ownership, respect, territorial responsibility and community.
• Activity: Places where the level of human activity is appropriate to the location reduces the risk of crime and creates a sense of safety at all times.
• Management and maintenance: Places that are designed with management and maintenance in mind, to discourage crime in the present and the future.

In practice this means that Secured by Design status for new developments can be achieved through careful design. Developers should, at an early stage, seek consultation and advice from the Police Designing out Crime Officers at Cambridgeshire Police Headquarters on designing out crime.

Support

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59331

Received: 18/11/2021

Respondent: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group

Representation Summary:

Healthcare Centre - Paragraph 12.7 -12.8

It was encouraging to note the consideration of future healthcare within the village and look forward to receiving further details in due course.

Full text:

Thank you for sharing the link to the Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan.

It was encouraging to note the consideration of future healthcare within the village and look forward to receiving further details in due course.

Healthcare Centre
12.7 Retaining and improving healthcare facilities within the village is a key priority. This was already one of the objectives of the Village Plan in 2009 and not enough progress has been made since then. A survey and report by the current medical practice has found that:
• The Fulbourn Health Centre is no longer fit for purpose. It is too small to meet the health needs of an ageing and growing village population and it would be inadequate to meet the needs of the increased population (around 20% more by 2031). It also serves some of the villagers from Teversham, Great Wilbraham and Little Wilbraham.
• The building occupies a large site, ideally located in the heart of the village and close to a bus stop. Redevelopment or extension on the current site could be an option.
• Healthcare provision is changing, shifting towards integrated services, social care and life-style support: a new building will be necessary to create an integrated centre enabling staff and services to work in a joined-up way, with improved connections between Primary Care, Mental Health and Social Services, and allowing the teaching of medical staff on site.

12.8 The community supports the retention, and where possible, expansion of the Health Centre at its current locations. The establishment of a new multi-functional facility with increased capacity for consulting and treatment rooms, an on-site pharmacy, other medical and social services and voluntary sector occupiers will be encouraged. Enabling residential development will also be favourably considered, if appropriate to the capacity of the site and character and amenity of the area.
• A multi-purpose Health Centre should be located at the heart of the village, to be easily accessible and to enable joined-up services, either at its current location or in an alternative site providing the same level of accessibility and the possibility of integrated services.”

Support

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59332

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

We do not consider it necessary for Historic England to provide detailed comments at this time. We would refer you to any previous comments submitted at Regulation 14 stage, and for any further information to our detailed advice on successfully incorporating historic environment considerations into your neighbourhood plan, which can be found here: https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/planning/plan-making/improve-your-neighbourhood/

Full text:

Thank you for inviting Historic England to comment on the Regulation 16 Submission version of this Neighbourhood Plan.

We do not consider it necessary for Historic England to provide detailed comments at this time. We would refer you to any previous comments submitted at Regulation 14 stage, and for any further information to our detailed advice on successfully incorporating historic environment considerations into your neighbourhood plan, which can be found here: https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/planning/plan-making/improve-your-neighbourhood/

I would be grateful if you would notify me if and when the Neighbourhood Plan is made by the district council. To avoid any doubt, this letter does not reflect our obligation to provide further advice on or, potentially, object to specific proposals which may subsequently arise as a result of the proposed NP, where we consider these would have an adverse effect on the historic environment.

Attachments:

Object

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59333

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: Hill Residential

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

.

Change suggested by respondent:

Requested Change
It is requested that Draft FNP is amended to include a strategy to meet the identified affordable housing needs for those with a local connection and to ensure the delivery of an extension to the recreation ground and a new multi-purpose health centre, to achieve Planning Objectives No.4 and No.6.

Requested Change
In the absence of any mechanism for the delivery of the extension to the recreation ground, it is requested that this site allocation is deleted from Figures 8 and 19 and Policy FUL/14.
The site selection and consultation processes for the proposed allocation for an extension to the recreation ground were not consistent with national guidance, and in these circumstances, it is requested that this site allocation is deleted from Figures 8 and 19 and Policy FUL/14.
It is requested that the proposed extension to the recreation ground is discussed with Hill Residential to explore how it could be delivered, including in conjunction with residential development.

Requested Change
The following changes are requested to Policy FUL/01
It is requested that the ‘locally important views’ designation at land off Home End (Ref. C8) is deleted from Bullet Point No.4 and from Figures 8 and 9.
It is requested that references to openness and appearance of fields that contribute to the setting of the ‘locally important views’ is deleted from Bullet Point No.5.
It is requested that reference to compliance with the Fulbourn Village Design Guide is deleted from Bullet Point No.6.

Requested Change
It is requested that Policy FUL/02 is deleted because it repeats development plan policies and national and local guidance on development outside village boundaries and design matters.

Requested Change
It is requested that Policy FUL/04 is deleted or revised.

Requested Change
It is requested that Policy FUL/07 and Policy FUL/11 are deleted.

Requested Change
It is requested that Section 10 is amended to include a clear commitment that all identified local affordable housing needs will be met by 2031, and to assess and allocate housing sites where affordable housing or a proportion of affordable housing can be delivered. If it is not possible to identify enough land to meet affordable housing needs because of policy constraints, then Section 10 should include a commitment to support the release of land from the Green Belt through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan process to ensure the delivery of additional affordable housing in Fulbourn.

Requested Change
In the absence of any mechanism for the delivery of the extension to the recreation ground, it is requested that this site allocation is deleted from Policy FUL/14 and from Figures 8 and 19.
The site selection and consultation processes for the proposed allocation for an extension to the recreation ground were not consistent with national guidance, and in these circumstances, it is requested that this site allocation is deleted from Policy FUL/14 and from Figures 8 and 19.
It is requested that the proposed extension to the recreation ground is discussed with Hill Residential to explore how it could be delivered, including in conjunction with residential development.

Requested Change
It is requested that Policy FUL/15 and the supporting text is amended to explain how the proposed multi-purpose health centre would be delivered, including an indication of sources of funding, potential suitable relocation sites, and potential suitable enabling residential sites. In the absence of any strategy or mechanism for the delivery of the multi-purpose health centre, it is requested that Policy FUL/15 is deleted.

Full text:

REPRESENTATIONS TO REG.16 DRAFT SUBMISSION FULBOURN NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

Planning Objectives
OBJECT

Paragraph 5.6 of the Draft Submission Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan (Draft FNP) identifies the planning objectives for the document. There are two planning objectives that are relevant to these representations for Hill Residential, which are as follows: 4. Have a mix of housing that is affordable, available, and suitable for all ages and appropriate to the village location; and 6. Improve amenities and community facilities.

As highlighted in the representations to Section 10: Housing, Draft FNP does not allocate any land for housing development, and the outstanding housing commitments for major development (at the Ida Darwin Hospital and land off Teversham Road sites) already define affordable housing obligations with only a small proportion specifically directed to those with a local connection to Fulbourn. As such, Draft FNP would have no influence on the delivery of affordable housing in Fulbourn because decisions about housing and affordable housing within the village have already been taken. Draft FNP does not seek to address the current identified needs for affordable housing for those with a local connection or the concerns raised by residents and employers about housing affordability. It is considered that Planning Objective No.4 is ineffective because affordable housing needs for those with a local connection will remain unmet during the plan period to 2031.

As highlighted in the representations to Policies FUL/14: Community Facilities and FUL/15: Healthcare Facilities, it is not clear whether there is landowner agreement for the proposed extension to the recreation ground, how or where the proposed new multi-purpose health centre would be provided, or where the community aspiration for additional allotments would be located. It is noted that the housing commitments at the Ida Darwin Hospital and land off Teversham Road sites already define planning obligations for health and community facilities, and include health service funding for Cherry Hinton Health Centre. Draft FNP contains no strategy to ensure the delivery or funding of these community facilities during the plan period to 2031, and as such Planning Objective No.6 is ineffective because the amenities and community facilities in the village would not be improved. Draft FNP ignores the fact that new recreation, health, and community facilities are typically delivered in conjunction with new development or funded in part by planning obligations derived from new development, but does not consider this approach to deliver new or improved facilities.

Requested Change

It is requested that Draft FNP is amended to include a strategy to meet the identified affordable housing needs for those with a local connection and to ensure the delivery of an extension to the recreation ground and a new multi-purpose health centre, to achieve Planning Objectives No.4 and No.6.



Figure 8: Neighbourhood Plan Policy Map Summary
OBJECT

Hill Residential owns the land east of Balsham Road in Fulbourn. A site location plan is enclosed with these representations. A part of this site is identified for a proposed extension to the recreation ground in Policy FUL/14 of Draft FNP. The land off Balsham Road has been promoted through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan by Hill Residential for residential development including an extension to the recreation ground,

As set out in the representations to Policy FUL/14, the planning obligations for local sport and recreation facilities from the two committed housing developments in Fulbourn (at the Ida Darwin Hospital site and at land off Teversham Road) are already specified in the respective s106 Agreements, and do not relate to an extension of the recreation ground. There are no other large scale developments planned or proposed within Fulbourn, and the Draft FNP makes no allocations where planning obligations could be sought to contribute towards the proposed extension to the recreation ground. It is not explained how the proposed extension to the recreation ground would be delivered or funded in the absence of new development, and as such must be uncertain. There is no information provided in Policy FUL/14 and associated supporting text or any evidence document about the site selection process for the proposed extension to the recreation ground or details of discussions with the affected landowner, Hill Residential. There should be some evidence provided with Draft FNP that the land required for the proposed extension to the recreation has been discussed with the landowner and that there is at least an agreement in principle, but that is not the case. Therefore, the site selection and consultation processes for the proposed allocation for an extension to the recreation ground were not consistent with national guidance. For these reasons, and as requested in Hill Residential’s representations to Policy FUL/14, the site allocation for the proposed extension to the recreation ground should be is deleted from Figures 8 and 19 and Policy FUL/14.

The option of funding and delivering an extension to the recreation ground with residential development was not considered or assessed in Draft FNP. It is requested that the proposed extension to the recreation ground is discussed with Hill Residential to explore how it could be delivered, including in conjunction with residential development.

Requested Change

In the absence of any mechanism for the delivery of the extension to the recreation ground, it is requested that this site allocation is deleted from Figures 8 and 19 and Policy FUL/14.

The site selection and consultation processes for the proposed allocation for an extension to the recreation ground were not consistent with national guidance, and in these circumstances, it is requested that this site allocation is deleted from Figures 8 and 19 and Policy FUL/14.

It is requested that the proposed extension to the recreation ground is discussed with Hill Residential to explore how it could be delivered, including in conjunction with residential development.


Policy FUL/01: Protecting the Distinctiveness and Landscape Setting of Fulbourn
OBJECT

Policy FUL/01 seeks to protect the setting of Fulbourn, and refers to the rural setting of locally important views and the openness and appearance of fields. It also refers to the guidance provided in the Fulbourn Village Design Guide.

It is noted that the Green Belt and the Development Framework boundaries in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 already limits the extent of development around the village, and severely restrict the possibility of any major new development coming forward in the future other than existing commitments which already have planning permission. The designated village amenity areas, local green space and important countryside frontage designations in the adopted Local Plan identify areas within the Development Framework boundary of the village where additional development of all types is prevented. It is considered that Policy FUL/01 and Draft FNP seeks to identify additional policy designations around all parts of the village to prevent any major development from coming forward or being allocated through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan process.

Bullet Point No.5 of Policy FUL/01 seeks to avoid adverse impacts on the openness and appearance of fields that contribute to the setting of the ‘locally important views’. Hill Residential owns land east of Balsham Road, which could fall within the setting of the proposed ‘locally important view’ Ref. C8 (South eastwards from Home End across the Recreation Ground). There are two matters of concern with the proposed ‘locally important view’ Ref. C8, firstly there is no evidence to support such a designation in this location, and secondly this designation replicates development plan policy and national guidance that already controls development in this location.

Evidence Paper 1: Key Village Views, prepared to support Draft FNP, claims to provide the evidence for the ‘locally important views’ designation. However, it is noted that there are no photographs or illustrative material provided in Evidence Paper 1 to show those important views or to highlight their particular importance. The ‘view’ from off Home End and ‘locally important view’ Ref. C8 is of buildings, a paddock, a car park, and a sport and recreation ground including cricket and football pitches, a skateboard park, bowling green, tennis courts, and multi-use games area, an equipped play area, and a sports pavilion building. The ‘view’ from this location is dominated by the sport and recreation facilities, and there are no landmarks or features that make this ‘view’ particularly important to justify special protection. The land east of Balsham Road, owned by Hill Residential, is not visible from Home End because of the existing mature trees and hedgerows at the site boundary, which in any event would be retained as part of the promoted development. Paragraph 041 (Ref ID: 41) of the Planning Practice Guidance states that “It [neighbourhood plan policies] should be concise, precise and supported by appropriate evidence”. In the absence of any evidence the proposed ‘locally important view’ designation at Ref. C8 is not consistent with national guidance and does not meet Basic Condition (a). It is requested that the ‘locally important views’ designation from off Home End (Ref. C8) is deleted from Policy FUL/01 and from Figures 8 and 9.

The adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 includes policies on the Green Belt (Policy S/4) and Development Frameworks (Policy S/7). The adopted Policies Map defines the boundaries for both these designations. Policy S/4 refers to national Green Belt policy, which is set out in Section 13 of the NPPF. The principles of openness, preventing unrestricted sprawl and the coalescence of settlements, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and protecting the setting of settlements is already established in national Green Belt policy – see Paragraphs 137 and 138. Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that plans should “serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant)”. It is not necessary for Bullet Point No.5 of Policy FUL/01 to repeat development plan and national guidance on openness of the Green Belt or development plan policies restricting development outside village boundaries. Therefore, Policy FUL/01 is not consistent with national guidance and does not meet Basic Condition (a). It is requested that references to openness and appearance of fields that contribute to the setting of the ‘locally important views’ is deleted from Bullet Point No.5.

Bullet Point No.6 refers to the Fulbourn Village Design Guide. The Guide is adopted as a supplementary planning document, and provides design guidance for the village in the context of Policy HQ1: Design Principles of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan. Therefore, any development proposals in Fulbourn would already be assessed against Policy HQ1 and the guidance in the Fulbourn Village Design Guide. Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 of the NPPF seeks to avoid the duplication of policies, and therefore it is not necessary for Bullet Point No.6 of Policy FUL/01 to repeat existing development plan policy and adopted guidance, and does not meet Basic Condition (a). It is requested that reference to compliance with the Fulbourn Village Design Guide is deleted from Bullet Point No.6. Furthermore, the Fulbourn Village Design Guide was not informed by any landscape or visual evidence, and some of the terminology used in the document to describe parcels of land is not explained or robust. For example, Figure 17 of the Guide identifies the land off Home End as ‘fields with sensitive visual relationship with the village’ and as a ‘key outwards views from the village’. As set out above, the land off Home End is surrounded by buildings and a car park with sport and recreation facilities beyond, and as such the site is not sensitive and it has limited physical or visual relationship with the countryside and does not represent a ‘key’ outward view from the village. Therefore, the Fulbourn Village Design Guide does not provide the evidence to explain or justify the designations referred to in Policy FUL/01.

Requested Change

The following changes are requested to Policy FUL/01

It is requested that the ‘locally important views’ designation at land off Home End (Ref. C8) is deleted from Bullet Point No.4 and from Figures 8 and 9.

It is requested that references to openness and appearance of fields that contribute to the setting of the ‘locally important views’ is deleted from Bullet Point No.5.

It is requested that reference to compliance with the Fulbourn Village Design Guide is deleted from Bullet Point No.6.


Policy FUL/02: Development outside the Development Framework
OBJECT

As set out in the representations to Policy FUL/01, the Green Belt and the Development Framework boundary around Fulbourn are already defined in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, and the type and mix of uses permitted in these locations is already defined in development plan policy and national guidance. Policy HQ1 of the adopted Local Plan already adequately deals with design matters, and further guidance is provided in the National Design Guide and in Planning Practice Guidance. The Fulbourn Village Design Guide provides local guidance. Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that plans should “serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant)”. It is not necessary for Policy FUL/02 to repeat development plan policies or national and local guidance on development outside village boundaries or design matters. Therefore, Policy FUL/02 is not consistent with national guidance and does not meet Basic Condition (a).

Requested Change

It is requested that Policy FUL/02 is deleted because it repeats development plan policies and national and local guidance on development outside village boundaries and design matters.


Policy FUL/04: Protection and Enhancement of Natural Features
OBJECT

Policy FUL/04 seeks to protect and enhance natural features. However, the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan already contains policies relating to drainage, design, landscape character, and the natural environment; see for example Policy CC/8: Sustainable Drainage Systems; Policy HQ/1: Design Principles; Policy NH/2: Protecting and Enhancing Landscape Character; Policy NH/4: Biodiversity; Policy NH/5: Sites of Biodiversity or Geological Importance; Policy NH/6: Green Infrastructure; and Policy NH/7: Ancient Woodlands and Veteran Trees. Section 12 of the NPPF sets out national policy on design, and the National Design Guide and in Planning Practice Guidance provide further guidance on design matters. Section 14 of the NPPF includes national policy on flood risk and drainage matters. Section 15 of the NPPF sets out national policy to protect and enhance the natural environment.

Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that plans should “serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant)”. It is not necessary for Policy FUL/04 to repeat development plan policies and national guidance on drainage, design, landscape character, and natural environment related matters, and to do so does not meet Basic Condition (a). It is requested that Policy FUL/04 is deleted or revised.

Requested Change

It is requested that Policy FUL/04 is deleted or revised.


Policy FUL/07. Building and Landscape Design & Policy FUL/11: Housing Design Quality
OBJECT

Policy FUL/07 contains detailed design policy, which includes details relating to building heights, parking, and cycling arrangements, waste collection facilities, materials, and landscaping. Policy FUL/11 contains additional design policies for housing.

Policy HQ1 of the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan already adequately deals with design matters relating to site context, materials, car parking, cycle parking, waste collection facilities, and landscaping. Policy H/8 of the Local Plan indicates an average net density of 30 dwellings per hectare for Minor Rural Centres, but subject to local circumstances. Policy CC/3 of the Local Plan sets requirements to reduce carbon emissions and the use of renewable energy. The adopted Fulbourn Village Design Guide already provides local design guidance. The adopted Greater Cambridge Sustainable Design and Construction SPD provides further guidance on carbon reduction, water conservation, and energy use for residential developments. There is further design guidance provided in the National Design Guide and in Planning Practice Guidance.

Criteria (f) of Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that plans should “serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant)”. It is not necessary for Policy FUL/07 and Policy FUL/11 to repeat development plan policies and national or local guidance on design matters. Therefore, Policy FUL/07 and Policy FUL/11 are not consistent with national guidance and does not meet Basic Condition (a), and as such should be deleted.

Requested Change

It is requested that Policy FUL/07 and Policy FUL/11 are deleted.


Section 10: Housing
OBJECT

Section 10 of Draft FNP relates to housing, and Policy FUL/09 relates to housing developments including local housing needs. In summary, Section 10 refers to housing needs data and committed housing developments in Fulbourn. It is noted that despite the current and longstanding need for affordable housing in the village, there are no housing allocations or strategy to deliver housing or affordable housing in Draft FNP.

South Cambridgeshire District Council’s ‘Housing Statistical Information Leaflet’ (December 2019) provides the most recent information on local affordable housing needs i.e. those with a local connection to villages in the District, including Fulbourn, Teversham and Great Wilbraham – see https://www.scambs.gov.uk/media/18316/affordable-housing-housing-statistical-information-leaflet-december-2019.pdf. The current, immediate, local housing needs for these three villages is as follows: Fulbourn – 65; Teversham – 21; and Great Wilbraham – 4. The Affordable Housing Needs Survey carried out by ACRE in December 2015 is out of date. The affordable housing needs of Teversham and Great Wilbraham could be met in Fulbourn, since these two villages are referred to in local connection criteria for recent affordable housing planning obligations. The current local affordable housing need should be stated as 90 dwellings. It should be noted that this current need does not consider future needs that are likely to arise during the plan period and these also need to be planned for.
Paragraph 10.3 refers to the number of dwellings to be provided at three existing housing commitments, and it is assumed that affordable housing needs would be met from these developments. However, as set out below, that is not the case. The details of the three committed housing commitments are as follows:
• App Ref. S/3396/17/FL: A rural exception housing scheme off Balsham Road for 14 affordable dwellings. The s106 Agreement includes a planning obligation requiring the affordable housing to be occupied by those that can demonstrate a local connection to Fulbourn. The development was completed in 2019, occupied by households with a local connection, and contributed towards reducing the affordable housing needs of the village.
• App Ref. S/0202/17/OL: An application for 110 dwellings off Teversham Road, with 30% affordable housing which equates to 33 affordable dwellings. The s106 Agreement includes an affordable housing obligation requiring the first 8 affordable dwellings only to be offered to those that can demonstrate a local connection, with the remainder of the affordable housing available for district-wide housing needs.
• S/0670/17/OL: An application for 203 dwellings at the former Ida Darwin Hospital site, with 40% affordable housing which equates to 81 dwellings. The s106 Agreement does not include any obligations specifying that affordable housing must be offered to those with a local connection, and therefore the affordable housing is available for district-wide needs.

Therefore, the Balsham Road site is occupied so is no longer available for local households in affordable housing need, a small proportion of the Teversham Road development is available for current local housing needs, and none of the Ida Darwin Hospital development will be specifically allocated to meet local housing needs. It is acknowledged that those with a local connection to Fulbourn, Teversham and Great Wilbraham might apply for an affordable dwelling at the Teversham Road and Ida Darwin Hospital developments, but it is likely that most affordable dwellings provided at these developments will be allocated to meet district-wide housing needs. The affordable housing needs of 8 households with a local connection to Fulbourn would be met from these two developments, and the affordable housing needs of some others with a local connection might also be met, but it is very likely that a substantial proportion of current local housing needs will remain unmet. It is inevitable that additional affordable housing needs will arise soon, from within Fulbourn, Teversham and Great Wilbraham and across the district. A fundamental role of the FNP must be to plan for those affordable housing needs to be met.

As set out elsewhere in these representations, there are existing development plan policies and national designations that limit the amount of new housing that can be provided within and on the edge of Fulbourn e.g. Green Belt, Development Frameworks, Conservation Area, Listed Buildings, Local Green Space, Protected Village Amenity Area, Important Countryside Gap etc, and Draft FNP seeks to create additional restrictive policy designations e.g. ‘locally important views’. Any rural exception housing scheme is still required to address impacts on Green Belt openness and satisfy all other policy designations, and is reliant on a willing landowner to gift land for this purpose. It is likely that any redevelopment or infill development opportunities within Fulbourn would be small scale and fall below the threshold where affordable housing is required. In these circumstances, it is not clear how, where or when the current identified affordable housing needs of the village will be met, and Draft FNP takes no action to ensure that affordable housing needs are met. It is considered that the problems and consequences associated with not providing enough affordable housing in Fulbourn – as highlighted in Paragraphs 10.18 to 10.20 of Draft FNP - will continue for the foreseeable future.

Paragraph 8 of the NPPF identifies the three strands of sustainable development, and the social objective includes meeting housing needs. Paragraph 15 expects plans to provide a framework for addressing housing needs. Paragraph 60 sets out the Government’s objective to boost significantly the supply of housing. Paragraph 62 expects planning policies to reflect the needs for different types of housing including affordable housing. As explained above, the affordable housing needs of Fulbourn are known, but Draft FNP contains no allocations or policies to ensure the delivery of additional affordable housing. Therefore, Section 10 is inconsistent with national guidance and so does not meet Basic Condition (a), and would not achieve sustainable development because affordable housing needs would remain unmet and so does not meet Basic Condition (d).

Requested Change

It is requested that Section 10 is amended to include a clear commitment that all identified local affordable housing needs will be met by 2031, and to assess and allocate housing sites where affordable housing or a proportion of affordable housing can be delivered. If it is not possible to identify enough land to meet affordable housing needs because of policy constraints, then Section 10 should include a commitment to support the release of land from the Green Belt through the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan process to ensure the delivery of additional affordable housing in Fulbourn.


Policy FUL/14: Community Facilities
OBJECT

Policy FUL/14 allocates land for an extension to the recreation ground, which is identified on Figures 8 and 19. The rationale for seeking an extension to the recreation ground is explained in Paragraph 12.5. Hill Residential own the land for the proposed extension to the recreation ground.
Firstly, it is noted that some improvements to community facilities will be delivered soon via planning obligations from the committed developments at the Ida Darwin Hospital site and at land of Teversham Road. The s106 Agreement for the Ida Darwin Hospital site includes planning obligations relating to open space and play areas to be provided on site, but there are no obligations relating to sport and recreation facilities. The s106 Agreement for the land off Teversham Road development includes a sports space contribution for the refurbishment or extension of the sports pavilion, but no obligations relating to land for sport and recreation facilities. There are no other large scale developments planned or proposed within Fulbourn, and the Draft FNP makes no allocations where planning obligations could be sought to contribute towards the proposed extension to the recreation ground. Policy FUL/14 does not explain how the proposed extension to the recreation ground would be delivered or funded in the absence of new development. Paragraph 93 of the NPPF expects planning policies to support the delivery of the social, recreational, and cultural facilities and services the community needs. The delivery of the proposed extension to the recreation ground must be uncertain in the absence of a delivery mechanism. For this reason, Policy FUL/14 is inconsistent with national guidance and so does not meet Basic Condition (a). In the absence of any mechanism for the delivery of the extension to the recreation ground, it is requested that this site allocation is deleted from Policy FUL/14 and from Figures 8 and 19.

Secondly, there is no information provided in Policy FUL/14 and associated supporting text or any evidence document about the site selection process for the proposed extension to the recreation ground or details of discussions with the affected landowner. Paragraph 042 (Ref ID: 41) of the Planning Practice Guidance allows a neighbourhood plan to allocate sites for development, but it also states that “A qualifying body should carry out an appraisal of options and an assessment of individual sites against clearly identified criteria”. Paragraph 048 deals with consultation requirements for neighbourhood plans, and states in part that “…Other public bodies, landowners and the development industry should, as necessary and appropriate be involved in preparing a draft neighbourhood plan or Order. By doing this qualifying bodies will be better placed to produce plans that provide for sustainable development which benefits the local community whilst avoiding placing unrealistic pressures on the cost and deliverability of that development”. There should be some evidence provided with Draft FNP that the land required for the proposed extension to the recreation has been discussed with the landowner and that there is at least an agreement in principle, but that is not the case. Therefore, the site selection and consultation processes for the proposed allocation for an extension to the recreation ground were not consistent with national guidance, and so do not meet Basic Condition (a). In these circumstances, it is requested that the site allocation for the proposed extension to the recreation ground is deleted from Policy FUL/14 and from Figures 8 and 19.

Hill Residential owns the land for the proposed extension to the recreation ground. Hill Residential’s call for sites submission and representations to the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan process did propose an extension to the recreation ground in conjunction with residential development. The option of funding and delivering an extension to the recreation ground with residential development was not considered or assessed in Draft FNP.

It is very likely that the proposed extension to the recreation ground will remain an undelivered aspiration without landowner support or a planning obligation from associated residential development. It is requested that the proposed extension to the recreation ground is discussed with Hill Residential to explore how it could be delivered, including in conjunction with residential development.

Requested Change

In the absence of any mechanism for the delivery of the extension to the recreation ground, it is requested that this site allocation is deleted from Policy FUL/14 and from Figures 8 and 19.
The site selection and consultation processes for the proposed allocation for an extension to the recreation ground were not consistent with national guidance, and in these circumstances, it is requested that this site allocation is deleted from Policy FUL/14 and from Figures 8 and 19.
It is requested that the proposed extension to the recreation ground is discussed with Hill Residential to explore how it could be delivered, including in conjunction with residential development.


Policy FUL/15: Healthcare Facilities
OBJECT

Policy FUL/15 relates to existing and future healthcare facilities in the village, and seeks to support additional health related facilities either on the site of the existing health centre or at another location within the village. Paragraphs 12.7 and 12.8 seeks to explain the rationale for additional health facilities, and refers to enabling residential development to support the delivery of additional facilities. The aspiration for a new health centre for the village has existed for several years.
It is noted that some improvements to community facilities will be delivered soon via planning obligations from the proposed developments at the Ida Darwin Hospital site and at land off Teversham Road. The s106 Agreements for both these developments include planning obligations towards the health services at Cherry Hinton Health Centre, but not for the Fulbourn Health Centre. There are no other large scale developments planned or proposed within Fulbourn, and the Draft FNP makes no allocations for residential development where planning obligations could be sought to contribute towards additional health facilities.

It is not clear whether any local health service or provider has identified a need for additional or new health facilities in Fulbourn and has a strategy to deliver such a facility; recent planning obligations have been directed to Cherry Hinton Health Centre. It is not clear whether funding is available to support the delivery of the proposed new multi-purpose health centre, either on the existing site or elsewhere within the village. If a new site is required, it is not clear whether land or a suitable site is available. There are no significant previously developed land opportunities available in the village, existing development plan policies and national designations limit development opportunities outside the village boundary e.g. Green Belt and Development Frameworks, and Draft FNP seeks to create additional restrictive policy designations e.g. ‘locally important views’. Furthermore, Draft FNP makes no allocations for residential development that might enable the delivery of a multi-purpose health centre. If there is no strategy or mechanism for the provision of a new multi-purpose health centre in the village it is unlikely that it would be delivered, and as such will remain an aspiration only.

Paragraph 93 of the NPPF expects planning policies to support the delivery of community facilities including health facilities and the delivery of health strategies. As set out above, the delivery of the proposed multi-purpose health centre is uncertain. For this reason, Policy FUL/15 is inconsistent with national guidance and so does not meet Basic Condition (a). Therefore, in the absence of any strategy or mechanism for the delivery of the multi-purpose health centre, including land for a new building or land for enabling residential development, it is requested that Policy FUL/15 is deleted.
Draft FNP does not consider the option of a multi-purpose health centre being delivered in conjunction with additional residential development. For example, if allocated for residential development the land owned by Hill Residential to the east of Balsham Road could make planning contributions towards additional health facilities in the village.

Requested Change

It is requested that Policy FUL/15 and the supporting text is amended to explain how the proposed multi-purpose health centre would be delivered, including an indication of sources of funding, potential suitable relocation sites, and potential suitable enabling residential sites. In the absence of any strategy or mechanism for the delivery of the multi-purpose health centre, it is requested that Policy FUL/15 is deleted.

Support

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59334

Received: 30/12/2021

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

Polcies FUL/03 and FUL/04

Generally supportive of the content of policies FUL/03 ‘Creating a connected GI network’ and FUL/04 ‘Protection and enhancement of natural environment.’

The Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan area although mostly at low risk of fluvial flooding, does have some areas of Flood Zone 2 and 3 (medium and high risk of flooding from watercourses/rivers) along the drains and at the top of the boundary of the area adjacent to Bottisham/Quy/Wilbraham main river. The area also has sensitivity in terms of groundwater, there are chalk formations forming the bedrock and a groundwater Source Protection Zone. Therefore policy FUL/04 could have included some local principles around avoiding and managing flood risk and protecting water quality whether surface water or groundwater. We appreciate there may be limited scope to incorporate amendments at this stage and there is also opportunities to incorporate the necessary policy principles and requirements within the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan, which will also be of benefit to this area.

Full text:

Thank you for notifying us of the consultation above.

We are generally supportive of the content of policies FUL/03 ‘Creating a connected GI network’ and FUL/04 ‘Protection and enhancement of natural environment.’

The Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan area although mostly at low risk of fluvial flooding, does have some areas of Flood Zone 2 and 3 (medium and high risk of flooding from watercourses/rivers) along the drains and at the top of the boundary of the area adjacent to Bottisham/Quy/Wilbraham main river. The area also has sensitivity in terms of groundwater, there are chalk formations forming the bedrock and a groundwater Source Protection Zone. Therefore policy FUL/04 could have included some local principles around avoiding and managing flood risk and protecting water quality whether surface water or groundwater. We appreciate there may be limited scope to incorporate amendments at this stage and there is also opportunities to incorporate the necessary policy principles and requirements within the emerging GC Local Plan, which will also be of benefit to this area.

We have no further comments.

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59338

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Fulbourn Conservation Area Appraisal

In parallel with the pre-submission public consultation of the Plan SCDC was carrying out a consultation on the revised Fulbourn and Fulbourn Hospital Conservation area appraisal (CAA). This appraisal was adopted in September 2021 and we consider needs to be mentioned within the Plan. Amendments to the conservation area were made in this new appraisal – it would be helpful if the new boundary were shown within the Plan or mention that they have changed from those shown in Figure 2.

6. The CAA includes a list of possible non-designated heritage assets as well as a map showing buildings that make a valuable contribution to the overall character of the Fulbourn conservation area. The buildings identified as non-designated heritage assets have been included in Policy FUL/05 Protecting and Enhancing Village Character but are not listed or shown on a map. We consider this a missed opportunity. A map is included in the CAA which could be added to the Plan. The policy is relying upon the future user of the Plan cross referring to the CAA.

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59339

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Extant planning permissions
Within the Fulbourn Neighbourhood Area there are some large schemes where outline planning permission has been given by SCDC and reserved matters are still to be considered. We wish to ensure that the policies contained within the neighbourhood plan take into account /are complementary to these permissions and do not adversely attempt to over-ride them. For example, that for the Fulbourn and Ida Darwin Hospital sites which are identified for redevelopment in the adopted Local Plan – Policy H/3. We will specify within the comments below for each policy where we consider it appropriate that changes should be made.

Relevant list of planning applications contained in full submission

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59340

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

3 Planning Policy Framework

Figure 2. The policy designations from the Local Plan used in this map do not use the correct terms. e.g., Village Amenity Area should be Protected Village Amenity Area. We would suggest that such corrections should be made to the Plan post examination and ahead of the referendum to avoid confusion with the different designations

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59341

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

4 Local Context

Paragraph 4.44 - There’s a very minor typo – include ‘which has a ditch with an important vascular and nationally scarce plant.’ It would be helpful to also include the common name ‘Fen pondweed’ for clarity.

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59342

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Policy FUL/01 Protecting the Distinctiveness and Landscape Setting of Fulbourn.

The supporting text to Policy FUL/1 has undergone much change since the Regulation 14 consultation. It more clearly describes the intensions of the policy setting out clearly the difference between the different elements in the policy for protecting the setting of Fulbourn – the important visual gap, important countryside frontages and the locally important views. This is to be welcomed.

Part 2 of policy –There should be a reference to the map that the Important Visual Gap is identified on ‘….as shown on Map 9 and the Policies Map’. We welcome that Figure 9 is consistent with the current Ida Darwin application.

Part 4 of policy –Part 5 of the policy explains the role of these views and we consider this wording should sit within the same section of the policy as the list of views. It should be noted that planning policy cannot control agricultural land uses or retain woodland unless it includes protected trees or is an ancient woodland.

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59343

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Policy FUL/02 – Development Outside the Development Framework.

Part 1 – This is repeating the Local Plan policy for development frameworks and does not, in our view, offer anything specific to Fulbourn. (Policy S/7 Development Frameworks).

Part 2b – We consider that this criterion should have a caveat regarding tree surveys and allowing for essential works to improve woodlands/trees and removal of dangerous trees.

Part 2c - The policy mentions ‘appropriate levels of street lighting’ but does not explain in the supporting text what would be appropriate. How would a planning officer know what is appropriate in determining a planning application?

Should there be a definition of what is meant by dark skies? Nowhere around Cambridge is a designated dark sky zone so should a different term, such as minimising light pollution arising from new development, be used to improve the darkness of certain areas? There may also need to be a consideration of the balance between lighting and safety.

Part 2d – How would this criterion be achieved to maintain in perpetuity a soft outer edge to Fulbourn?

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59344

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

7 Enhancing Rural Environment

Paragraph 7.8 – This paragraph could be updated to reflect that the Environment Act has Royal Assent. Wording such as the following could be added to the Plan – ‘The Environment Act 2021 has introduced a requirement for all developments in England to deliver ‘biodiversity net gain’ of at least 10%. There will be a transition period of two years to enable Natural England to establish the delivery mechanisms.’

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59345

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Policy FUL/03 Creating a Connected Green Infrastructure Network.
The supporting text has been changed a lot from the version of the Plan consulted upon at Regulation 14. A new policy has been added. SCDC has concerns that this policy has not been subject to full consultation prior to submission and could be considered a major change to the Plan. Development proposals are being asked to contribute towards the creation of an extended Green Infrastructure Network. In the previous Plan this was a simple criterion in Policy FUL/04 Protection and Enhancement of Nature Features - 2b.

The policy is supported by Figure 11 which shows an indicative green infrastructure network. Whilst supporting the principle of showing clearly the green infrastructure within the parish, we have concerns that this is the first time such a map has shown the extent of this infrastructure in the Draft Neighbourhood Plan. The supporting text to this policy sets out a clear narrative as to why such an infrastructure would be important including relevant studies that promote such greening, but this is new information to the plan.

The inclusion of a connected green infrastructure network is welcomed. With support and advice from the Wildlife Trust for Beds, Cambs and Northants, this network has the potential to contribute to the Nature Recovery Network to be developed in Cambridgeshire in line with the requirements of the Environment Act 2021.

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59346

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Policy FUL/03 Creating a Connected Green Infrastructure Network.

Part 1 of the policy – It is not clear how development proposals could contribute towards the creation of an extended Green Infrastructure network. Since much of the network is outside of the built-up area of the village over agricultural land within the Green Belt what development in the future on this land would be expected to contribute to the creation of the network? Planning practice guidance notes that planning obligations should only be uses where it is:
• necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
• directly related to the development; and
• fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

These tests are set out as statutory tests in regulation 122 (as amended by the 2011 and 2019 Regulations) and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework. It is not clear how the intent of the Policy could be achieved by applying these tests.

Part 1 – final sentence – We are unsure what is meant by the term ‘potentially’ comprise – this implies uncertainty of what is included in the green infrastructure.

Part 1a – e – It is unclear whether all these features are included in Figure 11. We consider that these features should be clearly identified as they are included within the policy. Within (a) where are all the existing accessible open space? What is meant by designated green space – the local green space and Protected Village Amenity Areas? Which wildlife sites – ones designated? In (b) what is natural greenspace? In (c) where are the new green spaces and habitats – are these shown in Figure 11? In (d) are the permissive countryside routes shown? In (e) such areas of open space could be extensive.

This section could emphasis linking and improving connectivity, for example between locally protected sites, such as County Wildlife Sites, and nationally protected sites, such as SSSIs’. The terms ‘designated green spaces’ and ‘wildlife sites’ are rather vague. Where are the green spaces designated and are the wildlife sites designated anywhere?

Part 2 of the policy – The areas shown on Figure 11 indicating the network covers much land around the parish. It extends over both the Fulbourn and Ida Darwin hospital sites- this policy must take account of the existing planning permissions on these sites. Any future development within the parish would be impacted by this policy which strengthens our concerns about the specific lack of consultation on its detail.

Part 3 – How would this be achieved? Would creating such legal agreements make for a viable policy? Who would take responsibility for managing and maintaining the network on private land – SCDC? Parish Council? Wildlife Trust? The policy is unclear. It would be better to state that Green Infrastructure provided as part of a development will be retained through conditions.

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59347

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Figure 11
There a number of features shown on this map where it is not clear what they represent. What are ‘Possible new habitats/natural greenspace (Wildlife Trust)’? Are these explained within the Plan? Is the intension that they are protected/created within Policy FUL/03? Where are the sources for the ‘Existing Habitats and Woodlands’? Many of the areas shown are outside of the designated neighbourhood area. Whilst recognising that a green network does not stop at the border of a parish a neighbourhood plan cannot have a policy that extends beyond its neighbourhood area.

We are concerned that the ‘indicative green infrastructure network seems not to have a clear boundary on the map but rather has a symbol that fades in and out of focus. We will need clear boundaries to add into a policies map, so it is clear what areas are within the influence of the policy. Does the use of the term ‘indicative’ imply the network does not have a clear geographical layout?

It is unclear from the map what routes are for ecological movements versus those for sustainable transport like walking or cycle routes.

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59348

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Figure 12
The key to this map is similar to that of Figure 11 but it also includes ‘Other green spaces’. Are these protected in the Plan? It is unclear what these areas are.

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59350

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Policy FUL/04 Protection and Enhancement of Natural Features.
Part 2c – Mention could be made in the supporting text to this policy to highlight the Local Plan Policy SS/8 Sustainable Drainage Systems. Currently this criterion has no supporting text to explain why it is included in a policy.

Part 3 – We had previously asked for justification to be included in the supporting text as to why this section of the policy relates only to new developments of 10 units or more The NPPF defines a major housing site as being of ten or more or a site with an area greater than 0.5 hectares. We were concerned that the policy needed to be more flexible so that it takes into account if a developer submits a scheme for 9 dwellings and then a subsequent scheme for 8 which is equivalent to over 10 but not covered by your policy. We would suggest that the Policy would be clearer if the first line made reference to 0.5 hectares as well as 10 dwellings.

Part 3a – How does this link to the new policy FUL /03 that creates the Green Infrastructure? In the Regulation 14 version of the Plan this was the only element asking developers to contribute to a green infrastructure which had not been shown on a map. Habitat to promote a net gain in biodiversity is within FUL/03 1c – is this duplicating?

Part 3b – As with Part 3a of this policy it is unclear how this relates to the new policy FUL/03. Are the new areas of ‘Natural Greenspace’ those that are identified in Figures 11 and 12? Are these greenspaces formed as part of the development or is there an expectation for off-site contributions? There is no explanation in the supporting text as to what is meant by ‘Natural England’s definition of ‘Accessible Natural Greenspace’. On Figures 11and 12 these ‘new habitats’ are outside the built area of the village where development of any scale would not be expected to take place.

It is suggested that the supporting text makes reference to the document ‘Understanding the relevance and application of the Access to Natural Green Space Standard’ Natural England 2008. This updates information about the promotion and delivery of accessible nature green space. The English Nature report 153 is from the 1990s.

Part 3c – As noted in relation to our comments on Policy FUL/04, developers can only be asked to mitigate for losses outside their site (i.e. in the Parish) through a Section 106 Planning Obligation and where the Government rules can be met. They must be:
• necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
• directly related to the development; and
• fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

It should be noted that it will be possible to deliver Biodiversity Net Gain offsite outside the parish boundary if it contributes to strategic ecological networks or the Nature Recovery Network (yet to be drafted as an outcome of the Environment Act). Guidance on this is currently being drafted.

Part 3d - How would this criterion be achieved? Who would be able to test that the drainage patterns would not be compromised? How would a developer demonstrate this? Suggest it should state that proposals should be supported by supporting evidence that demonstrates that the existing drainage patterns will not be compromised. The supporting text could set out the parameters for what should be submitted.

Part 4 - It is unclear who would be responsible for monitoring the legal agreements to achieve this part of the policy. These can only be associated with a planning consent and therefore the policy should state "appropriate legal agreements associated with a planning consent."

Support

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59351

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Policy FUL/05 Local Green Spaces and Protected Village Amenity Areas

We welcome that the wording has been amended to this policy since Regulation 14. We do not consider it is necessary to include the second sentences within part 1 and part 2 of the policy as this is repeating the relevant Local Plan policies.

Part 1 – In the first sentence delete the unnecessary ‘a’ after designated as.

We welcome the unique references for each LGS and PVAA and note that additional sites have been added to the policy some of which were suggestions by us in our response to the Regulation 14 consultation.

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59352

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Policy FUL/05 Local Green Spaces and Protected Village Amenity Areas

New LGSs have been added at Fulbourn Hospital Parkland and Fulbourn Hospital Old Cemetery - The parish council has recently notified the landowners of these proposed designations. We have concerns that the extent of these LGSs is more that the ‘important green space’ shown in the adopted Fulbourn and Fulbourn Hospital Conservation Appraisal 2021( See page 27) Also, the Fulbourn hospital site has a development brief that includes some sites for development within the areas proposed as LGS. We have concerns therefore at the proposed boundaries and how these might impact the development of these sites. https://scambs.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s73905/Development%20Brief.pdf

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59353

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Policy FUL/05 Local Green Spaces and Protected Village Amenity Areas

For planning officers dealing with planning applications, it could be confusing if similar criteria are used in different policies and not clearly stated once in one policy. For example, criteria c in this policy about trees and hedgerows is already referred to in part in 1d of Policy FUL/04. There is no need to repeat policy requirements in separate policies as the Plan will be read as a whole and as appropriate to an application.

Part 2a – This criterion cross refers to Policy FUL/07 but we are unsure why this is required as these issues are not specifically mentioned in this policy?

Parts 2c – This appears to be repeating the requirements in Part 1d +1e of Policy FUL/04 regarding trees?

Part 2d – This criterion previously had ‘diverse’ built frontages which has now been replaced by ‘fragmented’. We still have concerns about how such terms could be interpreted. Is it clear what the policy is asking for and it might be better if these areas of fragmented frontage were perhaps defined on a map?

Part 3 – We remain concerned about an unduly heavy emphasis on contemporary design in policies FUL06 and FUL/07. Neither ‘contemporary’, used in FUL/07, nor ‘creative and contemporary’ used in FUL/06, is defined in the Glossary, and it is not clear whether the term ‘contemporary’ means ‘in the modernist tradition’, or ‘in vogue at the time of the present neighbourhood plan’, or ‘eschewing emulation of previous architectural styles’, or something else. There are many places in the village, including within the conservation areas and the vicinity of listed buildings, where modernist buildings or extensions, or innovative development beyond that tradition might be very appropriate and enhance the historic environment, but there are other places where this approach would not be the most appropriate, and some designs styled ‘contemporary’ would be harmful to the setting of some of the listed buildings and the overall character of the area.

The wide variety of architectural styles in the village is acknowledged and we agree that Fulbourn’ s character will be preserved and enhanced by continuing variety of building styles, including innovative development and that in the modernist tradition. However, foregrounding ‘contemporary’ design as Policy FUL/06 does and requiring a ‘contemporary’ approach to be considered in extensions, as Policy FUL/07 does, is unduly prescriptive, and could lead to planning decisions which are harmful to the setting of listed buildings or the character of the conservation area. We question whether this level of prescription in design is consistent with local plan policy or national planning guidance.

It is suggested that part 3 of the policy should explicitly state that those instances when a contemporary response is not appropriate i.e., “…and where this would negatively impact on designated and non-designated heritage assets".

Part 4 of policy - A section has been added to this policy to include a reference to buildings identified as non-designated heritage assets (NDHA) in the Fulbourn CAA. These NDHAs have not been shown on a map or listed within the Plan which we consider is a missed opportunity to add weight to their protections and future enhancement. (See maps on pages 5-7 of the CAA and Chapter 9 with the NDHA listed on pages 36-37 of the CAA).

Support

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59354

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Policy FUL/07 Building and Landscape Design

This policy has been revised since the Regulation 14 consultation. It is welcomed that it more clearly laid out now for future users of the Plan.

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59355

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Policy FUL/07 Building and Landscape Design

Part 1 –The Village Design Guide is referred to in this section. Reference to any documents that supersede it would help maintain longevity of the policy, as is the case in other policies - i.e.: “Village Design Guide and any documents that supersede this”.

Part 2a Height - This section refers to buildings of 2.5 storeys and 2 storeys having a similar height. In most instances, this is not the case as there will be some height differential between a 2 storey and a 2.5 storey building.

Part 2b Density – Does this section simply repeat the Local Plan policy – Policy H/8: Housing Density? What is unique to Fulbourn other than mentioning other policies within the Plan? The wording about density allows for a flexible design-led approach for densities above 30 dph. It should be noted that existing outline consents at the Ida Darwin and land east of Teversham Road sites have some areas with housing densities above 30 dph.

Part 2c Built form - This could be made clear to recognise that the character of the village is made up of different materials, colours, and styles and the design response should relate to those materials, colours and styles found in Fulbourn. Perhaps the reference to different materials relates to them being used in a single building? This should be clarified.

There are two sections within this policy numbered 2. This will need amending.

Part 3a-d – Do the criteria in this section add anything locally specific for Fulbourn or is it simply repeating Policy HQ/1 Design Principles from the Local Plan and the Design Guide SPD?

Part 4d –We do not consider that this criterion adds anything to the policy and should be removed. All development must take account of relevant policies in the Development Plan.

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59356

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Policy FUL/08 – Village Street and Lane Layout

Part 2d – Planning policy does not have control of signage – this would be a highway matter.

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59357

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

10 Residential development

Paragraphs 10.2 -10.3 - The introduction to this chapter has been much rewritten. Mention is made of the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan and the options considered in the making of the local plan. Whilst this Plan must be aware of the emerging local plan, we do not consider it appropriate to include this within the supporting text as it is likely to need to be updated as the emerging local plan moves towards its next formal stage. Until the local plan is examined it is not certain what strategy will be included in it.

Paragraph 10.7 for clarity it should be stated that it was Cambridgeshire ACRE that carried out the survey not Cambridge.

The Ida Darwin and Teversham Road Sites – In the Regulation 14 version of the Plan there was a policy for these two sites. We commented that it was not necessary to repeat Local Plan policies H/3 and SS/3 and only additional criteria should be included in the Plan. The option has been taken to no longer retain a policy in the Plan but policy like language is used in paragraph 10.11 – 10.12 for these two sites. It should be noted that this wording has no weight in the determination of applications. The Village Design Guide does provide detailed design guidance relating to these sites which could have been included in a policy in the Plan to add weight.(See page 16)

Support

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59358

Received: 18/01/2022

Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present & Future

Representation Summary:

CPPF, Cambridge’s largest civic society.is a charity run by local people who are passionate about where they live. We operate in the greater Cambridge area and working with our members, supporters and volunteers we are dedicated to protecting and enhancing the green setting of Cambridge for people and nature.
CPPF support the Neighbourhood Plan, particularly
- Objective 1 retaining Fulbourn as an individual village, separate from Cambridge. The Green Belt is a crucial policy designation to achieve this and inappropriate development in the Green Belt must be resisted.
- Policy FUL/03 requesting developments to contributing to the Green Infrastructure Network.

Full text:

CPPF, Cambridge’s largest civic society.is a charity run by local people who are passionate about where they live. We operate in the greater Cambridge area and working with our members, supporters and volunteers we are dedicated to protecting and enhancing the green setting of Cambridge for people and nature.
CPPF support the Neighbourhood Plan, particularly
- Objective 1 retaining Fulbourn as an individual village, separate from Cambridge. The Green Belt is a crucial policy designation to achieve this and inappropriate development in the Green Belt must be resisted.
- Policy FUL/03 requesting developments to contributing to the Green Infrastructure Network.

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59359

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Policy FUL/09: Larger Residential Development (10 or more units)

Part 1a – This criterion requires an appropriate housing mix. There is no evidence in the supporting text to set out what may be appropriate in Fulbourn to meet local needs. It remains unclear why at least 5% in the housing mix should be built to be accessible and adaptable dwellings M4(2) standard. This has not been justified. There is no information in the supporting text other than mention that the local residents think the needs of an ageing population should be considered. As this is for housing schemes of 10 or more units in order to achieve 5% of anything the scheme would have to be much more than 10 – (a development of 50 units to get 2.5 homes). How is this different from Policy H/9 in the Local Plan except it is requiring at least 5% but without clear justification.

Part 1b – We consider that this criterion simply repeats the Local Plan policy on affordable home (Policy H/10).

Part 2a - There is no information in the supporting text about a Building for a Healthy Life (BHL) assessment and where a developer could find out how to carry such an assessment out. Any appraisal system should be agreed with the local planning authority as the decision-making body.

We consider that the use of BHL toolkit should be used with caution as it does not provide absolute results on design quality. It is useful as an engagement tool or for discussion to agree on what the development should aim to achieve. It uses a traffic light system for 12 questions with the aim to score greens, reduce ambers and avoid reds. As the tool is for all development it is very difficult to differentiate in the document different responses to village/rural areas as compared to urban and could conflict with the objectives of neighbourhood plan. A reference to the VDG SPD would be more appropriate.

Part 2b – Written Ministerial Statement HCWS488 by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government dated 25 March 2015 states that “neighbourhood plans should not set ……….. any additional local technical standards or requirements relating to the construction, internal layout or performance of new dwellings.” It is not clear what this adds to the policies in the Local Plan about renewable energy - Policy CC/3 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy in New Developments. We adopted a new SPD in 2020 which we had suggested could be cross referenced in the supporting text about renewables - Greater Cambridge Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document

Part 3a. – This appears to be a new criterion included in the Plan as previously there had not been mention of degradation of the natural wetland ecosystem.
Would this criterion be better place in Policy FUL/04?

Part 3b – This criterion repeats the policy included in the Local Plan – Policy CC/8: Sustainable Drainage Systems.

Part 3c – Does this criterion add any value as other policies within the Plan cover this issue – FUL/01; FUL/04.

Part 3d – This is repeating an existing policy in the Plan – FUL/03

Part 3e – This is repeating Policy FUL/01

Part 4 of the policy – We repeat the comments we made at Regulation 14 that developers can only be asked to contribute outside their site (i.e., in the Parish) through a Section 106 Planning Obligation and where the Government rules can be met. As noted in our comments above, they must be:
• necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
• directly related to the development; and
• fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
A developer could not be required to contribute to strengthen existing facilities for the village as a whole.

We remain unsure what is meant by ‘to support community integration in response to the requirements set out by Fulbourn Parish Council’ given that other statutory service providers will determine how their services are delivered. It is unclear whether this requirement is set out in the Plan and supported by evidence for such requirements There is a list on page 110 in the Delivery Priorities chapter of the Plan. How would a development know what is required or a planning officer know when it has been met? It is suggested that “in response to the requirements set out by Fulbourn Parish Council” is deleted from the policy.

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59360

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Policy FUL/10 Rural Exception Sites

Adopted Local Plan Policy H/11 already provides an up-to-date policy for the delivery of such schemes. We do not think that these criteria could be implemented without full justification.

Part 1d – This repeat what is already in Policy FUL/01 and FUL/04.

Part 2 – There would need to be clear justification of why this criterion should remain. The NPPF is clear that such exceptions should be allowed to ensure a housing scheme is viable. (NPPF 2021 paragraph 78). The Local Plan policy also is clear that allowing some market housing on rural exception sites on viability or deliverability grounds is acceptable. Our housing team has commented that on deliverability grounds it may be that a landowner may not release the land for affordable housing unless they are allowed market housing on the site.

Comment

Fulbourn Neighbourhood Plan - submission version

Representation ID: 59361

Received: 17/01/2022

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Policy FUL/11 -Housing Design Quality

The supporting text to this policy would have benefited from having more justification for all of the criteria included. They cover a range of different design considerations and would impact on the viability of any scheme.

Part 1b; 1f; 1h; 1i - These appear to be new criterion included in the Plan since the Regulation 14 consultation.

The inclusion of criteria that support sustainable construction – 1a, 1b and 1c is supported.

Part 1g - We are unsure as to how this adds value to the existing Local Plan car parking policy which has a design-led approach? Policy TI/3: Parking Provision.