Chapter 5 POLICIES / Essential Character Policies HIM01-05

Showing comments and forms 1 to 14 of 14

Comment

Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan - Submission consultation

Representation ID: 67736

Received: 02/07/2019

Respondent: Pedallers N Bailey

Representation:

5.69 -- As a user of a bike trailer for my two children I've found recently that, due to barriers at the end of foot/cycle paths towards the infants school, these are unpassable. Can we make sure that barriers are placed in a way which do not prevent cycle passage.

Full text:

5.69 -- As a user of a bike trailer for my two children I've found recently that, due to barriers at the end of foot/cycle paths towards the infants school, these are unpassable. Can we make sure that barriers are placed in a way which do not prevent cycle passage.

Support

Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan - Submission consultation

Representation ID: 67737

Received: 03/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire Police

Representation:

Creating safe and attractive places by designing-out opportunities for crime and antisocial behaviour through the incorporation of physical and management measures will help to minimise the risk of crime. New development should be built to the Police preferred minimum security standard of Secured by Design. Developers should, at an early stage, seek advice from Cambridgeshire Police Designing out Crime officers, based at Police Headquarters - to ensure that the principles of Secured by Design are met to create a safe and secure environment in and around the villages.

Full text:

Creating safe and attractive places by designing-out opportunities for crime and antisocial behaviour through the incorporation of physical and management measures will help to minimise the risk of crime. New development should be built to the Police preferred minimum security standard of Secured by Design. Developers should, at an early stage, seek advice from Cambridgeshire Police Designing out Crime officers, based at Police Headquarters - to ensure that the principles of Secured by Design are met to create a safe and secure environment in and around the villages.

Comment

Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan - Submission consultation

Representation ID: 67939

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation:

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

Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan - Submission consultation

Representation ID: 67940

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation:

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

Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan - Submission consultation

Representation ID: 67941

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation:

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

Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan - Submission consultation

Representation ID: 67942

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation:

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

Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan - Submission consultation

Representation ID: 67943

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Representation:

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?

Object

Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan - Submission consultation

Representation ID: 68065

Received: 28/07/2019

Respondent: Vanessa Kelly

Representation:

HIM04 elevates the rights of one private property owner over those of more than 600 others in the village. It is based on false assumptions.

Full text:

5.40 Should a Neighbourhood Plan policy that will last for the foreseeable future be based on an intention? "The owner intends to complete the renovation to bring the mill back to a full operating condition, with the ability to mill grain."

5.44 The Windmill is not in The Crescent. It is located on Cambridge Road. The covenant is not a material planning consideration that can be taken into account. The covenant has in fact been lifted twice in the last 20 years - for both 3 The Crescent and 20 The Crescent. The covenant, the indenture of 27 May 1921, makes no reference to the Windmill, only to the "Purchaser" (property owner) not being "entitled to any right of light or air which would restrict or interfere with the free use of any adjoining or neighbouring land of the Company (Chivers) for building or other purpose"; and as such the covenant is not "designed to prevent further wind loss to the Windmill and to maintain the views of it" as stated in 5.44.

5.45 "Operation of the Windmill is dependent on wind from the west" - in 1909 a gas engine was installed to ensure the mill remained financially viable, ie. before the houses in The Crescent were built (in the 1920s). Wind power on its own is, therefore, insufficient to power the mill. As such a policy limiting further development to the west of the Windmill because it could result in "further loss of wind" seems entirely unreasonable.

The only other UK windmill that has adopted the Molen Biotoop method as a policy is the Cranbrook Union Windmill, a community-owned windmill high on a hill at the edge of the village. The policy has no real effect on neighbouring properties in Cranbrook. Why should the H&I Neighbourhood Plan include a policy for a privately-owned Windmill that curtails the rights of over 600 property owners?

HIM04 Property owners will be required to pay for wind assessments based on the Molen Biotoop method - how many experts are there in the UK who could carry out this work and how much would they charge?

Comment

Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan - Submission consultation

Representation ID: 68169

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Barton & District Bridleways Group

Representation:

Suggested amendment to para 5.7 of the Plan to include horse riding.

Comment

Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan - Submission consultation

Representation ID: 68183

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Chivers Farms Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Representation:

Policy HIM03 Size, Scale and Location of New Housing

Chivers Farms Limited previously submitted initial Masterplan Delivery and Vision Document(MDVD) as part of earlier consultation of NP.
MDVD would help deliver development principles and aspirations identified in Policy HM02. Site outside development framework in the green belt.
Sets out aims of MDVD
Site provides 50 new dwellings including affordable/ 30dph.
Use existing site accesses
Green links to encourage ecological corridors and to increase biodiversity.
Create new public open spaces and areas of play
Sustainable location
Sensitive extension within tree belt east of Impington
Considers existing pattern of development and local context
Provides a pedestrian and cycle link, enhances connectivity to the village
New primary school provision approved - can provide for proposed housing.

Object

Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan - Submission consultation

Representation ID: 68190

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Dr Charles Free

Representation:

Policy HIM04 The Windmill

It is fair to take the operation of the windmill into account in assessing major developments in this area, but to give it precedence over everyone else to rescue it from historical contingency is draconian, unacceptable and unlikely to lead to the objective that the policy aims to achieve.

Full text:

Objection to section HIM04 - The Windmill

While it might be desirable to have the windmill restored to full working order, I cannot accept that this project should take priority over all other considerations.

The idea of having a self-supporting windmill is essentially a fantasy. It is admitted in the plan that 75% of usable days of wind have already been lost to existing development. Yet the threshold for self-sufficiency is said to be 25%. The windmill is therefore right on the margin of being self-supporting and is economically precarious.

Why is there an assumption that the windmill should be expected to pay its way? It would be more realistic to recognise that it is not likely to and it should not be expected to. It can be run as a part-time activity instead. The threshold of 25% of usable days of wind then ceases to be the overriding criterion.

The policy is fundamentally inequitable. It takes away the rights of people living to the west of the windmill largely because other people to the east have in the past exercised their normal rights to develop their property.

Why should a modest, two-storey development outside the PVAA have to report on its effects on the windmill's operation? People are building such infill developments now without such a restrictive requirement. Why impose it on the relatively few plots of land remaining to be developed - and which would contribute to the provision of much-needed housing?

The development of the policy has been fundamentally undemocratic. There was a well-attended "consultation" meeting held in November, 2018 at which vigorous objections were raised. Despite our supplying e-mail addresses there has been no communication with residents since and no discussion.

It is time that this fantasy was excised from the local plan.

Object

Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan - Submission consultation

Representation ID: 68230

Received: 31/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation:

Policy HIM02 Interesting Buildings

Cambridgeshire County Council as landowner, objects to the inclusion of 3 New School Road, The Infant School on the list of Interesting Buildings. Please refer to further comments submitted by Cambridgeshire
County Council under Policy HIM17.

Object

Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan - Submission consultation

Representation ID: 68232

Received: 31/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation:

Policy HIM03 Size, Scale and location of New Housing

Cambridgeshire County Council, as landowner, objects to requirement, under HIM03, that 'Entry to the estate should be no further than 800m, by a safe and direct walking and cycling route, from one of the two Community Centre' as it is too prescriptive, does not allow for individual site requirements and may limit potential for appropriately located, integrated and accessible development to meet future needs as required.

Cambridgeshire County Council, as landowner, would suggest that the wording be refined as follows, 'Entry to the estate should be preferably no further than about 800m, by a safe and direct walking and cycling route ' to allow for greater flexibility to account for individual site requirements/constraints when a site is brought forward for development.

Object

Histon & Impington Neighbourhood Plan - Submission consultation

Representation ID: 68235

Received: 31/07/2019

Respondent: Mrs Clare Taylor

Representation:

Policy HIM04 The Windmill

We object to the section regarding the Windmill and its potential to lead to refusal of permission to build eg a dormer window in the surrounding area.

We feel that the Parish Council could have been more forthcoming with information for those who attended the consultation meeting about the windmill. An email list of those who attended was collected but not used. Many attendees will therefore not be aware of this final stage of the consultation.

Full text:

We support most of the local plan, but feel we have to object to the section pertaining to the windmill. We feel that there is an important principle at stake.
THE WINDMILL: While we have the utmost admiration for the work that the owner has carried out on the windmill, we are concerned that his 'intention' to grind corn and avoid it being a drain on his purse/ the protection of his investment are to be given greater priority than the interests of many homeowners nearby. As is documented in the history of the mill, even in the very early 20th century an engine was required to drive the mill, and we are surprised that this and the fact that the mill is on low-lying land and is surrounded by houses/tall trees were not taken into account by the owner when he purchased the mill. It seems very likely to us that it is already not possible to make it a 'working mill' on a money-making footing.
The Plan mentions that any it is possible, with support of landowners, to cut back trees - who would pay for this if it were required?

THE CONSULTATION PROCESS/FEEDBACK: At a local level, greater transparency during the consultation process would have been appreciated.
We were present at the meeting held during the consultation process, and feelings ran quite high - in the same sort of vein as we have expressed above. Our email addresses were gathered and it was implied that we would be informed about any changes made to the Plan as a result of the meeting. In fact, the email list was not used...the final Plan was simply posted on the parish council website, and only after I requested that interested parties be informed. In other words, many of those interested parties who attended the meeting are not aware that the Plan is available for comment on this website.
We appreciate that there are many in the villages who are very supportive of the Windmill, but we suspect that most if not all of any supportive responses gathered during the initial consultation came from homeowners not in the affected area.
There were also many who were not in favour of this section of the Plan, and submitted comment locally. As the final submitted version is not materially different, we suspect that this would remain the situation if only homeowners had been made aware by email of the final version of the Plan.