Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

By way of background, in 2003 the Cottenham Residents Association (CRA) was formed specifically to press South Cambridgeshire District Council to take seriously its responsibilities in managing the relationship between the settled community and the Smithy Fen Traveller site. At that time, local residents experienced persistent problems including anti-social behaviour, theft, dangerous driving and intimidation. These issues had a significant and lasting impact on community relations and confidence in the Council’s ability to manage the site effectively.
Twenty-three years on, it is deeply disappointing that concerns remain. The current lack of visible and effective enforcement at Smithy Fen does not inspire confidence that the Council has learned from past experience. Any discussion of intensification or expansion must therefore be viewed in the context of a long history of inadequate management and enforcement.
I am particularly concerned by references in the policy document to the potential intensification and expansion of existing sites. At Smithy Fen, many pitches are now occupied by individuals who do not meet the definition of Gypsies or Travellers. This raises an obvious and fundamental question: if existing pitches are not being occupied by the intended community, what evidence is there that additional pitches are required at this location? It also suggests that Gypsies and Travellers themselves may be choosing not to live at Smithy Fen, which in turn raises legitimate questions about the site’s suitability.
The physical characteristics of the site further compound these concerns. Smithy Fen is low-lying and immediately adjacent to a watercourse that is regularly subject to flood alerts. Surrounding fields flood frequently, with at least one area remaining almost permanently waterlogged. Intensification or expansion of the site would inevitably place more residents at increased risk of flooding, contrary to basic principles of sound planning and public safety.
The consultation document implies that site optimisation has been considered strategically across the district. If this is the case, I would ask that SCDC make public the details of any studies undertaken into alternative locations for Gypsy and Traveller sites, including the criteria used to assess suitability and sustainability.
Finally, it has long been my understanding that major new developments are expected to make provision for Gypsy and Traveller communities. I have seen no evidence that such provision has been made, or even meaningfully planned, within developments such as Northstowe or Waterbeach. If this understanding is incorrect, I would welcome clarification; if it is correct, then the apparent failure to deliver such provision undermines the rationale for further intensification at existing, problematic sites such as Smithy Fen.
I trust these concerns will be given proper consideration as part of the consultation process, and I look forward to a clear and substantive response.

By way of background, in 2003 the Cottenham Residents Association (CRA) was formed specifically to press South Cambridgeshire District Council to take seriously its responsibilities in managing the relationship between the settled community and the Smithy Fen Traveller site. At that time, local residents experienced persistent problems including anti-social behaviour, theft, dangerous driving and intimidation. These issues had a significant and lasting impact on community relations and confidence in the Council’s ability to manage the site effectively.
Twenty-three years on, it is deeply disappointing that concerns remain. The current lack of visible and effective enforcement at Smithy Fen does not inspire confidence that the Council has learned from past experience. Any discussion of intensification or expansion must therefore be viewed in the context of a long history of inadequate management and enforcement.
I am particularly concerned by references in the policy document to the potential intensification and expansion of existing sites. At Smithy Fen, many pitches are now occupied by individuals who do not meet the definition of Gypsies or Travellers. This raises an obvious and fundamental question: if existing pitches are not being occupied by the intended community, what evidence is there that additional pitches are required at this location? It also suggests that Gypsies and Travellers themselves may be choosing not to live at Smithy Fen, which in turn raises legitimate questions about the site’s suitability.
The physical characteristics of the site further compound these concerns. Smithy Fen is low-lying and immediately adjacent to a watercourse that is regularly subject to flood alerts. Surrounding fields flood frequently, with at least one area remaining almost permanently waterlogged. Intensification or expansion of the site would inevitably place more residents at increased risk of flooding, contrary to basic principles of sound planning and public safety.
The consultation document implies that site optimisation has been considered strategically across the district. If this is the case, I would ask that SCDC make public the details of any studies undertaken into alternative locations for Gypsy and Traveller sites, including the criteria used to assess suitability and sustainability.
Finally, it has long been my understanding that major new developments are expected to make provision for Gypsy and Traveller communities. I have seen no evidence that such provision has been made, or even meaningfully planned, within developments such as Northstowe or Waterbeach. If this understanding is incorrect, I would welcome clarification; if it is correct, then the apparent failure to deliver such provision undermines the rationale for further intensification at existing, problematic sites such as Smithy Fen.
I trust these concerns will be given proper consideration as part of the consultation process, and I look forward to a clear and substantive response.

By way of background, in 2003 the Cottenham Residents Association (CRA) was formed specifically to press South Cambridgeshire District Council to take seriously its responsibilities in managing the relationship between the settled community and the Smithy Fen Traveller site. At that time, local residents experienced persistent problems including anti-social behaviour, theft, dangerous driving and intimidation. These issues had a significant and lasting impact on community relations and confidence in the Council’s ability to manage the site effectively.
Twenty-three years on, it is deeply disappointing that concerns remain. The current lack of visible and effective enforcement at Smithy Fen does not inspire confidence that the Council has learned from past experience. Any discussion of intensification or expansion must therefore be viewed in the context of a long history of inadequate management and enforcement.
I am particularly concerned by references in the policy document to the potential intensification and expansion of existing sites. At Smithy Fen, many pitches are now occupied by individuals who do not meet the definition of Gypsies or Travellers. This raises an obvious and fundamental question: if existing pitches are not being occupied by the intended community, what evidence is there that additional pitches are required at this location? It also suggests that Gypsies and Travellers themselves may be choosing not to live at Smithy Fen, which in turn raises legitimate questions about the site’s suitability.
The physical characteristics of the site further compound these concerns. Smithy Fen is low-lying and immediately adjacent to a watercourse that is regularly subject to flood alerts. Surrounding fields flood frequently, with at least one area remaining almost permanently waterlogged. Intensification or expansion of the site would inevitably place more residents at increased risk of flooding, contrary to basic principles of sound planning and public safety.
The consultation document implies that site optimisation has been considered strategically across the district. If this is the case, I would ask that SCDC make public the details of any studies undertaken into alternative locations for Gypsy and Traveller sites, including the criteria used to assess suitability and sustainability.
Finally, it has long been my understanding that major new developments are expected to make provision for Gypsy and Traveller communities. I have seen no evidence that such provision has been made, or even meaningfully planned, within developments such as Northstowe or Waterbeach. If this understanding is incorrect, I would welcome clarification; if it is correct, then the apparent failure to deliver such provision undermines the rationale for further intensification at existing, problematic sites such as Smithy Fen.
I trust these concerns will be given proper consideration as part of the consultation process, and I look forward to a clear and substantive response.

By way of background, in 2003 the Cottenham Residents Association (CRA) was formed specifically to press South Cambridgeshire District Council to take seriously its responsibilities in managing the relationship between the settled community and the Smithy Fen Traveller site. At that time, local residents experienced persistent problems including anti-social behaviour, theft, dangerous driving and intimidation. These issues had a significant and lasting impact on community relations and confidence in the Council’s ability to manage the site effectively.
Twenty-three years on, it is deeply disappointing that concerns remain. The current lack of visible and effective enforcement at Smithy Fen does not inspire confidence that the Council has learned from past experience. Any discussion of intensification or expansion must therefore be viewed in the context of a long history of inadequate management and enforcement.
I am particularly concerned by references in the policy document to the potential intensification and expansion of existing sites. At Smithy Fen, many pitches are now occupied by individuals who do not meet the definition of Gypsies or Travellers. This raises an obvious and fundamental question: if existing pitches are not being occupied by the intended community, what evidence is there that additional pitches are required at this location? It also suggests that Gypsies and Travellers themselves may be choosing not to live at Smithy Fen, which in turn raises legitimate questions about the site’s suitability.
The physical characteristics of the site further compound these concerns. Smithy Fen is low-lying and immediately adjacent to a watercourse that is regularly subject to flood alerts. Surrounding fields flood frequently, with at least one area remaining almost permanently waterlogged. Intensification or expansion of the site would inevitably place more residents at increased risk of flooding, contrary to basic principles of sound planning and public safety.
The consultation document implies that site optimisation has been considered strategically across the district. If this is the case, I would ask that SCDC make public the details of any studies undertaken into alternative locations for Gypsy and Traveller sites, including the criteria used to assess suitability and sustainability.
Finally, it has long been my understanding that major new developments are expected to make provision for Gypsy and Traveller communities. I have seen no evidence that such provision has been made, or even meaningfully planned, within developments such as Northstowe or Waterbeach. If this understanding is incorrect, I would welcome clarification; if it is correct, then the apparent failure to deliver such provision undermines the rationale for further intensification at existing, problematic sites such as Smithy Fen.
I trust these concerns will be given proper consideration as part of the consultation process, and I look forward to a clear and substantive response.