Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan - Submission consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 167938

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

General overarching comments on Plan

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

Concerns about some maps in Plan

Need for clearer supporting text to some policies

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

Question regarding the Vision

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

Comment

Representation ID: 167939

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy HIM01 High Quality Design - Residential Development

a)Supports aim of policy to embed guidance in Histon & Impington Village Design Guide SPD.

b)Helpful if policy applied to other new buildings that could have potential for significantly greater impact than a dwelling.

c)May have helped reader of Plan if more about Village Design Guide in supporting text.

d)Why some of policies relating to parking and layout not also applicable to 2-10 units? More generic for all, than size specific?

e)Some terms need explanation. e.g. 'Building for Life assessment'; 'active façade'. What is meant by designing in safe outdoor play in playgrounds?

f)Bullet point 2 refers to 'poor quality or little architectural interest'. Ambiguous and open to interpretation.

g)For ease of use more helpful if policy wording was ordered in development size.

Comment

Representation ID: 167940

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy HIM02 Interesting buildings (Non-designated heritage assets)

a)Supports policy. Suggest title be amended 'Non-designated heritage assets of local interest'.

b)Concerns at the selection process for identifying interesting buildings.

c)Concerns on process for updating list. Suggest this done as part of review of Plan.

d)Third sentence mentions SCDC Planning Portal - not term used by SCDC to describe its website

e)Suggest changes to fourth sentence

f)Buildings which are considered curtilage listed do not need to be included in the list and should be removed.

Comment

Representation ID: 167941

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy HIM03 Size, Scale and Location of New Housing

a)Outside development framework in this area is Green Belt and apart from exception sites until review of local plan unlikely to be development proposed in area .Second paragraph not required.

b)Third paragraph concerning level of infrastructure is repeating the requirements of a Local Plan policy - Policy SC/4.

c) For review of next local plan to consider any changes to Cambridge Green Belt. Fourth paragraph could be deleted and supporting text amended.

d)Supporting text to policy needs amending to reflect change of wording in affordable housing policy in Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 167942

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy HIM04 The Windmill

a)Welcomes policy to preserve the future of windmill. Policy states Molen Biotoop method to be used to assess impact. Are there alternative methods to do such an assessment?

b)Possible issue for SCDC, as the local planning authority, as to how it will implement this policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 167943

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy HIM05 Parking Provision for cars and cycles

a)Need to clearly define "restricted street"

b)Conflict of interest with encouraging more parking in commercial core and this policy which restricts it

c)Map to show restricted streets?

d)Plan refers to Figure 11 in Local Plan - should be Figure 12.

e)Concerns about requirement for all new development (including change of use) to provide parking within their curtilage. Placing severe restrictions on ability for new commercial business uses (including retail) to operate in commercial core.

f)Concerns about garage dimensions.

g)Dimensions for garage smaller than those in Local Plan Policy TI/3.

h)How to determine whether space was for a car or van?

i)Latent demand for publicly accessible charging points for electric vehicles?

j)Alternative cycle stands to Sheffield or Rounded A stand?

k)Fourth bullet point in cycle section 'Covered, fit for purpose and attractive'. Ambiguous.

l)Evidence for additional cycle provision for different activities and classes as provided in table 3?

Comment

Representation ID: 167944

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy HIM06 Commercial Core

a)Second bullet point - Helpful to include main town centre uses in NPPF in policy.

b)Second sentence mentions 'diversity and enhance' range of shops etc. Open to interpretation.

c)Fourth and fifth bullet - outside scope of neighbourhood plan so should be deleted.

d)Could make reference to impact of signage and advertising

e)Policy appears to be driven by increasing parking provision which would be detrimental to the street scene rather than creating a good public realm.

f)Draft Village Design Guidance SPD considers this whole area. Could be mentioned in policy

Comment

Representation ID: 167945

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy HIM07 The School Hill Site

a)Helpful if town centre uses referred to in first bullet point were included in supporting text and policy

b)Not usual to use a term such as 'thoughtful' public realm strategy plan.

c)Benefit from having design criteria included in it. Such criteria could have set out how the area would be enhanced by the development of this site and how it would fit into the High Street / character of the local area.

d)Note current planning application on this site - S/1793/19/FL being considered by SCDC.

e)Draft Village Design Guidance SPD considers this site. Strengthen policy if referenced

Comment

Representation ID: 167946

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Policy HIM08 The Jam Factory

a)Arrow on Map 12 not clear. No key to explain. Road already has pavements either side - not clear what improvements could be achieved as a result of development of site as a result of policy.

b)How could "small‐scale" residential development be accommodated on site. If retaining employment and open area is there opportunities for residential development?

c)Helpful if Map 12 illustrated in broad terms where greenways, green separation and proposed housing could be located.

d)Area would benefit from a design framework or brief which sets out a spatial design strategy.

Comment

Representation ID: 168080

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Open Space

Several policies relating to protecting open space in Plan. Would help user if one comprehensive map showing all different designations proposed in Plan and those in Local Plan. Could have had Green Infrastructure / Green Corridor strategy with a policy in Plan to prepare such a scheme. Table 4 lists open spaces referenced in plan but does not show how they may be spatially linked. Could identify where there are gaps in this network / importance of green corridors. Map 17 has been added to Submission version of Plan it does not include all the green space policies for the villages.