Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Cottnham should be included in the Rural Centre category of the Settlement Hierachy

In the draft Local Plan it is proposed to move Cottenham to the Minor Rural Centre category.

Based on “size”, Cottenham is more closely aligned to the other Rural Centres than the Minor category.

In recent years Cottenham has absorbed 500+ new houses from development outside Local Plan policy. Integrating these within the village requires increased and continued focus and investment to deliver effective services and infrastructure.
The concern is that whilst not intentional, the Settlement Hierarchy will drive investment decisions beyond Planning/ Development, particularly with regard to infrastructure and by third-parties, impacting the long-term sustainability of the village.”

Policy and site plan need to recognise existing policies and injunction.
It is essential that there is more consultation with all Cottenham residents particularly the site and its direct neighbours, District Council representatives and the Parish Council before this policy is finalised.

The cadence and pace of enforcement at Smithy Fen has not been able to constrain unauthorised development, development on injuncted land or to ensure that occupation is in-line with policy.  The ability to meet and sustain the optimisation objective is extremely limited, thus intensification would remain the only option.

The red lines shown in Figure 126 include land with existing injunctions precluding general occupation of redevelopment.  Existing injunctions and site constraints are not recognised within the proposed policy.

There have been increasing incidents of flooding on neighbouring properties and farmland coinciding with unplanned development within the boundary of the site.

"In the current adopted local plan, Cottenham is identified as a Rural Centre. In the draft Local Plan it is proposed to move Cottenham to the Minor Rural Centre category.

It is not clear what has led to this conclusion as all the criteria that mean that Cottenham is a Rural Centre in the current plan are still in-place.

Based on “size”, Cottenham is more closely aligned to the other Rural Centres. In terms of tax-base Cottenham has 1% less dwellings than the “smallest” and 12% below the mean of the identified Rural Centres. This compares with being 25% larger than the next largest and nearly 40% more than the mean of the proposed Minor Rural Centres.

In recent years Cottenham has absorbed 500+ new houses as a result of development outside Local Plan policy. For these new developments to be effectively integrated within the village will require increased and continued focus and investment to deliver effective services and infrastructure. Moving to Minor Rural Centre risks losing that focus.

The concern is that whilst not intentional, the Settlement Hierarchy will be used in investment decisions beyond Planning/ Development, particularly with regard to infrastructure and by third-parties, impacting the long-term sustainability of the village.”

The local plan identifies the need to provide sites for Gypsies and Travellers at the strategic new development locations (e.g. Northstowe etc.) but does not provide a roadmap or commitment for delivery. If the number of pitches identified for new large sites were delivered, this would meet or exceed the need described in the ANA. Instead, the burden for delivery is placed upon optimisation and intensification of the existing sites at Chesterton Fen Road and Smithy Fen. This is iniquitous and unfairly discriminates against all the residents of Cottenham (and Chesterton) , including those resident on the Smithy Fen site.

The size of the existing Smithy Fen/ Setchell Drove site in comparison with the neighbouring settlement is already out of proportion with the proposed number of pitches considered appropriate for new large communities shown in policy S/DS, e.g. 24 pitches for Northstowe.
The cadence and pace of enforcement on the site has not been able to constrain unauthorised development (unsuitable accomodation, too densely located), development on injuncted land or to ensure that occupation is in-line with policy. This history shows that the ability to meet and importantly sustain the optimisation objective is extremely limited, meaning that intensification would remain the only option.

Existing SCDC Local Plan policies H/21 and H/22 recommend that sites be ‘on the edge of or closely located to a large town or city’ and that 'The site, or the cumulative impact of the site in combination with existing or planned sites, would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding land uses, the countryside and landscape character, village character…’. These or similar policies do not appear to be carried forward to the new draft local plan.

Due to its relatively isolated location on the edge of a rural village, the ability of the local services to meet the needs of a large G&T community is limited.

Further intensification or expansion at Smithy Fen/ Setchell Drove will exacerbate all the above issues and place an increased and unfair burden on the village.

On behalf of Cottenham Parish Council, please could you include the below as our response to the draft policy, S/AMC/GT: Optimisation of Gypsy and Traveller sites.

S/AMC/GT: Optimisation of Gypsy and Traveller sites

The policies relating to the Smithy Fen site are by far the most controversial aspects of the draft Local Plan for the residents of Cottenham.

The size of the existing Smithy Fen/ Setchell Drove site in comparison with the neighbouring settlement is already out of proportion with the proposed number of pitches considered appropriate for new large communities shown in policy S/DS, e.g. 24 pitches for Northstowe.
The cadence and pace of enforcement on the site has not been able to constrain unauthorised development (unsuitable accommodation, too densely located), development on injuncted land or to ensure that occupation is in-line with policy. This history shows that the ability to meet and importantly sustain the optimisation objective is extremely limited, meaning that intensification would remain the only option.

There is a significant concern that the red lines shown in the site plan (Figure 126) include land with existing injunctions precluding general occupation of redevelopment. Existing injunctions and site constraints are not recognised within the proposed policy.

Over recent years there have been increasing incidents of flooding on neighbouring properties and farmland. This has coincided with unplanned development within the boundary of the site.

Thus far, there has been little or no public discussion of this draft policy. It is essential that there is more consultation with all Cottenham residents particularly the site and its direct neighbours, District Council representatives and the Parish Council before this policy is finalised.

On behalf of Cottenham Parish Council, please could you include the below as our response to the draft policy, S/AMC/GT: Optimisation of Gypsy and Traveller sites.

S/AMC/GT: Optimisation of Gypsy and Traveller sites

The policies relating to the Smithy Fen site are by far the most controversial aspects of the draft Local Plan for the residents of Cottenham.

The size of the existing Smithy Fen/ Setchell Drove site in comparison with the neighbouring settlement is already out of proportion with the proposed number of pitches considered appropriate for new large communities shown in policy S/DS, e.g. 24 pitches for Northstowe.
The cadence and pace of enforcement on the site has not been able to constrain unauthorised development (unsuitable accommodation, too densely located), development on injuncted land or to ensure that occupation is in-line with policy. This history shows that the ability to meet and importantly sustain the optimisation objective is extremely limited, meaning that intensification would remain the only option.

There is a significant concern that the red lines shown in the site plan (Figure 126) include land with existing injunctions precluding general occupation of redevelopment. Existing injunctions and site constraints are not recognised within the proposed policy.

Over recent years there have been increasing incidents of flooding on neighbouring properties and farmland. This has coincided with unplanned development within the boundary of the site.

Thus far, there has been little or no public discussion of this draft policy. It is essential that there is more consultation with all Cottenham residents particularly the site and its direct neighbours, District Council representatives and the Parish Council before this policy is finalised.

On behalf of Cottenham Parish Council, please could you include the below as our response to the draft policy, S/AMC/GT: Optimisation of Gypsy and Traveller sites.

S/AMC/GT: Optimisation of Gypsy and Traveller sites

The policies relating to the Smithy Fen site are by far the most controversial aspects of the draft Local Plan for the residents of Cottenham.

The size of the existing Smithy Fen/ Setchell Drove site in comparison with the neighbouring settlement is already out of proportion with the proposed number of pitches considered appropriate for new large communities shown in policy S/DS, e.g. 24 pitches for Northstowe.
The cadence and pace of enforcement on the site has not been able to constrain unauthorised development (unsuitable accommodation, too densely located), development on injuncted land or to ensure that occupation is in-line with policy. This history shows that the ability to meet and importantly sustain the optimisation objective is extremely limited, meaning that intensification would remain the only option.

There is a significant concern that the red lines shown in the site plan (Figure 126) include land with existing injunctions precluding general occupation of redevelopment. Existing injunctions and site constraints are not recognised within the proposed policy.

Over recent years there have been increasing incidents of flooding on neighbouring properties and farmland. This has coincided with unplanned development within the boundary of the site.

Thus far, there has been little or no public discussion of this draft policy. It is essential that there is more consultation with all Cottenham residents particularly the site and its direct neighbours, District Council representatives and the Parish Council before this policy is finalised.

On behalf of Cottenham Parish Council, please could you include the below as our response to the draft policy, S/AMC/GT: Optimisation of Gypsy and Traveller sites.

S/AMC/GT: Optimisation of Gypsy and Traveller sites

The policies relating to the Smithy Fen site are by far the most controversial aspects of the draft Local Plan for the residents of Cottenham.

The size of the existing Smithy Fen/ Setchell Drove site in comparison with the neighbouring settlement is already out of proportion with the proposed number of pitches considered appropriate for new large communities shown in policy S/DS, e.g. 24 pitches for Northstowe.
The cadence and pace of enforcement on the site has not been able to constrain unauthorised development (unsuitable accommodation, too densely located), development on injuncted land or to ensure that occupation is in-line with policy. This history shows that the ability to meet and importantly sustain the optimisation objective is extremely limited, meaning that intensification would remain the only option.

There is a significant concern that the red lines shown in the site plan (Figure 126) include land with existing injunctions precluding general occupation of redevelopment. Existing injunctions and site constraints are not recognised within the proposed policy.

Over recent years there have been increasing incidents of flooding on neighbouring properties and farmland. This has coincided with unplanned development within the boundary of the site.

Thus far, there has been little or no public discussion of this draft policy. It is essential that there is more consultation with all Cottenham residents particularly the site and its direct neighbours, District Council representatives and the Parish Council before this policy is finalised.