4. Landscape setting

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Support

Draft Gamlingay Village Design Guide SPD

Representation ID: 67726

Received: 31/05/2019

Respondent: Woodland Trust

Representation:

We strongly support the policy of giving strong protection to the ancient woodland and maintenance of a 200 metre buffer to protect it from external threats.

Full text:

We strongly support the policy of giving strong protection to the ancient woodland and maintenance of a 200 metre buffer to protect it from external threats.

Support

Draft Gamlingay Village Design Guide SPD

Representation ID: 67751

Received: 01/05/2019

Respondent: Ms Cordelia Hornbrode

Representation:

Please keep all hamlets separate to the village. I do not want one large town. Gamlingay will lose its lovely character

Full text:

Please keep all hamlets separate to the village. I do not want one large town. Gamlingay will lose its lovely character

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Gamlingay Village Design Guide SPD

Representation ID: 67756

Received: 09/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation:

The main plan on page 8 shows part of Gamlingay First School Playing Field as publicly accessible green space. Whilst Cambridgeshire County Council, as landowner, recognises that this area is already identified as Protected Village Amenity Area under Policy NH/11 of the South Cambridgeshire District Council Local Plan 2018, it would like to clarify that this area of land is not accessble to the general public. Use of the area is by permission of Cambridgeshire County Council only.

Full text:

The main plan on page 8 shows part of Gamlingay First School Playing Field as publicly accessible green space. Whilst Cambridgeshire County Council, as landowner, recognises that this area is already identified as Protected Village Amenity Area under Policy NH/11 of the South Cambridgeshire District Council Local Plan 2018, it would like to clarify that this area of land is not accessible to the general public. Use of the area is by permission of Cambridgeshire County Council only.

Attachments:

Object

Draft Gamlingay Village Design Guide SPD

Representation ID: 67774

Received: 30/05/2019

Respondent: Merton College

Agent: D H Barford & Co Limited

Representation:

The proposed 200mm buffer zone around Gamlingay Woods as this has no formal status.The designation of the land 'Log Field' along with the adjacent pastureland as a sensitive village edge given there is no basis for this designation and the Draft Design Guide is seeking to make new policy, which should be addressed and examined through the statutory Local Plan process and this should be removed from the guidance.The proposed key views in the absence of any explanation of how the sensitivity of the views have been assessed and by what criteria

Full text:

MERTON COLLEGE
On behalf of Merton College we object to the draft of the GVDG for the following reasons;
Guidance - 4.2:
This states 'New Development should respect the 200m buffer zone to Gamlingay woods proposed ion the draft Neighbourhood plan (cons 2019) supported by the Wildlife Trust. However, the Gamlingay neighbourhood plan has yet to be published for the consultation and adopted. The 'Note to the Reader' section of the VDG clarifies the 'SPD cannot make new planning policy' and therefore there is currently no policy basis for a 200m buffer zone and this has no status.

Guidance4.3

Merton College owns 'Log Field' along with the adjacent pastureland, which identified as a Sensitive Village Edge (zone 3). Merton College OBJECTS to this designation for the following reasons;

1.The design guide clarifies the purpose and scope of the guide, and states 'the GVDG has been prepared to amplify and build on the requirements set out with thein the policy HQ/1: Design Principles in the adopted 2018 local plan, as well as supporting the other policies in the local plan which relate to the built and natural character, and distinctiveness of South Cams' Policy HQ/1: Design principles clarifies 'All new development must be of high quality design, with a clear vision as to the positive contribution the development will make to its local and wider context' Both the design guide and the Policy HQ1 are clearly about ensuring an appropriate quality of design that has regard to setting of sites. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the design guide to introduce land designation principles, such as 'sensitive village edges' and this goes beyond the scope of policy HQ1 and the SPD.

2. in relation to the Log Field and adjacent pastureland there is no explanation:
- Why is this are sensitive?
- How it differs from other edges of the village?
- How the sensitivity has been assessed?
- What was the methodology for the selection of Sensitive Village Edges and by what criteria?
Without this justification the identification of SVE is unfounded.
3. the adopted Local Plan identifies important village gaps where land that enhances the setting, character and appearance of a village and retains a sense of connection between the village and its rural origins and surroundings should be kept open and free from development. the Log Field and adjacent pastureland is not a designated Important Village gap and the proposal is introducing a designation which should be addressed and examined through the statutory local plan process.
4. the note to the reader section of the VDG states the SPD will be a material consideration in the determination n of planning apps in Gamlingay and goes onto clarify that the SPD cannot make a new planning policy, however, the proposed Sensitive Village Edge designation of areas which should be maintained would create new planning policy, contrary to the purposes to the SPD. Moreover, this statement is stringent than criterion a. of policy HQ1, which requires development proposals to preserve and enhance character.
5. The log field along with the adjacent pastureland was promoted by the District Council and the Parish Council for designation as a Local Green Space through the preparation of the adopted Local Plan on the grounds 'The Council considers that this site should remain as a LGS. This site was submitted by Gamlingay Parish Council during the issues and options 2 consultation in which they stressed the value the local community placed upon the site for its beauty, tranquillity and richness of wildlife. It is seen as a Green Lung, providing a buffer between Gamlingay and Dennis Green. It has high recreational value since it is close to an area of housing with few green spaces. The council considers that the site meets test for LGS designation using the evidence from the Parish Council and was included in the proposed submission local plan where there was much local support. This was challenged by landowners at the public examination on the grounds that the are was not of particular significance and did not meet the requirements of the NPPF of being; demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example, because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value, tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and where the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land. Following assessment by the Inspector the local green space designation was removed, save for the of field area, which has public access.
6. The log field along with the adjacent pastureland is not subject to any national designations and there are no public rights of way running through or immediately adjacent to the site boundaries. the site is within the Greensand Ridge Landscape Character Area which is a swath of land on the Beds border, described as 'This is small character area associated with the undulating dip slope of the lower greensand ridge. It is drained by small streams and there are some locally steep slopes. The fairly wooded landscape is interspersed with medium sized arable fields, small areas of pasture and market gardening. There are also small areas or remnant parkland and heath. Despite the presence of some worked out gravel pits, the area retains a predominantly rural character. This is not a particularly remarkable character area and the site does not exhibit any unique landscapes qualities. The site is in a discreet location screened by established hedging and trees which restrict public views into the site. Therefore, given the assessment of the site, its designation as a Sensitive Village Edge is not justified.

Guidance 4.4

This states 'New development shuld preserve key views to and from the village (Map and Fig 7 below). This conflicts with policy HQ/1 of the adopted Local Plan 2018 which sets out in section 1 'As appropriate to the scale and nature of the development, proposals must:
a) preserve or enhance the character of the local urban and rural area and respond to its context in the wider landscape
b) Conserve or enhance important natural and historic assets and their setting.'

There is also no explanation of how the sensitivity of the views have been assessed and by what criteria.

Comment

Draft Gamlingay Village Design Guide SPD

Representation ID: 67781

Received: 30/05/2019

Respondent: Mr and Mrs K J and R M Abbott

Representation:

Sensitive Village Edge - all these fields should be retained as open spaces - used for crops and hay. A wildlife haven geese foxes muntjac pheasant all seen here. The lupin field and log field especially picturesque. Park lane a beautiful area. The stream has minnows, dragonflies and also water voles.

Full text:

Sensitive Village Edge - all these fields should be retained as open spaces - used for crops and hay. A wildlife haven geese foxes muntjac pheasant all seen here. The lupin field and log field especially picturesque. Park lane a beautiful area. The stream has minnows, dragonflies and also water voles.

Attachments:

Object

Draft Gamlingay Village Design Guide SPD

Representation ID: 67787

Received: 29/05/2019

Respondent: Edward Sills Trust

Agent: Brown & Co Barfords

Representation:

In summary we object on behalf of the Edward Sills Trust to the designation of the land adjacent Green Acres, Gamlingay as a sensitive and distinct landscape character given there is no basis for the designation. The Village Design Guide is seeking to make new policy which should be considered through a Local Plan process therefore section 4.3 should be removed from the guidance.

Full text:

EDWARD SILLS TRUST
We act on behalf of Edward Sills trust and object to the draft GVDG in respect of land adjacent Green Acres, Gamlingay, SG19 3LR on the following grounds:

Chapter 4 of the GVDG in relation to t Landscape Setting has a map which designates the land as no3 fields to edge of the brook as being a sensitive village edge. Within guidance section 4.3 sets out 'The area bounded by the brook...to the south west edge of the village has a sensitive and distinct landscape character which should be maintained'.
This site is within the Greensand Ridge Landscape Character Area which is a swath of land on the Beds border, described as, 'This is a very small character area associated with the undulating dip slope of the lower greensand ridge. It is drained by small streams and there are some locally steep slopes. The fairly wooded landscape is interspersed with med sized arable fields, small areas of pasture and market gardening. There are also small areas of remnant parkland and heath. Despite the presence of some worked out gravel pits, the area retains a predominantly rural character.

The land is only visible from the end of green acres and is bound by significant trees and hedgerow along the side and rear boundaries and there is nothing remarkable or out of the ordinary associated with the site as set out in the landscape area. There is no explanation of how the sensitivity has been assessed and by what criteria, therefore the basis for this guidance is unfounded.
The local plan identifies important countryside frontages which are protected because of their significance. This land is not designated under the criteria and the proposal is introducing a designation which should be addressed through the Local Plan process. the 'Note to the Reader' section of the VDG sets out that the SPD will be a material consideration in the determination of planning apps in Gamlingay and goes onto say that the SPD cannot make new planning policy, however, what is being proposed would create new planning policy contrary to the purposes of the SPD.

Attachments:

Object

Draft Gamlingay Village Design Guide SPD

Representation ID: 67912

Received: 11/07/2019

Respondent: Wyboston Lakes Limited

Agent: D H Barford & Co Limited

Representation:

We object to the designation of the land 'Fields to the edfe of the brook' as a sensitive village edge given there is no basis for this designation and the Draft Design Guide is seeking to make new policy, which should be addressed and examinsed through the statutory Local Plan process and this should be removed from the guidance.

Full text:

On behalf of Wyboston Lakes Ltd we object to the draft Gamlingay Village Design Guide in respect of the proposed Sensitive Village Edge zone 3 'Fields to the edge of the brook' designation. The grounds for objection are:
I. The Design Guide Introduction clarifies the purpose and scope of the Guide, and states 'the Gamlingay Village Design Guide has been prepared to amplify and build on the requirements set out within policy HQ/I: Design Principles in the adopted 2018 Local Plan, as well as supporting the other policies within the Local Plan which relate to the built and natural character, and distinctiveness of South Cambridgeshire'. Policy HQ/I: Design Principles clarifies 'All new development must be of high quality design, with a clear vision as to the positive contribution the development will make to its local and wider context.......' Both the Design Guide and Policy HQI are clearly about ensuring an appropriate quality of design that has regard to the setting of sites. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the Design Guide to introduce land designation principles, such as 'sensitive Village edges' and this goes beyond the scope of Policy HQI and the SPD.
2. Chapter 4 of the Gamlingay Village Design Guide in relation to Landscape Setting identifies the objector's land 'Fields to edge of the brook' as a sensitive village edge and the Guidance 4.3 states 'The area bounded by the brook...to the south west edge of the village has a sensitive and distinct landscape character which should be maintained'. However, there is no explanation:
* why this area is particularly sensitive?
* how it differs from the other edges of the village?
* how the sensitivity has been assessed?
* what was the methodology for the selection 'sensitive village edges' and by what criteria? Without this justification the identification of 'sensitive village edges' is unfounded.
3. The adopted Local Plan identifies Important Village Gaps (Policy NH/ 13) where land that enhances the setting, character and appearance of a village and retains a sense of connection between the village and its rural origins and surroundings should be kept open and free from development. This land is not a designated Important Village Gap and the proposal is introducing a designation which should be addressed and examined through the statutory Local Plan process.
4. The 'Note to the Reader' section of the Village Design Guide states that the SPD will be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications in Gamlingay and goes onto clarify 'that the SPD cannot make new planning policy', however, the proposed 'Sensitive Village Edge' designation for areas which should be maintained would create new planning policy, contrary to the purposes of the SPD. Moreover, this5.
6.
7. statement is more stringent than criterion a. of Policy HQI, which requires development proposals to
Preserve or enhance the character of the local urban and rural area and respond to its context in the wider landscape'.
The proposed 'Fields to the edge of the brook' sensitive village edge location is a paddock enclosed by established tree and hedge vegetation that abuts the village on the eastern side. The site is understood to have been used for clay extraction in the early 20th century and in the 1970s it was used for landfill with material from various building site. Due to the poor quality of the subsequent restoration the site is unsuitable for anything other than low grade grazing use. The area was the subject of a planning application refused in February 2018 (LPA Ref S/3170/17/OL) and in the officer report it was acknowledged by the case planning officer 'The application site occupies a discreet location screened by established hedging and trees that generally restrict public views into the site'. In relation to the proposed development the Council's expert Landscape Officer also advised 'There would be negligible effects on the wider and local landscape character areas' and 'The proposed development could be integrated into the local landscape without causing any significant detriment to the landscape character, visual and visual amenity'. These observations by professional officers undermine the significance of 'Fields to the edge of the brook' as a particularly sensitive village edge.
The proposed 'Fields to the edge of the brook' sensitive village edge location is not subject to any national designations and there are no public rights of way running through or immediately adjacent to the site boundaries. The site is within the Greensand Ridge Landscape Character Area which is a swath of land on the Bedfordshire border, described as 'This is a very small character area associated with the undulating dip slope of the Lower Greensand ridge. It is drained by small streams and there are some locally steep slopes. The fairly wooded landscape is interspersed with medium sized arable fields, small areas Of pasture and market gardening. There are also small areas or remnant parkland and heath. Despite the presence of some worked out gravel pits, the area retains a predominantly rural character'. This is not a particularly remarkable character area and the site does not exhibit any unique landscape qualities. The site is in a discreet location screened by established hedging and trees that generally restrict public views into the site. Therefore, given the assessment of the site its designation as a Sensitive Village Edge is not justified.
Guidance 4.1 states the aim to "preserve the separation of...Little Heath, by retaining the open landscape character between this and the village." However, the Village Character the map in Chapter 5 identifies the Little Heath character area directly abutting the existing village of Gamlingay. The Guidance and the plan are therefore contradictory and need reviewing.

Attachments: