sustainability appraisal and strategic environmental...2.3 the sustainability appraisal 2.3.1...

Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Local Plan to 2036

Proposed Submission Local Plan

November 2017

1

Further information and copies of this document can be obtained from:

Strategic Planning Team East Cambridgeshire District Council The Grange Nutholt Lane Ely Cambridgeshire CB7 4EE Telephone: 01353 665555

Email: [email protected]

It can also be viewed on our website at: http://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/local-development-framework/local-plan-review

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/local-development-framework/local-plan-review


2

Contents

1 Non-technical summary ..................................................................................................... 3

2 Introduction and Context ................................................................................................... 3

3 The scoping stage (Stages A1-A5) .................................................................................... 7

4 East Cambridgeshire Local Plan (Proposed Submission) – November 2017 .............. 12

5 Sustainability Appraisal of the Local Plan (SA Stages B1-B4) ..................................... 13

6 Sustainability Appraisal of the Local Plan (SA Stages C-E).......................................... 15

7 Sustainability Appraisal Summary Findings .................................................................. 16

Appendix A: Preferred Policy and other Options Considered .............................................. 22

Appendix B: Evaluate the likely effects of the Local Plan policies and alternatives .......... 67

Appendix C: Evaluate the likely effects of settlement policies / sites ............................... 113

Appendix D: Summary of Baseline Data and Indicators ..................................................... 231

Appendix E: Abbreviations used in this report .................................................................... 236

Appendix F: LP2 Distribution of Growth Options ................................................................ 237

3

1 Non-technical summary

1.1 Please see a separate document for a non-technical summary of this full Sustainability Appraisal report.

2 Introduction and Context

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 This report forms the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) undertaken for the Proposed Submission version of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan (November 2017).

2.1.2 The report has been produced alongside the Council’s emerging Local Plan and is being published for consultation at the same time as the Proposed Submission version. This is to provide the public and statutory bodies with an opportunity to express their opinions on the SA report, which can also be used as a reference point in commenting on the Local Plan.

2.1.3 Both the Local Plan and this SA will be consulted upon for six weeks during November and December 2017. The deadline for comments on the Local Plan and this SA report is set out on the Statement of Representations Procedure, published on our website. Further details about the consultation process are available on the Council’s website at: http://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/local-development-framework/local-plan-review.

2.2 The East Cambridgeshire Local Plan

2.2.1 The Proposed Submission Local Plan contains the emerging proposals for planning policies for the growth and regeneration of East Cambridgeshire over the next 20 years.

2.2.2 The Council is undertaking the SA of the Local Plan in accordance with the Sustainability Framework established in the SA Scoping Report (December 2015). This iteration of the SA will accompany the Submission version of the Local Plan, when submitted in early 2018 (scheduled for Feb 2018). A final SA will be published alongside the adopted Local Plan. Once adopted, the Local Plan will become part of the statutory Development Plan for East Cambridgeshire.

2.3 The Sustainability Appraisal

2.3.1 European Directive 2001/42/EC requires that a ‘Strategic Environmental Assessment’ (SEA) is carried out on plans and programmes which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. Therefore an SEA is required on the Local Plan. The purpose is to consider environmental effects of the policies and site allocations and look at how to mitigate adverse impacts.

2.3.2 An SA is also required by the Planning Act 2004. The purpose of SA is to promote sustainable development through the plan-making process. It involves appraising the social, environmental and economic effects of plans, strategies and policies. It is therefore wider than the SEA process, as it looks at social and economic impacts too. Provided it is carried out in accordance with Government guidance, the SA process can fully incorporate the requirements of the SEA Directive.

2.3.3 The SA process is broken down into five stages which occur in parallel with the production of a Local Plan document – this integration is fundamental to sound plan-making. These stages are summarised in the table below, with further explanation on the following pages.


4

Table 1: The Sustainability Appraisal Process in Local Plan Preparation: source National Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014)1. This Document is Stage D

1 Source:http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/strategic-environmental-assessment-and-sustainability-

appraisal/sustainability-appraisal-requirements-for-local-plans/

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/strategic-environmental-assessment-and-sustainability-appraisal/sustainability-appraisal-requirements-for-local-plans/

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/strategic-environmental-assessment-and-sustainability-appraisal/sustainability-appraisal-requirements-for-local-plans/

5

2.3.4 Stage A involves establishing the framework for undertaking a Sustainability Appraisal. It

involves producing a set of objectives against which the document can be assessed – together with the evidence base for the appraisal. The framework and evidence base for the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan were set out in a ‘Scoping Report’ which was published for consultation in 2015. A ‘Final Scoping Report’, incorporating changes, was published in December 2015. The full version of the Scoping Report can be viewed on the District Council’s website at http://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/local-development-framework/local-plan-review

2.3.5 Stage B focuses on the appraisal of the options (or alternatives). This stage took place in early 2017. Sustainability considerations have been, and will continue to be, taken into account throughout the preparation of the Local Plan. Sustainability issues specific to East Cambridgeshire have been identified and consulted on at the SA Scoping Report stage and the alternative policy options have been assessed and were consulted upon through a draft SA report which accompanied the Further Draft Local Plan (January 2017).

2.3.6 Stage C involves preparing an updated version of the SA report. All policies and any reasonable alternatives (including site allocations) are appraised against the SA framework. The likely significant effects in terms of environment, economy and society will be identified and where appropriate any measures to prevent or reduce any significant adverse effects will be identified. This stage took place over a large part of 2017.

2.3.7 Stage D is the stage where we consult on the Local Plan (final version as far as the Council is concerned) and the final draft version of the SA report. This is the present stage we are at.

2.3.8 The final stage of the process (Stage E) involves publishing the final SA and monitoring the significant effects of the Plan. This takes place via the Authorities Monitoring Report, which sets out indicators and targets for monitoring progress of the Local Plan. The final version of the SA report will include the indicators to monitor the Local Plan.

2.4 Habitat Regulation Assessment

2.4.1 The EC Habitats Directive 1992, transposed into British law by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, requires that a ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’ (HRA) of the Local Plan is carried out to identify any ‘likely significant effects’ on the interest features of European designated sites, commonly referred to as Natura 200 sites. ln East Cambridgeshire, there are several such sites, including the Ouse Washes (Rasmar, SAC and SPA).

2.4.2 The first stage of the HRA involves screening each policy in the Local Plan, to identify any ‘likely significant effects’. A screening assessment was carried out on the Further Draft version of the Local Plan (January 2017). This concluded that the Local Plan is unlikely to have any significant effects on Natura 2000 sites. However, Natural England did not agree with the conclusion of no likely significant effect. Therefore, the policies in the Further Draft Local Plan were re-screened, using a revised methodology and taking into account the comments and concerns raised by Natural England. The re-screening resulted in a number of policies and site allocations with potential effects on Natura 2000 sites. Recommendations were therefore made to mitigate any potential adverse effects and these have been included in the Proposed Submission version of the Local Plan.

2.4.3 A screening assessment has been carried out again for the Proposed Submission version of the Local Plan to respond to changes made to the policies and site allocations. An updated ‘screening’ HRA report (November 2017) has been published alongside this SA and the Local Plan. The screening assessment identified policies LP2 and LP8 as having potential effects, as well as a number of site allocations within the settlement chapters. The issues identified as having potential effects were: physical damage or loss of habitats; disturbance from recreational pressure; disturbance from urbanisation effects; reduced air quality; water quantity changes


6

and; reduction in water quality. The report goes on to examine these potential effects in more detail, taking into account in combination effects with other plans and projects, and mitigation measures set out in other plans and in the Local Plan itself. It concludes that the policies and site allocations identified as having potential effects are unlikely to result in a significant adverse effects on any Natura 2000 sites.

2.4.4 This SA Report takes into account the findings of the updated HRA Report (November 2017).

7

3 The scoping stage (Stages A1-A5)

3.1 Background

3.1.1 This chapter summarises the content of the SA Scoping Report to the Local Plan. The full

Scoping Report can be viewed on the Council’s website at http://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/local-development-framework/local-plan-review. The role of the Scoping Report is to set a framework for carrying out the Sustainability Appraisal process.

3.1.2 Consultation with key environmental bodies was carried out on a draft of the SA Scoping Report in 2015. A number of comments were received and relevant changes were made. The final Scoping Report was approved by the Council in December 2015.

3.2 Review of relevant plans and programmes

3.2.1 The first part of the Scoping process involves reviewing plans, policies, programmes and

strategies that are relevant to the Local Plan. This allows identification of key sustainability issues, and potential objectives which should be reflected in the SA.

3.2.2 A policy, plan or programme (PPP) may be influenced in various ways by other policies, plans or programmes, or by external sustainability objectives such as those laid down in policies or legislation. Identifying and reviewing these PPPs is an important element of the SA process, helping to shape the objectives against which emerging policies should be appraised, as well as indicating particular issues and problems that need to be tackled. Full details of the assessment of plans and programmes are set out in Appendix A of the Scoping Report itself.

3.3 Baseline information

3.3.1 ‘Baseline information’ is information on the current state of the environment and current issues.

It helps to identify sustainability problems and potential responses/solutions. It also provides the basis for predicting and monitoring the effects of the Local Plan.

3.3.2 Comprehensive baseline information is contained in Appendix B of the Scoping Report. It looks at the key issues and potential responses, and also includes baseline data with indicators and regional/national comparators.

3.4 Key sustainability issues

3.4.1 The review of plans and programmes, and baseline information (as detailed in sections 3.2 and

3.3 above) has led to the identification of a number of key sustainability issues. These are identified in full in the Scoping Report, and are summarised in the table below.



8

Table 2 – Key sustainability issues for the district

Summary of Objectives and Sustainability Requirements

Implications for the Local Plan

Land and Water Resources

Land Resources: UK government objectives include the use of previously developed land where possible. Water Resources: National water policies are primarily driven by the aims of the EC Water Framework Directive. Key objectives include improving the quality of rivers and waterbodies to ‘good ecological status’ by 2015; considering flood risk at all stages of the planning process in order to reduce future damage to property and loss of life; and incorporating water efficiency measures into new developments. At a local level, a revised Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and Water Cycle Strategy are currently being carried out.

The Local Plan should strive to locate development on previously developed land where possible. The Local Plan should seek to ensure that water quality in the district is not negatively affected by planned developments. It should also support water efficiency and conservation and use of sustainable drainage systems, and avoid development in existing or potential (due to climate change) flood risk areas. The Local Plan should have regard to the outcome of local SFRA and Water Cycle Studies when they become available.

Biodiversity and Geodiversity

At EU level, in recognition that wild birds, many of which are migratory, are a shared heritage of the Member States and that their effective conservation required international co-operation. The objectives of policies and plans at all levels focus on the conservation of biological diversity, including a reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss and the protection and monitoring of endangered and vulnerable species and habitats. Emphasis is also placed on the ecological importance of brownfield sites, and geodiversity. The integration of biodiversity and geodiversity considerations into all environmental and socio-economic planning is strongly advocated.

The Local Plan has the potential to impact upon biodiversity, particularly in the more rural areas. Mitigation will be necessary in many cases to reduce the negative impacts associated with development including: habitat loss, fragmentation, disturbance and pollution. In addition, development allocations should seek to identify opportunities for habitat enhancement. Allocations should also, wherever possible, avoid particularly sensitive areas.

Landscape, Townscape and Historic Assets

At the EU level, emphasis is placed on the protection of landscape as an essential component of people’s surroundings. Cultural heritage priorities from international to local level include protecting designated resources and their settings; establishing mechanisms for their protection against inappropriate development; recognising the potential value of unknown and undesignated resources; and preserving sites and landscapes of archaeological and historic interest so that they may be enjoyed by future generations.

The Local Plan should support development which improves the public realm, built environment and townscape/landscape of the district. The protection and enhancement of cultural heritage assets and their settings should be a key consideration for the Local Plan, with improvements to the public realm, built environment and townscape made where possible.

Climate Change and Pollution

Climate Change: PPPs focus on mitigating the causes of

climate change and adapting to its effects. Commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions range from the international level to the regional level. PPPs combine both demand management (reduced energy consumption and increased efficiency of use) and supply side measures (low carbon options and renewables). Adaptation measures proposed include a presumption against development in flood risk areas, appropriate design of new development and promotion of new infrastructure such as SUDs. Waste: European member states must significantly reduce the volumes of waste generated and the quantities going to disposal, and give preference to waste recovery and recycling. Related objectives include the protection of health and the environment against harmful effects caused by dumping of waste.

The Local Plan has a key role to play in East Cambridgeshire’s adaptation to and mitigation of climate change. The Local Plan should encourage efficient design of new development and redevelopment; support layout of development which reduces the need to travel and which encourages walking, cycling and public transport use; and support the growth of renewable energy provision in the district. The Local Plan should also facilitate climate change adaptation, such as a presumption against development in higher flood risk areas, supporting a growth in green infrastructure and promoting the development of sustainable drainage systems. Sustainable waste management should be a consideration for the Local Plan.

Healthy Communities

National and regional health-related PPPs focus on improving rates of infant mortality and life expectancy;

The Local Plan should support developments which encourage walking, cycling and more active

9

Summary of Objectives and Sustainability Requirements

Implications for the Local Plan

reducing work-related illness and accidents; increasing participation in sport and physical activity; supporting the public to make healthier and more informed choices; improving accessibility to healthcare facilities; and reducing health inequalities. Open space: National, regional and local level policies advocate the provision of open space and green networks as opportunities for sport and recreation, creating healthier communities, reducing the impact of noise and air pollution and limiting the risk of flooding.

lifestyles. An improvement in green space and provision of sports and play areas will be key to achieving this. The Local Plan should also ensure the provision of high quality, well located and affordable housing appropriate for local residents’ needs. The Local Plan should support the provision of playing fields and other local recreational facilities.

Inclusive Communities

A wide range of objectives exists from a European to a local level with regards to the creation of inclusive communities. In particular these focus on improving social inclusion; reducing poverty; improving housing quality and affordability; preventing crime and anti-social behaviour; improving skill levels and employability and regenerating communities. Housing: Government objectives include improvements in housing affordability; high quality housing; a more stable housing market; improved choice; location of housing supply which supports accessibility and economic development; an adequate supply of publicly-funded housing for those who need it.

The Local Plan should aim to increase inclusiveness by promoting development layout which improves accessibility to services, facilities and amenities; enhancing the local environment through appropriate land use; incorporation of green infrastructure; and improving vitality and viability of local centres. The Local Plan should also support development which reduces crime and the fear of crime. The Local Plan should support new housing that is of a high quality, is affordable and supports community cohesion and residents’ wellbeing.

Economic Activity

The improvement and maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment are key aims of the strategies at UK and European levels. At a regional and local level, emphasis is placed on attracting the research and technology sectors; addressing training and skills issues; supporting appropriate farm diversification; investing in infrastructure; promoting sustainable tourism and supporting Cambridge as a sub-regional centre.

The Local Plan should secure the provision of high quality employment land and draw on the district’s unique natural and cultural assets to boost the visitor economy.

3.5 Sustainability Appraisal Framework

3.5.1 The SA framework provides the means by which the sustainability effects of the Local Plan can

be measured, compared and analysed. The SA framework in Table 3 below is taken from the Scoping Report 2015. It sets out 22 SA objectives, along with sub-objectives/decision-making criteria. The same objectives are selected for the emerging Local Plan.

3.5.2 Undertaking the sustainability appraisal involves appraising the options and policies against the SA framework, using a scoring system. This scoring system is detailed in Table 4 below. The scoring system defines the impact on each objective, ranging from a ‘strong and significant beneficial impact’, to ‘strong and significant adverse impact.’ The assessment also allows for situations where there is insufficient information to make an assessment or where the impact is uncertain to predict at that stage.

10

Table 3 - Sustainability Framework

SA Topic SA Objective Decision-making Criteria

1 Land and water resources

1.1 Minimise the irreversible loss of undeveloped land and productive agricultural holdings

Will it use land that has been previously developed? Will it use land efficiently? Will it protect and enhance the best and most versatile agricultural land?

1.2 Reduce the use of non-renewable resources including energy sources

Will it reduce energy consumption? Will it increase the proportion of energy needs being met from renewable sources?

1.3 Limit water consumption to levels supportable by natural processes and storage systems

Will it reduce water consumption? Will it conserve ground water resources?

2 Biodiversity and geodiversity

2.1 Avoid damage to designated statutory and non statutory sites and protected species

Will it protect sites designated for nature conservation interest? Will it mitigate against any harm caused by proposed development?

2.2 Maintain and enhance the range and viability of characteristic habitats and species

Will it conserve species, reverse declines, help to enhance diversity? Will it reduce habitat fragmentation? Will it help achieve Biodiversity Action Plan targets?

2.3 Improve opportunities for people to access and appreciate wildlife and wild places

Will it improve access to wildlife, and wild places? Will it maintain or increase the area of high-quality green space? Will it promote understanding and appreciation of wildlife?

3 Landscape, townscape and heritage assets

3.1 Avoid damage to areas and sites designated for their historic interest, and protect their settings

Will it protect or enhance sites, features of areas of historical, archaeological, or cultural interest and their settings?

3.2 Maintain and enhance the diversity and distinctiveness of landscape and townscape character

Will it maintain and enhance the diversity and distinctiveness of landscape and townscape character? Will it protect and enhance open spaces of amenity and recreational value? Will it maintain and enhance the character of settlements?

3.3 Create places, spaces and buildings that work well, wear well and look good

Will it improve the satisfaction of people with their neighbourhoods as places to live? Will it lead to developments built to a high standard of design?

4 Climate change and pollution

4.1 Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants (including air, water, soil, noise, vibration and light)

Will it reduce emissions of greenhouse gases? Will it improve air quality? Will it reduce traffic volumes? Will it support travel by means other than the car? Will it reduce levels of noise? Will it reduce or minimise light pollution? Will it reduce water pollution?

4.2 Minimise waste production and support the recycling of waste products

Will it reduce household waste? Will it increase waste recovery and recycling? Will it reduce waste from other sources?

4.3 Limit or reduce vulnerability to the effects of climate change (including flooding)

Will it minimise risk to people and property from flooding, storm events or subsidence? Will it improve the adaptability of buildings to changing temperatures?

5 Healthy communities

5.1 Maintain and enhance human health Will it reduce death rates? Will it encourage healthy lifestyles?

5.2 Reduce and prevent crime, and reduce the fear of crime

Will it reduce actual levels of crime? Will it reduce fear of crime?

5.3 Improve the quantity and quality of publicly accessible open space

Will it increase the quantity and quality of publicly accessible open space?

11

SA Topic SA Objective Decision-making Criteria

6 Inclusive communities

6.1 Improve the quality, range and accessibility of services and facilities (e.g. health, transport, education, training, leisure opportunities)

Will it improve accessibility to key local services and facilities? Will it improve accessibility by means other than the car? Will it support and improve community and public transport?

6.2 Redress inequalities related to age, gender, disability, race, faith, location and income

Will it improve relations between people from different backgrounds or social groups? Will it reduce poverty and social exclusion in those areas most affected? Will it promote accessibility for all members of society?

6.3 Ensure all groups have access to decent, appropriate and affordable housing

Will it support the provision of a range of housing types and sizes to meet the identified needs of all sectors of the community?

Will it reduce the number of unfit homes? Will it meet the needs of the travelling community?

6.4 Encourage and enable the active involvement of local people in community activities

Will it increase the ability of people to influence decisions? Will it encourage community engagement?

7 Economic activity

7.1 Help people gain access to satisfying work appropriate to their skills, potential and place of residence

Will it encourage business development? Will it improve the range of employment opportunities? Will it improve access to employment / access to employment by means other than the car? Will it encourage the rural economy and diversification?

7.2 Support appropriate investment in people, places, communications and other infrastructure

Will it improve the level of investment in key community services and infrastructure? Will it support provision of key infrastructure? Will it improve access to education and training, and support provision of skilled employees?

7.3 Improve the efficiency, competitiveness, vitality and adaptability of the local economy

Will it improve business development and enhance competitiveness? Will it support Cambridgeshire’s lead role in research and technology based industries, higher education and

research? Will it support sustainable tourism? Will it protect the shopping hierarchy, supporting vitality and viability?

Table 4 – Key to appraisal symbols

Symbol Likely effect upon the SA Objective

+++ Strong and significant beneficial impact

++ Potentially significant beneficial impact

+ Policy or proposal supports this objective although it may only have a minor beneficial impact

~ Policy or proposal has no impact or effect is neutral insofar as the benefits and drawbacks appear equal and neither is considered significant

? Uncertain or insufficient information on which to determine the assessment at this stage - Policy or proposal appears to conflict with the objective and may result in adverse impacts -- Potentially significant adverse impact --- Strong and significant adverse impact

12

4 East Cambridgeshire Local Plan (Proposed Submission) – November 2017

4.1 The East Cambridgeshire Proposed Submission Local Plan contains the emerging proposals for planning policies for East Cambridgeshire District over the next 20 years. This includes a vision for what the district could be like in 2036. There are also some objectives to explain what is trying to be achieved and proposed policies setting out what and how much development should take place.

4.2 The district benefits from an attractive rural environment, and has a good level of overall prosperity.

However, a number of specific issues need to be addressed. These are mainly related to the challenges of managing high levels of growth and the effects of population increase.

4.3 Following consultation on a Preliminary Draft and then a Further Draft of the Local Plan, some of the

policies have been revised or amended, either as a result of representation or further evidence submitted or prepared by us. The amended policies have been reappraised and results modified. Also any new policies added have been appraised and added to this report.

4.4 At earlier stages of the Local Plan preparation process, sites have been put forward for consideration for allocations. All sites have been assessed against the sustainability criteria and the results are included in Appendix D of this report. The sites are listed in the settlement that they are located and all the sites in the submitted village are assessed together. Where sites are already ‘committed’ (e.g. with planning permission) these have not been appraised as the assumption is that such sites will be delivered irrespective of what the new Local Plan will state, and that they have already been appraised and found suitable, from a sustainability perspective, by the decision maker which has subsequently resulted in the site being ‘committed’. It would not be a reasonable or practical measure to undertake further appraisal of such sites.

13

5 Sustainability Appraisal of the Local Plan (SA Stages B1-B4)

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 The purpose of this stage of the SA is to test reasonable alternative options for the Local Plan both for policies and for sites, and identify and evaluate their sustainability effects. This chapter sets out how the options/alternatives were selected; and the results of the SA assessment. This is in line with the SEA Directive which requires that the SA report identifies:

The reasons for selecting the alternatives tested in light of the others available; and

The likely significant effects on the environment of the reasonable alternatives.

5.2 Testing the Local Plan objectives

5.2.1 The objectives of the Local Plan set out what the District Council is trying to achieve in spatial planning terms, and sets the context for the options and preferred options. It is therefore important to ensure that the objectives are in accordance with the principles of sustainability. As the spatial objectives in the Local Plan are same as the sustainability appraisal objectives there is, therefore, no need to appraise these.

5.3 Developing the Local Plan options

5.3.1 By testing each emerging policy in the Local Plan against the sustainability objectives (using the defined decision making criteria in section 3), this ensures that key effects of all policies are known when tested against the SA objectives and by extension are tested against the sustainability principles identified in the Local Plan.

5.3.2 The SA process requires assessment of all ‘reasonable alternatives.’ For some policy areas there are limited or no alternative options, such as many of the environmental policies such as protection of nature conservation sites, and historical assets – for these areas, strategy is dictated by national planning policy. The number of options has been kept manageable and has focused on those aspects where real choices have to be made.

5.4 Evaluate the likely effects of the Local Plan and alternatives

5.4.1 The significant effects of each of the options have been considered in full (see Appendix B) against each of the sustainability criteria and scored using the scoring system described in section 3. The SA guidance requires policy options to be compared with the likely evolution of East Cambridgeshire without the Local Plan. The SA Scoping Report assesses the likely effect of not producing a new Plan. Most of the policy options tested also fulfil this requirement as they either carry over the existing policy or test the scenario of not having a policy and relying on national policy in the form of NPPF.

5.4.2 The effects considered have included secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium, long-term, permanent, temporary, positive and negative effects. Any judgements made through the assessment of policy options has been explained including any assumptions, in order to make the SA process as transparent as possible (see Appendices A and B).

5.4.3 For the avoidance of doubt, the same framework was used for appraising policies and sites. However detailed appraisal of the sites (including maps showing location of sites) can be found in separate report entitled Site Assessment Evidence report. This report is available for view on our website (see web link below).



14

5.5 Consider ways of mitigating adverse effects and maximising potential effects

5.5.1 Conclusions on the sustainability strengths and weaknesses of each option have been recorded in this SA Report (Appendix A), together with any recommendations for improving the positive effects and reducing (mitigating) potential negative effects. Reasons for eliminating other options have also been recorded. In many instances however it is likely that it will not be possible to quantify the effects of the Plan, especially given that the Local Plan will be only one influence on what actually happens on the ground. It is intended that sufficient flexibility is built into the Plan in order to respond to changing circumstances (such as economic upturns/downturns).

5.6 Propose measures to monitor the significant effects of implementing the Local Plan

5.6.1 The SA report lists a series of indicators (see Appendix D) which will help to develop a monitoring framework with which to monitor the effects of the adopted Plan. Most if not all of the anticipated effects are currently monitored through some existing mechanism, however through consultation on the SA and the emerging Local Plan policies it may become apparent that some additional monitoring mechanisms may be required. The implementation and monitoring framework will be set out in the final version of the SA report. The effects for all policies will be monitored through the Council’s AMR or other appropriate monitoring mechanism.

15

6 Sustainability Appraisal of the Local Plan (SA Stages C-E)

6.1 Stage C: Preparing the Sustainability Appraisal Report

6.1.1 This stage has taken place over 2017, and culminates in this Report. This SA Report shows in detail the SA process which has been undertaken, along with the results of the appraisal of the policy options of the Local Plan (Appendix B). It includes an overall assessment of the sustainability effects of the Local Plan policies on each of the SA/Plan objectives.

6.2 Stage D: Seek representations on the sustainability appraisal report from consultation bodies and the public

6.2.1 This Report forms the ‘Stage D’ requirements. The Report is being consulted upon for six weeks

alongside the Local Plan as part of the ‘proposed submission’ public consultation stage.

6.2.2 Should the Local Plan be significantly amended prior to adoption (most likely as a result of ‘modifications’ suggested by a Local Plan Inspector), then consultation on a revised (or addendum to this) SA Report may be necessary, prior to proceeding to Stage E.

6.3 Stage E: Post adoption reporting and monitoring

6.3.1 This stage will come into effect upon adoption of the new Local Plan. The SEA Directive and the SA Guidance require final SA Reports to include details of the Local Plan monitoring framework, showing for some or all policies, which indicators will be used to measure it, what the targets are and who will be responsible for recording the information. The outcome of this monitoring is intended to be reported annually in the Council’s AMR or other appropriate reporting mechanism.

16

7 Sustainability Appraisal Summary Findings

7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 The findings of the SA for the Proposed Submission Local Plan are set out in Appendix B and

Appendix C. It should be noted that this SA report itself has not been used to select the proposed policies, rather, it satisfies the requirements of Government guidance on SA and the SEA Directive to identify the likely significant sustainability effects of implementing the Plan, and has assisted in the selection of the preferred policies.

7.1.2 Table 5 records a summary of the SA results of all proposed policies selected, excluding those very site specific policies where it is not practical to summarise here, and instead Appendix C should be referred. In the majority of cases, the preferred option scored better than the alternative options. Where this was not the case, reasons for not selecting the most sustainable option are clearly explained. Many of the effects of the preferred policies are unclear at this stage. This is because of the strategic nature of the Local Plan objectives and policies, and therefore the uncertainties surrounding their implementation and outcomes in practice. Implementation of some of the policies may be reliant on more detail in future policy documents such as Supplementary Planning Documents or on decisions made through the Development Management process. For the broader objectives and policies, the appraisal process has had to concentrate on whether, in principle, the proposed policy is compatible with the SA objectives to avoid trying to consider every eventuality.

7.1.3 Appendix A provides a brief summary of the options considered for each policy and discuss the preferred option and justification for selecting the option when compared with the alternatives.

7.1.4 In summary, the outcomes of the SA show that the policies contained in the Proposed Submission Local Plan will bring many significant positive benefits. The benefits will depend on the objectives of the policy being delivered. By examining the summary table (Table 5) it can be seen that overall Local Plan policies will provide considerable sustainability benefits to the local environment.

Recommendations

7.1.5 The findings of the SA for the Proposed Submission Local Plan are summarised in Table 5 below, with the full appraisal of each policy, along with corresponding reasonable alternatives, found in the appendices. Taken as a whole, the preferred policies do not result in any significant negative impacts, therefore there are no recommend changes to the plan at this stage.

17

Table 5 – Summary of SA Results (for the preferred option only)

SA Topic 1 Land and Water Resources




5 Healthy Communities

6 Inclusive communities 7 Economic activity S

A F

ram

ew

ork

1.1

Min

imis

e the irr

evers

ible

lo

ss o

f undevelo

ped la

nd

and p

roductive a

gricultura

l hold

ings

1.2

R

educe

the

use

of

non

-renew

able

re

sourc

es

inclu

din

g e

nerg

y s

ourc

es

1.3

Lim

it w

ate

r consum

ptio

n t

o l

evels

support

able

by

natu

ral pro

cess a

nd s

tora

ge s

yste

ms

2.1

Avoid

dam

age t

o d

esig

nate

d s

tatu

tory

and n

on

-

sta

tuto

ry s

ites a

nd p

rote

cte

d s

pecie

s

2.2

Ma

inta

in a

nd e

nhance t

he r

ange a

nd v

iabili

ty o

f

chara

cte

ristic h

abitats

and s

pecie

s

2.3

Im

pro

ve opport

unitie

s fo

r people

to

access and

appre

cia

te w

ildlif

e a

nd w

ild p

laces

3.1

Avoid

dam

age t

o a

rea a

nd s

ites d

esig

nate

d f

or

their h

isto

ric inte

rest, a

nd p

rote

ct th

eir s

ettin

gs

3.2

M

ain

tain

and

enhance

the

div

ers

ity

and

dis

tinctiveness

of

landscape

and

tow

nscape

chara

cte

r

3.3

C

reate

pla

ces,

spaces and build

ings th

at

work

well,

wear

well

and lo

ok g

ood

4.1

R

educe

em

issio

ns

of

gre

enhouse

gases

and

oth

er

pollu

tants

(in

clu

din

g

air,

wate

r,

soil,

nois

e,

vib

ratio

n a

nd lig

ht)

4.2

M

inim

ise

waste

pro

ductio

n

and

support

th

e

recyclin

g o

f w

aste

pro

ducts

4.3

Lim

it

or

reduce

vuln

era

bili

ty

to

the

effects

of

clim

ate

change (

inclu

din

g flo

odin

g)

5.1

Ma

inta

in a

nd e

nhance h

um

an h

ealth

5.2

Reduce a

nd p

revent

crim

e,

and r

educe t

he f

ear

of

crim

e

5.3

Im

pro

ve

the

quantity

and

qualit

y

of

public

ly

accessib

le o

pen s

pace

6.1

Im

pro

ve th

e qualit

y,

range and accessib

ility

of

serv

ices

and

facili

tie

s

(e.g

. health,

transport

,

educatio

n, tr

ain

ing a

nd le

isure

opport

unitie

s)

6.2

R

edre

ss

inequalit

ies

rela

ted

to

age,

gender,

dis

abili

ty,

race, fa

ith, lo

catio

n a

nd incom

e

6.3

E

nsure

all

gro

ups

have

access

to

decent,

appro

priate

and a

fford

able

housin

g

6.4

Encoura

ge a

nd e

nable

the a

ctive i

nvolv

em

ent

of

local people

in

com

mu

nity facili

tie

s

7.1

H

elp

people

gain

access

to

satisfy

ing

work

appro

priate

to

th

eir

skill

s,

pote

ntial

and

pla

ce

of

resid

ence

7.2

Support

appro

pria

te in

vestm

ent

in p

eople

, pla

ces,

com

mu

nic

atio

ns a

nd o

ther

infr

astr

uctu

re

7.3

Im

pro

ve th

e effic

iency,

com

petitiveness,

vitalit

y

and a

dapta

bili

ty o

f th

e local econom

y

LP1 – A Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

LP2 (a) - Level of Growth

~ ~ ~ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ++ +++ ? ++ ? ?

LP2 (b) - Broad Distribution of Growth

~ ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ ~ + ++ ~ ~ ++ ? +++ ~ + ++ +

LP3 – The Settlement Hierarchy and the Countryside

++ ? ~ ~ ~ ? ? ? ? ~ ? + ? ? ? ++ ? ++ ? ++ ++ ++

LP4 – Green Belt +++ ~ ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ? ? ~ ? ? ~ ~

LP5 – Community-led Development

_ ? ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ +++ +++ ++ ? ?

LP6 (a) – Meeting Local Housing Needs (Affordable Housing)

? ? ? ~ ~ ? ? ~ ~ ? ? ~ ~ ~ ? ++ +++ ? ~ ~ ?

LP6 (b) Meeting Local Housing Needs (Dwellings with higher access standards)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ++ ++ ? ? ? ?

18






6 Inclusive communities 7 Economic activity

SA

Fra

me

wo

rk

1.1

Min

imis

e the irr

evers

ible

lo

ss o

f undevelo

ped la

nd

and p

roductive a

gricultura

l hold

ings

1.2

R

educe

the

use

of

non

-renew

able

re

sourc

es

inclu

din

g e

nerg

y s

ourc

es

1.3

Lim

it w

ate

r consum

ptio

n t

o l

evels

support

able

by

natu

ral pro

cess a

nd s

tora

ge s

yste

ms

2.1

Avoid

dam

age t

o d

esig

nate

d s

tatu

tory

and n

on

-

sta

tuto

ry s

ites a

nd p

rote

cte

d s

pecie

s

2.2

Ma

inta

in a

nd e

nhance t

he r

ange a

nd v

iabili

ty o

f

chara

cte

ristic h

abitats

and s

pecie

s

2.3

Im

pro

ve opport

unitie

s fo

r people

to

access and

appre

cia

te w

ildlif

e a

nd w

ild p

laces

3.1

Avoid

dam

age t

o a

rea a

nd s

ites d

esig

nate

d f

or

their h

isto

ric inte

rest, a

nd p

rote

ct th

eir s

ettin

gs

3.2

M

ain

tain

and

enhance

the

div

ers

ity

and

dis

tinctiveness

of

landscape

and

tow

nscape

chara

cte

r

3.3

C

reate

pla

ces,

spaces and build

ings th

at

work

well,

wear

well

and lo

ok g

ood

4.1

R

educe

em

issio

ns

of

gre

enhouse

gases

and

oth

er

pollu

tants

(in

clu

din

g

air,

wate

r,

soil,

nois

e,

vib

ratio

n a

nd lig

ht)

4.2

M

inim

ise

waste

pro

ductio

n

and

support

th

e

recyclin

g o

f w

aste

pro

ducts

4.3

Lim

it

or

reduce

vuln

era

bili

ty

to

the

effects

of

clim

ate

change (

inclu

din

g flo

odin

g)

5.1

Ma

inta

in a

nd e

nhance h

um

an h

ealth

5.2

Reduce a

nd p

revent

crim

e,

and r

educe t

he f

ear

of

crim

e

5.3

Im

pro

ve

the

quantity

and

qualit

y

of

public

ly

accessib

le o

pen s

pace

6.1

Im

pro

ve th

e qualit

y,

range and accessib

ility

of

serv

ices

and

facili

tie

s

(e.g

. health,

transport

,

educatio

n, tr

ain

ing a

nd le

isure

opport

unitie

s)

6.2

R

edre

ss

inequalit

ies

rela

ted

to

age,

gender,

dis

abili

ty,

race, fa

ith, lo

catio

n a

nd incom

e

6.3

E

nsure

all

gro

ups

have

access

to

decent,

appro

priate

and a

fford

able

housin

g

6.4

Encoura

ge a

nd e

nable

the a

ctive i

nvolv

em

ent

of

local people

in

com

mu

nity facili

tie

s

7.1

H

elp

people

gain

access

to

satisfy

ing

work

appro

priate

to

th

eir

skill

s,

pote

ntial

and

pla

ce

of

resid

ence

7.2

Support

appro

pria

te in

vestm

ent

in p

eople

, pla

ces,

com

mu

nic

atio

ns a

nd o

ther

infr

astr

uctu

re

7.3

Im

pro

ve th

e effic

iency,

com

petitiveness,

vitalit

y

and a

dapta

bili

ty o

f th

e local econom

y

LP6 (c) Meeting Local Housing Needs (Self-build homes)

? ? ? ~ ~ ? ? ~ ~ ? ? ? ~ ? ? ~ ~ ++ ++ ~ ~ ~

LP6 (d) Meeting Local Housing Needs (Residential care accommodation)

- ? ? ~ ~ ? ~ ? ~ ? ? ? ? ? ~ + ++ ++ ++ ? ~ ~

LP6 (e) Meeting Local Housing Needs (Park Homes)

- ? ? ~ ~ ? ~ ? ~ ? ? ? ? ? ~ + ++ ++ ++ ? ~ ~

LP7 – Gypsy and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople sites

? ? ? ~ ~ ? ? ? ~ ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ ++ ? ? ? ~

LP8 – Delivering Prosperity and Jobs

+ ? ? ~ ~ ? ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ? ? ? ~ +++ ++ +++

LP9 – Equine Development - ? ? ~ ~ ? ? ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ + +++

LP10 – Development Affecting the Horse Racing Industry

- ? ? ~ ~ ? ? ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ + +++

LP11 – Tourist Facilities and Visitor Attractions

- ? ? ~ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ ? ? ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ++ ~ ++

LP12 – Tourist Accommodation (excluding

+ ? ? ~ ~ ~ ? ? ? ? ~ ~ ? ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ++ ? ++

19







SA

Fra

me

wo

rk

1.1

Min

imis

e the irr

evers

ible

lo

ss o

f undevelo

ped la

nd

and p

roductive a

gricultura

l hold

ings

1.2

R

educe

the

use

of

non

-renew

able

re

sourc

es

inclu

din

g e

nerg

y s

ourc

es

1.3

Lim

it w

ate

r consum

ptio

n t

o l

evels

support

able

by

natu

ral pro

cess a

nd s

tora

ge s

yste

ms

2.1

Avoid

dam

age t

o d

esig

nate

d s

tatu

tory

and n

on

-

sta

tuto

ry s

ites a

nd p

rote

cte

d s

pecie

s

2.2

Ma

inta

in a

nd e

nhance t

he r

ange a

nd v

iabili

ty o

f

chara

cte

ristic h

abitats

and s

pecie

s

2.3

Im

pro

ve opport

unitie

s fo

r people

to

access and

appre

cia

te w

ildlif

e a

nd w

ild p

laces

3.1

Avoid

dam

age t

o a

rea a

nd s

ites d

esig

nate

d f

or

their h

isto

ric inte

rest, a

nd p

rote

ct th

eir s

ettin

gs

3.2

M

ain

tain

and

enhance

the

div

ers

ity

and

dis

tinctiveness

of

landscape

and

tow

nscape

chara

cte

r

3.3

C

reate

pla

ces,

spaces and build

ings th

at

work

well,

wear

well

and lo

ok g

ood

4.1

R

educe

em

issio

ns

of

gre

enhouse

gases

and

oth

er

pollu

tants

(in

clu

din

g

air,

wate

r,

soil,

nois

e,

vib

ratio

n a

nd lig

ht)

4.2

M

inim

ise

waste

pro

ductio

n

and

support

th

e

recyclin

g o

f w

aste

pro

ducts

4.3

Lim

it

or

reduce

vuln

era

bili

ty

to

the

effects

of

clim

ate

change (

inclu

din

g flo

odin

g)

5.1

Ma

inta

in a

nd e

nhance h

um

an h

ealth

5.2

Reduce a

nd p

revent

crim

e,

and r

educe t

he f

ear

of

crim

e

5.3

Im

pro

ve

the

quantity

and

qualit

y

of

public

ly

accessib

le o

pen s

pace

6.1

Im

pro

ve th

e qualit

y,

range and accessib

ility

of

serv

ices

and

facili

tie

s

(e.g

. health,

transport

,

educatio

n, tr

ain

ing a

nd le

isure

opport

unitie

s)

6.2

R

edre

ss

inequalit

ies

rela

ted

to

age,

gender,

dis

abili

ty,

race, fa

ith, lo

catio

n a

nd incom

e

6.3

E

nsure

all

gro

ups

have

access

to

decent,

appro

priate

and a

fford

able

housin

g

6.4

Encoura

ge a

nd e

nable

the a

ctive i

nvolv

em

ent

of

local people

in

com

mu

nity facili

tie

s

7.1

H

elp

people

gain

access

to

satisfy

ing

work

appro

priate

to

th

eir

skill

s,

pote

ntial

and

pla

ce

of

resid

ence

7.2

Support

appro

pria

te in

vestm

ent

in p

eople

, pla

ces,

com

mu

nic

atio

ns a

nd o

ther

infr

astr

uctu

re

7.3

Im

pro

ve th

e effic

iency,

com

petitiveness,

vitalit

y

and a

dapta

bili

ty o

f th

e local econom

y

holiday cottages)

LP13 – Holiday Cottage Accommodation

+ ? ? ~ ~ ~ ? ? ? ? ~ ~ ? ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ++ ? ++

LP14 –Retail and Other Main Town Centre Uses

~ ? ? ~ ~ ? ? ++ ~ ? ? ? ~ ~ ? ? ~ ~ ? +++ ++ ++

LP15 – Retail Uses in Town Centres

~ ? ? ~ ~ ? ? ++ ~ ? ? ? - ~ ? ? ~ ~ ? +++ ++ ++

LP16 – Infrastructure to Support Growth

? ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ++ ? ~ ~ + ++ ?

LP17 – Creating a Sustainable, Efficient and Resilient Road Network

~ ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ ? ++ ~ ~ + ~ ~ ++ + ~ ~ + ? +

LP18 – Improving Cycle Provision

~ + ~ ~ + + ~ + ? ++ ~ ~ ++ ~ + ? ~ ~ ~ + ? ?

LP19 – Maintaining and Improving Community Facilities

~ ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ ++ ~ ~ ~ ++ ++ ~ ++ ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~

LP20 – Delivering Green Infrastructure

- ~ + ~ ++ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ + ~ +++ + ~ ~ ~ + + +

LP21 – Open Space, Sport and Recreational Facilities

- ~ ~ + + ? ~ + ++ ~ ~ + ++ ~ +++ + ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

20







SA

Fra

me

wo

rk

1.1

Min

imis

e the irr

evers

ible

lo

ss o

f undevelo

ped la

nd

and p

roductive a

gricultura

l hold

ings

1.2

R

educe

the

use

of

non

-renew

able

re

sourc

es

inclu

din

g e

nerg

y s

ourc

es

1.3

Lim

it w

ate

r consum

ptio

n t

o l

evels

support

able

by

natu

ral pro

cess a

nd s

tora

ge s

yste

ms

2.1

Avoid

dam

age t

o d

esig

nate

d s

tatu

tory

and n

on

-

sta

tuto

ry s

ites a

nd p

rote

cte

d s

pecie

s

2.2

Ma

inta

in a

nd e

nhance t

he r

ange a

nd v

iabili

ty o

f

chara

cte

ristic h

abitats

and s

pecie

s

2.3

Im

pro

ve opport

unitie

s fo

r people

to

access and

appre

cia

te w

ildlif

e a

nd w

ild p

laces

3.1

Avoid

dam

age t

o a

rea a

nd s

ites d

esig

nate

d f

or

their h

isto

ric inte

rest, a

nd p

rote

ct th

eir s

ettin

gs

3.2

M

ain

tain

and

enhance

the

div

ers

ity

and

dis

tinctiveness

of

landscape

and

tow

nscape

chara

cte

r

3.3

C

reate

pla

ces,

spaces and build

ings th

at

work

well,

wear

well

and lo

ok g

ood

4.1

R

educe

em

issio

ns

of

gre

enhouse

gases

and

oth

er

pollu

tants

(in

clu

din

g

air,

wate

r,

soil,

nois

e,

vib

ratio

n a

nd lig

ht)

4.2

M

inim

ise

waste

pro

ductio

n

and

support

th

e

recyclin

g o

f w

aste

pro

ducts

4.3

Lim

it

or

reduce

vuln

era

bili

ty

to

the

effects

of

clim

ate

change (

inclu

din

g flo

odin

g)

5.1

Ma

inta

in a

nd e

nhance h

um

an h

ealth

5.2

Reduce a

nd p

revent

crim

e,

and r

educe t

he f

ear

of

crim

e

5.3

Im

pro

ve

the

quantity

and

qualit

y

of

public

ly

accessib

le o

pen s

pace

6.1

Im

pro

ve th

e qualit

y,

range and accessib

ility

of

serv

ices

and

facili

tie

s

(e.g

. health,

transport

,

educatio

n, tr

ain

ing a

nd le

isure

opport

unitie

s)

6.2

R

edre

ss

inequalit

ies

rela

ted

to

age,

gender,

dis

abili

ty,

race, fa

ith, lo

catio

n a

nd incom

e

6.3

E

nsure

all

gro

ups

have

access

to

decent,

appro

priate

and a

fford

able

housin

g

6.4

Encoura

ge a

nd e

nable

the a

ctive i

nvolv

em

ent

of

local people

in

com

mu

nity facili

tie

s

7.1

H

elp

people

gain

access

to

satisfy

ing

work

appro

priate

to

th

eir

skill

s,

pote

ntial

and

pla

ce

of

resid

ence

7.2

Support

appro

pria

te in

vestm

ent

in p

eople

, pla

ces,

com

mu

nic

atio

ns a

nd o

ther

infr

astr

uctu

re

7.3

Im

pro

ve th

e effic

iency,

com

petitiveness,

vitalit

y

and a

dapta

bili

ty o

f th

e local econom

y

LP22 – Achieving Design Excellence

+ + + ~ ~ ~ +++ +++ +++ + + ~ + ++ + + ~ + + ~ ~ ~

LP23 – Water Efficiency

~ + +++ + + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

LP24 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Development

+ ++ ~ + + ~ + + + ++ ~ ++ + + + + + ~ ++ ++ ++ ++

LP25 – Managing Water Resources and Flood Risk

~ ~ +++ +++ +++ ~ ~ ~ ~ + + +++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ ~

LP26 – Pollution and Land Contamination

~ ~ ++ ++ ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ +++ + ~ +++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

LP27 – Conserving and Enhancing Heritage Assets

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +++ +++ ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

LP28 – Landscape, Treescape and Built Environment Character, including Cathedral Views

~ ~ ~ ++ ++ +++ +++ +++ +++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

LP29 – Conserving Local Green Spaces

+ ~ ~ +++ +++ ++ +++ +++ ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +++ ~ ~ ~ +++ ~ ~ ~

LP30 – Conserving and Enhancing Biodiversity and Geodiversity

~ ~ ~ +++ +++ + ~ ++ +++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

21







SA

Fra

me

wo

rk

1.1

Min

imis

e the irr

evers

ible

lo

ss o

f undevelo

ped la

nd

and p

roductive a

gricultura

l hold

ings

1.2

R

educe

the

use

of

non

-renew

able

re

sourc

es

inclu

din

g e

nerg

y s

ourc

es

1.3

Lim

it w

ate

r consum

ptio

n t

o l

evels

support

able

by

natu

ral pro

cess a

nd s

tora

ge s

yste

ms

2.1

Avoid

dam

age t

o d

esig

nate

d s

tatu

tory

and n

on

-

sta

tuto

ry s

ites a

nd p

rote

cte

d s

pecie

s

2.2

Ma

inta

in a

nd e

nhance t

he r

ange a

nd v

iabili

ty o

f

chara

cte

ristic h

abitats

and s

pecie

s

2.3

Im

pro

ve opport

unitie

s fo

r people

to

access and

appre

cia

te w

ildlif

e a

nd w

ild p

laces

3.1

Avoid

dam

age t

o a

rea a

nd s

ites d

esig

nate

d f

or

their h

isto

ric inte

rest, a

nd p

rote

ct th

eir s

ettin

gs

3.2

M

ain

tain

and

enhance

the

div

ers

ity

and

dis

tinctiveness

of

landscape

and

tow

nscape

chara

cte

r

3.3

C

reate

pla

ces,

spaces and build

ings th

at

work

well,

wear

well

and lo

ok g

ood

4.1

R

educe

em

issio

ns

of

gre

enhouse

gases

and

oth

er

pollu

tants

(in

clu

din

g

air,

wate

r,

soil,

nois

e,

vib

ratio

n a

nd lig

ht)

4.2

M

inim

ise

waste

pro

ductio

n

and

support

th

e

recyclin

g o

f w

aste

pro

ducts

4.3

Lim

it

or

reduce

vuln

era

bili

ty

to

the

effects

of

clim

ate

change (

inclu

din

g flo

odin

g)

5.1

Ma

inta

in a

nd e

nhance h

um

an h

ealth

5.2

Reduce a

nd p

revent

crim

e,

and r

educe t

he f

ear

of

crim

e

5.3

Im

pro

ve

the

quantity

and

qualit

y

of

public

ly

accessib

le o

pen s

pace

6.1

Im

pro

ve th

e qualit

y,

range and accessib

ility

of

serv

ices

and

facili

tie

s

(e.g

. health,

transport

,

educatio

n, tr

ain

ing a

nd le

isure

opport

unitie

s)

6.2

R

edre

ss

inequalit

ies

rela

ted

to

age,

gender,

dis

abili

ty,

race, fa

ith, lo

catio

n a

nd incom

e

6.3

E

nsure

all

gro

ups

have

access

to

decent,

appro

priate

and a

fford

able

housin

g

6.4

Encoura

ge a

nd e

nable

the a

ctive i

nvolv

em

ent

of

local people

in

com

mu

nity facili

tie

s

7.1

H

elp

people

gain

access

to

satisfy

ing

work

appro

priate

to

th

eir

skill

s,

pote

ntial

and

pla

ce

of

resid

ence

7.2

Support

appro

pria

te in

vestm

ent

in p

eople

, pla

ces,

com

mu

nic

atio

ns a

nd o

ther

infr

astr

uctu

re

7.3

Im

pro

ve th

e effic

iency,

com

petitiveness,

vitalit

y

and a

dapta

bili

ty o

f th

e local econom

y

LP31 (a) – Development in the Countryside

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ +++ +++ +++ ? + ? ~

LP31 (b) – Development in the Countryside

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + + ~ + ~ +

LP31 (c) – Development in the Countryside

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~

LP31 (d) – Development in the Countrydies

~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ +++ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ++ ~ ~ - ~

LP31 (e) – Development in the Countryside

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

LP31 (f) – Development in the Countryside

? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ ++ ~ ~ ++ ++ ++

LP31 (g) – Development in the Countryside

? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ ~ ~ ~ ++ ++ ++

LP31 (h) – Development in the Countryside

+++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +++

LP32 Infill Development in Locations Outside of Development Envelopes

- - ~ ~ ? ? ? ~ ? ? ~ ? ~ ~ ? ~ - ~ ++ ~ - + ~

LP33 – Residential Annexes ++ ~ ~ ? ? ? ~ ? ++ ~ ? ~ ~ ? ~ ~ + ++ ~ ? ~ ~

22

Appendix A: Preferred Policy and other Options Considered

Policy LP1 – A Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

The alternative options considered for this policy were:

Options Considered

1 A policy that sets out the principles of sustainable development and how they will be applied in East Cambridgeshire

2 No Policy, rely on national policy and the presumption in favour of sustainable development

Preferred Policy Option

The preferred policy option is option 1 as it will help to secure development that improves economic, social and environmental conditions. Although both options basically score the same, by including this policy in the Local Plan, it will help local community to become familiar with what we mean by sustainable development and how it will be applied in East Cambridgeshire. This will help the communities to be better informed why the presumption in sustainable development is an important issue in the Local Plan. It will encourage the community to be more involved in the Local Plan process.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 Other Options Considered

The alternative option considered was to rely on the national policy as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Although both options score about the same, government expects the council to include this policy in the Local Plan to set a context and commitment to sustainable development. Justification

Overall the preferred policy option will bring widespread significant positive effects and will help ensure the council’s ambition to provide sustainable development in the area.

23

Policy LP2 - Level and Distribution of Growth

Policy LP2(a) – Level of Growth


Options Considered

1 Growth delivered in accordance with the identified local housing need, with adjustment for homes delivered elsewhere in the HMA

2 No Policy, rely on national policy

3 Provide for a higher level of growth than the identified need

4 Provide for a lower growth than the identified need


Option1 will provide growth that will meet the identified needs of the district. This will provide sufficient houses to meet the needs of all residents. This will help to address inequality as it will provide housing for all sections of communities even those with limited income. Providing homes near employment opportunities will help people to gain access to work.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 6.2, 6.3, 7.1 Other Options Considered

Although option 3 scored more positively on some aspects than option 1 due to providing greater choice in housing by providing more, however, this would generally have negative effects on the environment and resources especially on undeveloped land. It is more difficult to predict the outcome of option 2 as some housing will be provided using national policy, but it is unlikely to meet objectively assessed need. Option 4 will have a detriment effect on the community as insufficient housing will be provided to meet their need and this could lead, for example, to higher house prices. Some will suffer as a result, most likely those on lower incomes. Justification

Option1 provides the best outcome for local residents in that it meets their housing need.

24

Policy LP2 (b) – Broad Distribution of Growth

The alternative options for the Broad Distribution of Growth were fully appraised in a separate report (‘East Cambridgeshire Growth Study’ – January 2017) on our website. This includes sustainability appraisal of the broad distribution and alternative options. For completeness, that sustainability appraisal element of the Study is included at Appendix F.

In summary the alternative options considered for this part of the policy were:

Options Considered

1 Proportionate Growth

2 Corridor Growth (Growth in Large and Medium Villages)

3 Main Settlement Led Growth

4 Prioritise Growth In and Close to Ely

Preferred Policy Option and Other Options Considered

Option 3, with a blend of option 1 and, to a degree, Option 2, has been taken forward in the plan. This blend reflects the mixed picture in the SA findings (see Appendix F), and attempts to take advantage of the various + aspects of each SA option tested, whilst at the same time being deliverable.

Overall, therefore, whilst on a strict option 1-4 basis, option 4 appears to result in the most sustainable approach, it is not a reasonable option to pursue because it is undeliverable. The blended approach, as taken forward in the Local Plan is therefore considered the most sustainable option (of the reasonable options available).

Full details in appendix F, and associated Growth Study.

25

Policy LP3 – The Settlement Hierarchy and the Countryside


Options Considered

1 A hierarchy based on population and services of settlements, with each settlement having a development envelope

2 No policy, rely on national policy

3 A more flexible policy, with no development envelopes

4 Settlements in alternative levels of the hierarchy


Having a settlement hierarchy and settlement development envelopes (Option1) provides considerable benefits in that it will protect undeveloped land, be more resilient to climate change, provide greater accessibility and numerous economic benefits. This policy will help to guide any windfall site that may arise during the plan period.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 1.1, 4.3, 6.1, 6.3, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 Other Options Considered

It was difficult to determine the effect of relying on national policy at this stage. A more flexible approach policy (Option 3) would allow growth to take place in most parts of the district. This option had a number of negative benefits that would have detrimental effect on undeveloped land, climate change and the economy. Option 4 is not possible to appraise, because the placing of settlements in different levels of the hierarchy is a factual one (not a policy based one), based on evidence in a separate report. Thus, it would be inappropriate to sustainability appraise the option of placing settlements in a different part of the hierarchy. Justification

There are clear benefits to having a settlement hierarchy and there are clear benefits to having a development envelope as it provide clear strategy for the Local Plan and protects countryside from inappropriate development.

26

Policy LP4 – Green Belt


Options Considered

1 A policy protecting the green belt and restricting development

2 No policy, rely on national policy (NPPF)


By including a policy in the Local Plan on Green Belt will help us to define where exactly the Green Belt in East Cambridgeshire area is and reiterate the national policy restrictions. This policy will help to preserve the rural character and openness of area.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 1.1 Other Options Considered

Both options score identically in terms of sustainability appraisal. There is not much difference between the two options. However, having a locally specific Green Belt policy provides clear guidance for local residents and developers. Justification

It is helpful to include Green Belt policy in the Local Plan to provide clear guidance for the local residents who may not be familiar with the national policy. Any proposal for development in the Green Belt will be assessed against the NPPF and Local Plan policies.

27

Policy LP5 Community-led Development


Options Considered

1 A policy with clear criteria including who, where and the need for development

2 Restricting Community-led development to within development boundaries



Community-led development is an important issue for the district and having a policy on this subject is necessary. A clear policy as outlined in option 1 emerges as a slight favourite in that it provides more of choice when it comes to selecting a site for community-led development because it is not restricted by the development boundary, although development would have to be closely linked with a settlement. This policy will encourage communities to be more involved in the development process and in fact it is essential for community support for it to be considered as a community-led development.


There are no clear benefits of relying on the national policy as it is silent on this subject. Option 2 would restrict community-led development to within the development boundaries and this scores better in the sustainability appraisal when it comes to use of undeveloped land as the site would be restricted to within development boundary where it more likely to use previously developed land. However, this restrictive form of development would not provide the clear benefit that is needed from a more flexible approach. Justification

Community-led development is a high priority to East Cambridgeshire and it is important that a policy is included in the local Plan to help encourage more of this type of development. Clear guidance and encouragement need to be provided in the Local Plan so that communities are empowered to bring forward development that is backed by them and provided for their benefits.

28

Policy LP6 (a) – Meeting Local Housing Needs (Affordable Housing)


Options Considered

1 A policy requiring a proportion of housing to be affordable



Providing affordable housing will help in accommodating people on low income. Having a clear policy in the Local Plan (Option 1) will not only provide affordable housing but also help to address inequalities based on income.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 6.2, 6.3 Other Options Considered

Option 2 will provide some affordable housing based on national policy but greater number will be provided by having a clear policy in Local Plan. Justification

There is a need for more affordable housing in the district. A clear policy based on local need and backed by clear evidence will help to deliver more affordable housing than just relying on national policy.

29

Policy LP6 (b) – Meeting Local Housing Needs (Dwellings with higher access standards)


Options Considered

1 Policy requiring all dwellings to meet Part M (volume 1) category 2


3 Policy requiring a lower proportion of dwellings to meet Part M (volume 1) category 2

4 Policy requiring a proportion of dwellings to also meet Part M (volume 1) category 3


Providing dwellings that are accessible creates more inclusive communities and enable those with limited mobility to access a dwelling. There are cost implications for the developers in providing housing with accessibility standards. Balance has to be reached in providing housing to accessibility standards and making the scheme unviable. Option 1 is more viable option as it will deliver some houses with higher accessibility standards and carries less risk of making the scheme unviable.


Option 4 scores better than option 1 in terms of providing even greater accessible housing for local residents. However option 4 will add considerable cost to the developed and could make most residential development unviable if we were to impose these higher standards. Justification

While the higher rate of provision is desirable, and scores more highly, if a development is not viable it is unlikely to take place, resulting in less provision. Therefore it is appropriate for option 1 to be preferred over option 4.

30

Policy LP6 (c) – Meeting Local Housing Needs (Self-build homes)


Options Considered

1 Policy requiring a proportion (5% net developable area) of new residential sites to be set aside for self-build homes


3 Policy requiring higher proportion of site area/ lower site threshold to provide higher proportion of self-build homes

4 Policy requiring lower proportion of site area/ higher site threshold to provide lower proportion of self-build homes


The preferred policy, option 1, is not in this case the highest scoring option. However, as with dwellings with higher access standards there are cost implications which could make the site unviable. Nevertheless, higher provision of self –build sites could be an option if this becomes viable in the future, and there is demonstrable demand to increase such supply via allocations.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 6.3, 6.4 Other Options Considered

Option 4 scores better than option 1 in terms of requesting a higher proportion of self-build sites. However, option 4 could add considerable cost to the scheme and it could make residential development unviable. There is also a risk that supply would outstrip demand. As the provision for self-build homes is not included in national policy (option 2), it is unlikely that this will deliver any will be delivered under this option. Lower threshold than that proposed in option 1 will in turn deliver fewer self-build homes. Justification

While the higher rate of provision could be desirable, and scores more highly, if a development is not viable it is unlikely to take place, resulting in less provision. Therefore it is appropriate for option 1 to be preferred over option 4.

31

Policy LP6 (d) – Meeting Local Housing Needs (Residential care accommodation)


Options Considered

1 Policy ensuring residential care accommodation is well related to existing settlements



Option 1 emerges as a clear favourite as it will provide benefits to people requiring care. This option may include the use of undeveloped land, where it is necessary, but there are many clear benefits to this option.


The alternative option of relying on national policy will not have any clear benefits for people requiring care, and did not score positively against any of the objectives. Justification

The preferred policy option was the only option that will provide benefits for people requiring care. It was also the only option to score positively against any of the objectives.

32

Policy LP6 (e) – Meeting Local Housing Needs (Older People, Houseboats, Caravan Dwellers/ Park Homes)


Options Considered

1 Policy ensuring specific needs accommodation is well related to existing settlements


3 Policy(s) which allocate specific sites for some or all of these forms of accommodation


Option 1 emerges as a favourable option as it will provide benefits to people requiring residential caravans. This option may include the use of undeveloped land, where it is necessary, but there are many clear benefits to this option.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 6.1, 6.2, 6.3

Other Options Considered

The alternative option of relying on national policy will not have any clear benefits for people requiring specific accommodation types, and did not score positively against any of the objectives. In addition, there is national policy/ legislation expectation for a local plan to provide a steer on such forms of accommodation.

Option 3 is also rejected despite scoring well, because a more flexible criteria based policy is considered to be appropriate to deal with proposals as they emerge, partly reflecting the relatively low need/demand for Houseboats and Caravan dwellers, and partly because it is inappropriate for the planning system to stipulate age requirements on certain land rather than others.

Justification

The preferred policy option and option 3 will provide benefits for people requiring the specific types of accommodation identified. Both options score positively against the same objectives, however, as set out, to allocate specific sites is considered to be inappropriate, given the restrictions on occupation of specific accommodation types.

33

Policy LP7 – Gypsy and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Sites


Options Considered

1 A policy making provision for allocated and non-allocated sites for Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople


3 A policy including the allocation of further specific sites


The preferred policy option, option 1, provides greater benefits for the Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople in East Cambridgeshire. It will allocate land for their use and provide criteria based policy for considering proposals for gypsies, travellers and travelling showpeople sites. This will help to redress inequalities issues in that it will provide accommodation for all section of the community.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 6.2, 6.3


The alternative option of relying on national policy will provide some as it will provide some sites, but more can be achieved by option 1.

Option 3 was considered inappropriate as it scored negatively against one objective, and also because evidence suggests that there is no clear identified need for further gypsy and Traveller pitches and only a very low need beyond 2026 for increased Travelling Showpeople provision.

Justification

Option 1 will provide greater benefits for Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople than option 2 and more specifically meets the identified need for provision than option 3..

34

Policy LP8 – Delivering prosperity and Jobs


Options Considered

1 A policy making provision for allocated and non-allocated sites for Employment uses

2 A policy that makes provision for significantly more allocated land for employment uses



The preferred policy option, option 1, emerges as most sustainable option as it will allocate land in sustainable locations. It will help to attract investment and this will help the local economy.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 1.1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3


Option 2 provides greater flexibility as to locations but it could mean development being built on undeveloped land. However, as supply currently outstrips demand, it is likely that this option would result in large areas of allocations remaining undeveloped over the plan period.

Option 3 is rejected as it is important that a local economic policy is set, establishing both allocations and a policy approach.

Justification

While all three options considered scored well in respect of the ‘Economic Activity’ objectives, option 1 scored more positively, and in ensuring some restraint on locations of development also scored highly in respect of undeveloped land.

35

Policy LP9 – Equine Development


Options Considered

1 A policy to ensure that equine development is appropriate in scale and siting for its location



Having an equine development policy in the Local Plan will help the local economy. This will encourage existing companies to expand and new companies to locate in East Cambridgeshire and thus creating more employment opportunities.



The alternative option of relying on national policy also scores positively against the economic objectives, however, not as strongly as option 1.

Justification

Both options scored positively in economic terms, however, the preferred option scored more positively, and will provide greater benefit to the economy of East Cambridgeshire.

36

Policy LP10 – Development Affecting the Horse Racing Industry


Options Considered

1 A policy ensuring that development does not have an adverse impact upon the horseracing industry



The horse racing industry is important to the local economy and needs to be protected from development that would harm its economic viability in the area.



The alternative option considered would only have small positive benefits against a couple of objectives.

Justification

The horse racing industry is important to the local economy, with the preferred option of having a policy to protect this industry scoring significantly more positively that the alternative option against the economic objectives.

37

Policy LP11 – Tourist Facilities and Visitor Attractions


Options Considered

1 A policy that supports viable development of appropriate scale/design in appropriate locations


3 A policy that allows greater flexibility for the development of tourist and visitor attractions


There is not much difference between option 1 and option 3 in terms of sustainability scoring. One difference which favours option 1 is that the development is much more likely to be located within the development boundary and most likely on previously used land.



Option 3 scores only slightly weaker in the sustainability scoring, identifying this as a realistic alternative option. However, as identified, it is more likely to result in development outside of development envelopes on undeveloped land, for which it scores negatively.

Option 2 was rejected as the Council is keen to support further tourism attractions, but also acknowledges the locally specific circumstances and issues which need to be addressed for such developments. Therefore a more locally specific policy that that provided by option 2 is the most appropriate approach.

Justification

The preferred option scores slightly more positively against the relevant sustainability objectives.

38

Policy LP12 – Tourist Accommodation (excluding holiday cottages)


Options Considered

1 A policy to support appropriate and viable new or extended accommodation


3 A policy to support appropriate tourist accommodation, but allowing greater flexibility in respect of location


There is not much difference between option 1 and option 3 in terms of sustainability scoring. One difference which favours option 1 is that the development is much more likely to be located within the development boundary and probably on previously used land.



Option 3 overall scores well against the relevant sustainability objectives, however, not as strongly as option 1. Option 2 has been rejected, as it does not provide the locally specific policy guidance that is considered necessary to address local issues such as nature conservation and waterways/marinas.

Justification

Options 1 and 3 both scored well against the relevant sustainability objectives, however, option 1, scored slightly more positively and will provide greater benefits.

39

Policy LP13 – Holiday Cottage Accommodation


Options Considered

1 A policy supporting accommodation that is well related to existing settlements, or re-uses existing buildings in the open countryside


3 A policy generally supporting holiday cottage accommodation without placing restriction on location

Preferred Policy

Option 1 will provide more support to the local tourism economy than option 3. Re-use of existing buildings in open countryside will help to regenerate the buildings and improve the appearance of the countryside. By restricting development so that it is well related to existing will help to prevent unrestraint development in the countryside.



Option 3 overall scores well against the relevant sustainability objectives, however, not as strongly as option 1. Option 2 would not provide the locally specific guidance that is considered necessary to address the relatively high demand for this type of accommodation.

Justification

Options 1 and 3 both scored well against the relevant sustainability objectives, however, option 1, scored slightly more positively and will have greater benefits.

40

Policy LP14 –Retail and Other Main Town Centre Uses


Options Considered

1 A policy defining town centres and identifying appropriate development for within and outside of these areas



Option 1 is most sustainable option for town centre uses. The policy will preserve and enhance town centres and this will help them to be healthy and vibrant. Town centres are at the heart of the community and it is important that their viability and vitality is maintained by appropriate type and amount of development. This will help to preserve the character of the area and provide economic benefits.



The alternative option, to rely on national policy, does not score negatively, however, it does not score as positively as option 1.

Justification

Option 1 scores more positively against the sustainability objectives, and will provide more locally specific benefits to East Cambridgeshire.

41

Policy LP15 – Retail Uses in Town Centres


Options Considered

1 A policy protecting the retail function of town centres



The preferred policy, option 1, will help to preserve retail uses in town centres. Retail uses are vital to the health of the town centres. Non-retail uses should complement the retail uses in town centres but should not be the dominant use. The economic benefits of the town centres should not be under estimated.



The alternative option to rely on national policy, would afford some protection to town centres, however, the benefits would not be as strong as having a locally specific policy.

Justification

The inclusion of option 1 will provide greater benefits by including locally specific policy and protection of retail uses within the town centres.

42

Policy LP16 – Infrastructure to Support Growth


Options Considered

1 Policy setting out the need to provide infrastructure, either in support of development or as development in its own right


3 To have no specific policy, but rely on site specific infrastructure requirements delivered through allocation policies

Preferred Policy

The preferred policy option (option 1) places requirements on developers to ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to support the need arising from the development. It also highlights that developers will be required to contribute toward the delivery of infrastructure through the identified mechanism.

The preferred option also provides the mechanism for infrastructure providers to deliver new infrastructure within the district.



The alternative option of not having a specific policy, and relying on national policy, was considered. This option still scored positively in the same areas, however, not as strongly. The presence of an adopted CIL within the district mitigated against some of the impacts this policy option would potentially have. The option of relying on site specific infrastructure requirements only was also considered. However, as with option 2, this policy did not score as strongly as the preferred option, and also would restrict the number of developments contributing towards infrastructure not covered by the adopted CIL and Regulation 123 list.

Justification

Option 1 provides greater economic benefits to the local residents that otherwise would be missed if we relies on national policy.

43

Policy LP17 – Creating a Sustainable, Efficient and Resilient Transport Network


Options Considered

1 A policy setting out the requirement for new development in relation to the transport network



The preferred policy option, which is option 1, will only impact upon a limited number of objectives, being a topic specific policy. The support and encouragement of sustainable travel has benefits that impact upon social, economic and environmental objectives. Sustainable modes of transport will reduce the use of private car and this will reduce pollution, energy consumption and could lead to better design.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 1.2, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 7.3


The alternative option of not having a policy and relying on national policy did not score negatively, however, there were greater levels of uncertainty where impacts were unclear.

Justification

The preferred policy option will overall have a more positive impact, providing locally specific benefits, than the alternative option that was considered.

44

Policy LP18 – Improving Cycle Provision


Options Considered

1 A policy to ensure that accessibility to key destinations by bicycle is safe and how this will be achieved



Option 1 will result in an increase in cycling within the district, having a positive effect on a number of objectives. Cycling will reduce pollution when used as a means of transport and will provide health benefits. Improving cycling provision in East Cambridgeshire will increase activity levels and this could help to reduce congestions on the road.



The alternative option of relying on national policy is anticipated to have no impact upon cycling provision within the District.

Justification

The preferred option will have a number of positive benefits for cycling provision within East Cambridgeshire, supporting sustainable travel and providing health benefits. There would be no specific benefits as a result of the alternative option considered.

45

Policy LP19 – Maintaining and Improving Community Facilities


Options Considered

1 A policy to provide protection to existing facilities and ensure that new community facilities are well located within the community they are to serve


3 A policy to preserve facilities, at all cost, if they are the last in the settlement

4 A policy to preserve all facilities


The preferred policy option, option 1, is the midway point of the considered options in respect of approach, scoring positively in terms of crime, health, accessibility and design and layout. This option also provides a balance between protecting facilities with recognition that there are cases where redevelopment is necessary in certain circumstances.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 2.2, 3.3, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 7.1


The alternative options scored with mixed results, Option 2 would not provide a robust enough policy to ensure that loss of facilities is resisted, while making provision for new facilities. Options 3 and 4 pose a risk of unviable facilities closing and leaving empty buildings that cannot be re-developed, scoring negatively against a number of objectives.

Justification

The preferred option provides the most appropriate balance between the protection of existing facilities, whilst acknowledging that some facilities may no longer be viable and therefore redevelopment may be the best, most sustainable option.

46

Policy LP20 – Delivering Green Infrastructure, Trees and Woodland


Options Considered

1 A policy to secure new green infrastructure provision, either alongside new development or in its own right



The preferred policy option, option 1, provides a more robust policy framework within which to protect and enhance Green Infrastructure (GI) provision and trees and woodland. This option also has more certain impacts that broadly score positively against the relevant objectives. Among the benefits, the provision of GI, trees and woodland will help to provide a place for biodiversity, reduce risk of flooding, provide recreation facility and improve quality of life.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.3, 6.1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3


The alternative option of not having a policy and relying on national policy does not provide the same level of certainty and therefore has a greater number of objectives where the impacts are unknown or unclear.

Justification

The preferred policy option provides the more robust policy framework of the considered options. The preferred option also scored significantly more positively against the sustainability objectives.

47

Policy LP21 –Open Space, Sport and Recreational Facilities


Options Considered

1 A policy seeking to protect existing and provide appropriate new open space to a specified standard


3 A policy seeking to protect existing and provide new open space to a higher standard improving the level of provision

4 A policy insisting that all new open space is provided within the development site to which it applies

5 A policy that requires developers to provide financial contributions to improve existing open spaces


The policy options as set out do not impact upon a number of the objectives, as this is a specific policy subject. Four of the five policy options score positively against the objectives, however, the preferred policy option, option 1, offers the greatest opportunity for benefits seeking to improve amount and quality of open spaces, at a rate that is sustainable/ viable for developers, ensuring provision will be made. Among the benefits, the provision of open space will help to provide a place for biodiversity, reduce risk of flooding, provide recreation facility and improve quality of life.



The alternative options score positively across a range of sustainability objectives; however, they would raise potential viability issues (options 3, 4 and 5)

Justification

Option 1 provides the most balanced approach between scoring well against the sustainability objectives and providing an approach that developers will find viable.

48

Policy LP22 – Achieving Design Excellence


Options Considered

1 A policy setting out standards for design of new developments.

2 No policy, rely on national policy – Requiring good design

3 Policy as per option 1, but having specific design criteria for defined character areas.


Policy Option 1 provides a comprehensive design policy which balances a range of issues relating to both the aesthetics and the function of all new developments. It provides locally-specific criteria, such as how to address existing features and assets and parking standards, etc. The policy sets requirements for the planning application process and provides opportunities for community involvement.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4


Policy Option 2 proposes no policy, relying on national policy, which recognises the importance of good design and sets out a range of criteria which planning policies and planning decisions should aim to satisfy.

Policy Option 3 is identical to Policy Option 1, but would include specific design criteria for defined character areas. This approach was discounted, as it would be particularly resource intensive, impacting significantly on the Local Plan timetable, without any significant sustainability benefits over the preferred approach.

Justification

Policy Option 1 requires all new development to be of high quality design. It provides locally relevant and specific criteria, over and above national policy (Policy Option 2). Policy Option 1 positively contributes to delivering a number of SA objectives, and is expected to deliver significant positive impacts in terms of Heritage Assets; Landscape / Townscape Character; and Design and Layout. Policy Option 3, while providing specific design criteria for defined areas, would not achieve any additional sustainability benefits. Therefore, the more flexible Policy Option 1 is favoured.

49

Policy LP23 – Water Efficiency


Options Considered

1 A policy which requires new development to achieve the optional Technical Housing standard for water-efficiency.



Policy Option 1 requires all new dwellings to achieve the optional technical housing standard for water efficiency. East Cambridgeshire is an area of water stress. This measure will protect water resources and the environment by reducing water consumption.



The alternative option, Policy Option 2, relies on national policy. The national policy makes some reference to water supply and demand. However, the policy indicates that local authorities should address matters relating to climate change, including water supply, through a strategy and/or Local Plan, and does not in itself provide measures to address water resource issues.

Justification

The preferred option (Policy Option 1) utilises the optional technical housing standard (set out in building regulations) to reduce water consumption in new developments and protect water resources and the environment. East Cambridgeshire is an area of water stress, therefore the policy is necessary and justified. The Council’s water-related evidence has been reviewed through the preparation of a water cycle study update to provide greater understanding of water issues.

Whilst national policy recognises the need to meet the challenges of climate change, flooding and coastal change, it relies on the preparation of a local strategy / Local Plan policies to be effective. Therefore Policy Option 2 is expected to have no effects in respect of the sustainability objectives. Policy Option 1 provides a number of positive and significant impacts and is therefore the preferred option.

50

Policy LP24 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Development


Options Considered

1 A policy setting out policy in relation to renewable and low carbon energy development.


3 A policy that includes standards and expectations and also identifies areas for wind farm development


The preferred option is Policy Option 1 which encourages new development to reduce demand for energy and resources and encourages the energy production from renewable and low carbon sources. As such, the policy option is likely to bring about a range of social, environmental and economic benefits, such as through alleviating fuel poverty, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating opportunities for job and business growth.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3


Alternative Policy Option 2 considers not including a local policy and relying on national policy. The national policy includes measures relating to renewable and low carbon energy development and is generally supportive of renewable energy developments, where impacts can be mitigated, and indicates that local planning authorities should support community-led initiatives. However many measures of the policy require action from the local planning authority, such as preparing a strategy for renewable and low carbon energy development.

Alternative Policy Option 3 is similar to Policy Option 1 but also includes the identification of sites for wind farm development through the Local Plan. This would likely have positive impacts in terms of environmental objectives, but performs less favourably than policy option 1 in terms of community involvement. Justification

Policy options 1 & 3 add considerable detail to national policy (i.e. Policy Option 2) by providing a framework for assessing proposals for renewable energy development.

In June 2015, a ministerial statement was issued which added significant weight to the views of local communities in considering proposals for wind farm developments. Policy option 3 proposes identifying sites for wind energy developments through the Local Plan, whereas policy option 1 does not seek to identify such sites. Under policy option 3, communities would be engaged in the process of identifying sites through several stages of consultation. However, under policy option 1 communities would be offered a greater level of involvement as sites for wind energy developments would be allocated through Neighbourhood Plans, where this is the communities’ intention to do so. This approach based on neighbourhood planning would therefore increase community involvement and enable local decision-making. In conclusion, policy option 1 is the preferred option.

51

Policy LP25 – Managing Water Resources and Flood Risk


Options Considered

1 A criteria-based policy to protect the water environment and to ensure that new development does not increase the risk of flooding



The preferred policy, Policy Option 1, accords with and provides additional detail over and above that provided by national policy. It provides criteria which new development must satisfy to reduce flood risk and manage the water environment.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 7.2


The alternative option, Policy Option 2, relies on national policy only, without including a local policy. The national policy provides a detailed framework for assessing and managing flood risk.

Justification

The NPPF’s policy ‘10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change’ provides a clear approach to flood risk, through requiring application of the Sequential Test, and if necessary, the Exception Test. In addition the policy indicates when Site-Specific Flood Risk Assessment is required.

Policy Option 1 is particularly valuable in providing criteria which development proposals must satisfy to demonstrate, as part of the planning application process, that the development proposal does not increase flood risk, conserves the water environment and can be accommodated by water infrastructure. Policy Option 1 therefore delivers significant positive effects, over and above policy option 2, namely in reducing flood risk and protecting the water environment.

52

Policy LP26 – Pollution and Land Contamination


Options Considered

1 A criteria-based policy to reduce pollution and land contamination.



The preferred policy, Policy Option 1, requires all developments to minimise emissions and reduce pollutants. The policy places specific requirements on developers to supply sufficient information to enable the Council to make a full assessment of hazards and impacts.



The alternative option, Policy Option 2, relies on national policy, which indicates the planning system should prevent both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediate and mitigate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.

Justification

Policy Option 1 would add detail to the national policy framework, and ensure that new developments do not increase pollution. Policy Option 1 therefore delivers significant positive effects, over and above policy option 2, namely in terms of minimising pollution.

53

Policy LP27 – Conserving and Enhancing Heritage Assets


Options Considered

1 A criteria-based policy to conserve heritage assets.

2 No policy, rely on national policy.


The preferred policy, Policy Option 1, sets criteria which new development must satisfy to protect heritage assets and their settings.



The alternative option, Policy Option 2 relies on national policy, namely the NPPF’s ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’. The national policy places great importance on protecting the historic environment, requiring local planning authorities to assess impacts on heritage assets in determining planning applications.

Justification

Policy Option 1 provides a locally specific policy, including criteria which new development must satisfy to protect heritage assets and their settings. The policy adds detail to the policy framework, and clarifies for developers and decision-makers the level of detail that applicants should provide in support of their proposal. Policy Option 1 therefore delivers significant positive effects, over and above policy option 2, namely in conserving heritage assets and landscape and townscape character.

54

Policy LP28 – Landscape, Treescape and Built Environment Character, including Cathedral Views


Options Considered

1 Criteria-based policy to conserve landscape and townscape character, including Cathedral views.

2 No policy, rely on national policy.


The preferred policy, Policy Option 1, requires all new development to complement, and where possible enhance, landscape and townscape character, through satisfying a number of criteria.



The alternative option, Policy Option 2 relies on national policy only, namely the NPPF’s ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ and ‘Conserving and enhancing the built environment’, and does not propose a local planning policy. National policy indicates that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. National policy indicates that in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Justification

Policy Option 1 provides a locally-specific policy which sets out criteria to protect the distinctive character areas of the district. Of particular importance are views of Ely and its Cathedral. The policy option is expected to deliver significant positive effects in terms of landscape/townscape, heritage assets, design and layout, and is expected to also positively support biodiversity and sites of nature conservation importance.

55

Policy LP29 – Conserving Local Green Spaces


Options Considered

1 Set a policy which enables the designation of Local Green Spaces, in accordance with national policy.



The preferred policy, Policy Option 1, enables the designation of Local Green Spaces through the Local Plan, and provides a number of positive impacts in respect of environmental and social objectives.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 5.3, 6.4


The alternative option, Policy Option 2, relies on national policy only, and does not propose the inclusion of a local plan policy. By not including a local plan policy would make it more challenging for communities to designate Local Green Spaces. Due to the dependency on the Local/Neighbourhood Plan-making processes, the policy was scored as having no effect in respect of the Sustainability objectives.

Justification

National policy sets out criteria for the designation of Local Green Spaces. National policy does not in itself identify Local Green Spaces as it is dependent on designation of Local Green Spaces through the Local or Neighbourhood Plan-making processes. Therefore Policy Option 1 enables the identification of LGS’s in the Local Plan for protection from development except in very exceptional circumstances.

By not including policy option 1 could render it more challenging to designate a Local Green Spaces. The policy therefore enables the implementation of national policy, and indicates that proposals will only be supported where they enhance the LGS and are demonstrably supported by the local community.

Through enabling the designation of Local Green Spaces, the policy option provides significant positive impacts in terms of maintaining/enhancing open space and community involvement in decision-making. In addition, local communities could utilise LGS designation to support biodiversity, heritage assets and landscape and townscape character, where appropriate.

56

Policy LP30 – Conserving and Enhancing Biodiversity and Geodiversity


Options Considered

1 Criteria-based policy to ensure new development minimises impacts on biodiversity and geodiversity.



The preferred policy, Policy Option 1, sets out specific criteria which all developments should satisfy to protect and enhance habitats and minimise impacts on biodiversity.



The alternative option, Policy Option 2, relies on national policy only, namely ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ and does not propose including a local plan policy. The national policy recognises the importance of supporting biodiversity and the natural environment.

Justification

Policy option 1 provides specific criteria which new development must satisfy to protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity. The policy option also provides guidance for applicants and decision-makers on the appropriate use of mitigation measures.

57

Policy LP31 (a) – Development in the Countryside


Options Considered

1 Criteria-based policy for the development of affordable housing exception sites.



The preferred policy option, Policy Option 1, contributes to the supply of homes and supports the rural economy through enabling the development of affordable housing in the countryside, subject to satisfying certain criteria.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1


The alternative option, Policy Option 2, does not propose a local plan policy and instead relies on national policy, namely the NPPF’s ‘Supporting a rural economy’. The national policy recognises the importance of economic growth in rural areas. The policy sets out principles which Local Plans/Neighbourhood Plans should satisfy through their planning policies to promote a strong rural economy. As the policy is dependent upon the subsequent preparation of local/neighbourhood planning policies, effects of the policy are neutral.

Justification

The policy option provides a significant opportunity to meet the need for affordable housing in the area, through the development of exception sites outside the development envelope which would otherwise be inappropriate for many forms of development. The policy mitigates accessibility and landscape impacts through a range of measures.

58

Policy LP31 (b) – Development in the Countryside


Options Considered

1 Criteria-based policy enabling the development of dwellings for rural workers.



The preferred option, Policy Option 1, enables the development of rural worker dwellings in the countryside, thereby supporting rural business enterprises. The policy will positively contribute to economic factors through supporting the rural economy, meets housing needs by providing housing opportunities for rural workers, and reduces the need for travel as housing will be located close to the occupant’s place of work. Measures including occupancy restrictions will ensure the housing remains available for rural workers.




Justification

The preferred option, Policy Option 1, enables the development of rural worker dwellings in the countryside, thereby supporting the rural economy by providing housing opportunities in rural areas close to places of work.

59

Policy LP31 (c) – Development in the Countryside


Options Considered

1 Criteria-based policy enabling the replacement of dwellings in the countryside



The preferred policy option, Policy Option 1 enables the replacement of existing dwellings in the countryside and includes measures to ensure the location and scale of the replacement dwelling reflects the original dwelling, thereby preventing harm in the context of the sustainability objectives. The policy will have some negative impact in relation to SA objective 4.1 as the replacement of any dwelling will result in waste material, though the policy will have a positive impact in relation to access to housing.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 6.3



Justification

Policy Option 1 enables the replacement of existing dwellings in the countryside. The policy option includes measures to ensure the location and scale of the replacement dwelling reflects the original dwelling. Therefore, the impacts of Policy Option 1 are overwhelming neutral and are unlikely to cause harm.

60

Policy LP31 (d) – Development in the Countryside


Options Considered

1 Criteria-based policy enabling the re-use and conversion of non-residential buildings for residential use in the countryside



The preferred policy option, Policy Option 1, seeks to retain buildings of architectural or historical merit located in the countryside, through enabling re-use/conversion for residential use. The policy delivers positive impacts in terms of landscape and heritage assets through enabling the conversion of non-residential buildings to dwellings. This will also contribute to the supply of housing. However, such developments are likely to be isolated from services and facilities and may be car dependent.




Justification

Policy Option 1, seeks to retain buildings of architectural or historical merit located in the countryside, through enabling re-use/conversion for residential use. The negative impacts associated with enabling housing in the countryside are, in this instance, outweighed by the positive impacts of the policy - namely those positive impacts in respect of objectives relating to landscape and heritage assets and providing additional housing.

61

Policy LP31 (e) – Development in the Countryside


Options Considered

1 Criteria-based policy enabling temporary development of mobile homes in rural areas.



The preferred policy option, Policy option 1 enables greater flexibility in assessing applications for the siting of a temporary or mobile home in rural areas during the construction of a permanent dwelling. Due to the temporary and time-limited nature of such a development, the policy option is therefore expected to have no impact / neutral effects.

The preferred policy option does not score a positive effect in relation to any of the SA objectives. Other Options Considered


Justification

Due to the temporary and time-limited nature of such a development addressed by Policy Option 1, the policy option is therefore expected to have no impact / neutral effects.

62

Policy LP31 (f) – Development in the Countryside


Options Considered

1 Criteria-based policy enabling certain non-residential development in the countryside.



The preferred policy option, Policy option 1 benefits the rural economy by enabling non-residential development in rural areas. This could involve development in the countryside. Whilst there may be some brownfield sites available, this could involve the loss of greenfield land. Design, biodiversity, landscape and heritage matters are expected to be appropriately mitigated through other proposed policy options.

The preferred policy option scores a positive effect - support the objective (+), potentially deliver significant beneficial impact (++) or a strong and significant beneficial impact (+++) – in relation to the following SA objectives: 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3



Justification

National policy recognises the importance of supporting the rural economy through Local Plans. Policy Option 1 balances the need for rural economic growth with environmental and social issues, through enabling the development of certain enterprises for which a rural location is justified.

63

Policy LP31 (g) – Development in the Countryside


Options Considered

1 Criteria-based policy which enables agricultural diversification



The preferred policy, Policy Option 1 enables agricultural diversification. This will positively benefit the rural economy and improve access to jobs in rural areas.




Justification

National policy recognises the importance of supporting the rural economy through Local Plans. Policy Option 1 supports rural economic growth through enabling agricultural diversification.

64

Policy LP31 (h) – Development in the Countryside


Options Considered

1 Criteria-based policy to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land.



The preferred policy, Policy Option 1, seeks to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land, positively contributing to safeguarding land resources and supporting the agricultural economy.




Justification

National policy recognises the importance of supporting the rural economy through Local Plans. By safeguarding land resources, Policy Option 1 positively supports the agricultural economy.

65

Policy LP32 – Infill Development in Locations Outside of Development Envelopes


Options Considered

1 Criteria-based policy which has potential to provide more housing in rural areas



The preferred policy, Policy Option 1, seeks to protect and provide more housing in rural areas in appropriate locations, thus providing homes and supporting the rural economy.



The alternative option, Policy Option 2, does not propose a local plan policy and instead relies on national policy, namely the NPPF’s ‘Supporting a rural economy’. The national policy recognises the importance of economic growth in rural areas. The policy sets out principles which Local Plans/Neighbourhood Plans should satisfy through their planning policies to promote a strong rural economy.

Justification

Option 1 has the potential to provide more housing in the district but this would have potential negative effect as it might lead to development on undeveloped land and in more remote locations which would make it hard obtain access to work. Option 2 will provide housing but this will be less than option 1 but option 2 will have less negative effect on the undeveloped land as fewer dwellings would be built. Overall, the provision of additional homes means option 1 is more preferable as it will direct growth to more sustainable rural locations i.e. large or medium village.

66

Policy LP33 – Residential Annexes


Options Considered

1 Criteria-based policy which has potential to provide appropriate residential annexes, particularly in rural areas



The preferred policy, Policy Option 1, seeks to provide appropriate residential annexes particularly in rural areas. This policy will protect the rural areas from unsympathetic residential annexes that could potentially harm the character of the building or the area.



The alternative option, Policy Option 2, does not propose a local plan policy and instead relies on national policy, namely the NPPF. The national policy recognises the importance of providing a wide choice of high quality homes to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. However, this generic direction does not meet the specific requirements of East Cambridge addressed in policy LP33.

Justification

Option 1 addresses the specific needs of East Cambridgeshire. The criteria based policy would permit legitimate annexes to be built for the benefits of the residents so that the house can be adapted to the changing needs of the occupants. There is potential that this provision could be abused and annexes could be later uses as a separate dwelling: this policy will prevent that from happening.

67

Appendix B: Evaluate the likely effects of the Local Plan policies and alternatives

Policy LP1: A Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy that sets out the principles of sustainable

development and how they will be applied in East Cambridgeshire

Option 2 No Policy, rely on national policy and

the presumption in favour of sustainable development

1.1 Undeveloped land ++ ++

1.2 Energy use ++ ++

1.3 Water consumption ++ ++

2.1 Nature sites and species ++ ++

2.2 Biodiversity ++ ++

2.3 Access to wildlife ++ ++

3.1 Historical assets ++ ++

3.2 Landscape / townscape character ++ ++

3.3 Design and layout ++ ++

4.1 Pollutants ++ ++

4.2 Waste production ++ ++

4.3 Climate change ++ ++

5.1 Health ++ ++

5.2 Crime ++ ++

5.3 Open space ++ ++

6.1 Accessibility ++ ++

6.2 Inequalities ++ ++

6.3 Housing need ++ ++

6.4 Community involvement +++ ++

7.1 Access to work ++ ++

7.2 Investment ++ ++

7.3 Local economy ++ ++

Commentary

See Appendix A for commentary on the options.

Summary of mitigation measures –. Local Plan policy could try to exceed national requirement in order to cater for local circumstance such as greater reduction in water consumption as East Cambridgeshire is in water stress area. This is proposed through an alternative policy.

Preferred option – Option 1

68

LP2 (a) Level of Growth

SA Objective

Option 1 Growth delivered in accordance with the local housing need

Option 2 No Policy, rely

on national policy

Option 3 Provide for a higher level of growth than the identified need

Option 4 Provide for a

lower growth than the identified

need 1.1 Undeveloped land ~ ? - +

1.2 Energy use ~ ? - +

1.3 Water consumption ~ ? - +

2.1 Nature sites and species ? ? ? ?

2.2 Biodiversity ? ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ? ~ ~ ~

3.1 Historical assets ? ~ ~ ~

3.2 Landscape / townscape character

? ~ ~ ~

3.3 Design and layout ? ~ ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants ? ~ ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ? ~ ~ ~

4.3 Climate change ? ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health ? ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ? ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ? ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ? ~ ~ ~

6.2 Inequalities ++ ? +++ -

6.3 Housing need +++ ? +++ +

6.4 Community involvement ? ~ ~ ~

7.1 Access to work ++ ? +++ +

7.2 Investment ? ~ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy ? ~ ~ ~

Commentary


Summary of mitigation measures – Need to ensure that new developments are accompanied by necessary improvements in infrastructure and community facilities – and by local jobs growth. Need to ensure new developments are of high quality design and minimise impact on the natural and built environment. Other policies address these measures.


69

LP 2 (b) Broad Distribution of Growth

The alternative options for this policy are fully appraised in a separate report (‘East Cambridgeshire Growth Study’ – January 2017) on our website. This includes sustainability appraisal of this policy approach and alternative options.

70

LP3 – The Settlement Hierarchy and the Countryside

SA Objective

Option 1 A hierarchy based on

population and services of

settlements, with each settlement having a

development envelope

Option 2 No policy, rely on

national policy

Option 3 A more flexible policy, with no development

envelopes

Option 4 Settlements in

alternative levels of the

hierarchy

1.1 Undeveloped land ++ + - Not possible to appraise – see commentary

1.2 Energy use ? ? ?

1.3 Water consumption ~ ~ ~

2.1 Nature sites and species ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? ?

3.1 Historical assets ? ? ?


? ? ?

3.3 Design and layout ? ? ?

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ? ? ?

4.3 Climate change + ? -

5.1 Health ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ? ? ?

5.3 Open space ? ? ?

6.1 Accessibility ++ ? -

6.2 Inequalities ? ? ?

6.3 Housing need ++ ? -

6.4 Community involvement ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work ++ ? -

7.2 Investment ++ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy ++ ? -

Commentary


Summary of mitigation measures – Need to ensure that new developments are accompanied by necessary improvements in infrastructure and community facilities – and by local jobs growth. Need to ensure new developments are of high quality design and minimise impact on the natural and built environment.


71

LP4 – Green Belt

SA Objective Option 1

A policy protecting the green belt and restricting development

Option 2 No policy, rely on national policy

1.1 Undeveloped land +++ ++

1.2 Energy use ~ ~

1.3 Water consumption ~ ~

2.1 Nature sites and species ? ?

2.2 Biodiversity ? ?

2.3 Access to wildlife ? ?

3.1 Historical assets ? ?

3.2 Landscape / townscape character ? ?

3.3 Design and layout ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ~ ~

4.3 Climate change ~ ~

5.1 Health ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ? ?

6.2 Inequalities ? ?

6.3 Housing need ~ ~

6.4 Community involvement ? ?

7.1 Access to work ? ?

7.2 Investment ~ ~

7.3 Local economy ~ ~

Commentary


Summary of mitigation measures – none


72

LP5 – Community-led development

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy with clear criteria including who, where and the need for development

Option 2 Restricting Community-led

development to within development boundaries

Option 3 No Policy, rely on

national policy

1.1 Undeveloped land - + ?


1.3 Water consumption ? ? ?

2.1 Nature sites and species ? ? ?

2.2 Biodiversity ? ? ?

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~ ~

3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ~

3.2 Landscape / townscape character ~ ~ ~


4.1 Pollutants ? ? ?


4.3 Climate change ? ? ?

5.1 Health ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ~ ~ ~

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need +++ ++ ?

6.4 Community involvement +++ +++ ?

7.1 Access to work ++ + ?

7.2 Investment ? ? ?

7.3 Local economy ? ? ?

Commentary




73

LP6 (a) – Meeting Local Housing Needs (Affordable Housing)


A policy requiring a proportion of housing to be affordable

Option 2 No policy, rely on national

policy

1.1 Undeveloped land ? ?

1.2 Energy use ? ?

1.3 Water consumption ? ?

2.1 Nature sites and species ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~



3.2 Landscape / townscape character ~ ~

3.3 Design and layout ? ?

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ? ?

4.3 Climate change ? ?

5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~


6.2 Inequalities ++ +

6.3 Housing need +++ +


7.1 Access to work ~ ~

7.2 Investment ~ ~

7.3 Local economy ? ?

Commentary




74

LP6 (b) – Meeting Local Housing Needs (Dwellings with higher access standards)

SA Objective

Option 1 Policy requiring all

dwellings to meet Part M (volume 1) category 2

Option 2 No policy, rely

on national policy

Option 3 Policy requiring a

lower proportion of dwellings to meet Part M (volume 1)

category 2

Option 4 Policy requiring a

proportion of dwellings to also meet Part M

(volume 1) category 3

1.1 Undeveloped land

~ ? ~ ~

1.2 Energy use ~ ? ~ ~

1.3 Water consumption

~ ? ~ ~

2.1 Nature sites and species

~ ? ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ? ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife

? ? ? ?

3.1 Historical assets ? ? ? ?


? ? ? ?

3.3 Design and layout

+ ? - ++

4.1 Pollutants ? ? ? ?

4.2 Waste production

? ? ? ?

4.3 Climate change ~ ? ~ ~

5.1 Health ~ ? ~ ~

5.2 Crime ? ? ? ?

5.3 Open space ~ ? ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ? ? ? ?

6.2 Inequalities ++ ? + +++

6.3 Housing need ++ + - +++

6.4 Community involvement

? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work ? ? ? ?

7.2 Investment ? ? ? ?

7.3 Local economy ? ? ? ?

Commentary




75

LP6 (c) Meeting Local Housing Needs (Self-build homes)

SA Objective

Option 1 Policy requiring a proportion (5% net developable area) of new residential sites to be

set aside for self-build homes

Option 2 No policy,

rely on national policy

Option 3 Policy requiring

higher proportion of site area/ lower site threshold to provide higher proportion of

self-build homes

Option 4 Policy requiring lower proportion of site area/ higher site threshold to

provide lower proportion of self-build

homes 1.1 Undeveloped land ? ? ? ?

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ?


? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? ? ?

3.1 Historical assets ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~

3.3 Design and layout ~ ~ ~ ~


4.2 Waste production ? ? ? ?

4.3 Climate change ? ? ? ?

5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ? ? ? ?

5.3 Open space ? ? ? ?

6.1 Accessibility ~ ~ ~ ~

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need ++ + + +++


++ ~ + +++

7.1 Access to work ~ ~ ~ ~

7.2 Investment ~ ~ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy ~ ~ ~ ~

Commentary




76

LP6 (d) Meeting Local Housing Needs (Residential care accommodation)

SA Objective

Option 1 Policy ensuring residential care

accommodation is well related to existing settlements

Option 2 No Policy, rely on national policy

1.1 Undeveloped land - ?

1.2 Energy use ? ?





3.1 Historical assets ~ ~


? ?


4.1 Pollutants ? ?



5.1 Health ? ?

5.2 Crime ? ?

5.3 Open space ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility + ?

6.2 Inequalities ++ ?

6.3 Housing need ++ +



7.2 Investment ~ ~


Commentary


Summary of mitigation measures – None identified.


77

LP6 (e) Meeting Local Housing Needs (Older People, Houseboats, Caravan Dwellers/ Park Homes)

SA Objective

Option 1 Policy ensuring specific needs accommodation is

well related to existing settlements


national policy

Option 3 Policy(s) which allocated

specific sites for some or all of these forms of accommodation.

1.1 Undeveloped land - ? -








? ? ?

3.3 Design and layout ~ ~ ~




5.1 Health ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ? ? ?


6.1 Accessibility + ? +

6.2 Inequalities ++ ? ++

6.3 Housing need ++ + ++

6.4 Community involvement ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work ? ? ?

7.2 Investment ~ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy ~ ~ ~

Commentary




78

LP7 – Gypsy and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople sites

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy making provision for

allocated and non-allocated sites for Gypsies, Travellers and

Travelling Showpeople

Option 2 No Policy, rely

on national policy

Option 3 A policy including the

allocation of further specific sites

1.1 Undeveloped land ? ? -




~ ~ ~





? ? ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~



6.2 Inequalities ++ + ++

6.3 Housing need ++ + +


? ? ?

7.1 Access to work ? ? ?



Commentary


Summary of mitigation measures – Need to provide sites in suitable locations for the benefits of all sections of the community.


79

Gypsy and traveller allocations

Allocated Sites

The following sites are identified in the Local Plan. Included in the table below are the allocated sites (unless where stated below) and an appraisal of any subsequent site specific policies. In addition, all reasonable alternative sites are considered.

Allocated: Land at Muckdungle Corner, Newmarket Road, Bottisham. Land at Pony Lodge, Grunty Fen Road, Witchford

Policy: None

Local Plan Alternatives

SA Objective

Land at Muckdungle

Corner, Newmarket

Road, Bottisham

Land at Pony Lodge, Grunty

Fen Road, Witchford

Nil

1.1 Undeveloped land + ~

1.2 Energy use ~ ~


~ ~


~ ~


2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~



~ ~


4.1 Pollutants - -

4.2 Waste production - -

4.3 Climate change -/? ~

5.1 Health ++ ++

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ++ ++

6.2 Inequalities +++ +++

6.3 Housing need +++ +++


~ ~

7.1 Access to work + +

7.2 Investment ~ ~


Commentary

Summary of site assessment – Muckdungle Corner site provide significant benefits in terms of helping to meet local housing

needs and addressing inequalities. As with most development, there are likely to be some adverse environmental impacts in terms of resource usage, additional emissions, waste production and pollution. The policy seeks to ensure that adverse impacts relating to accessibility, biodiversity, character and design and layout are mitigated. Other policies in the Plan relating to design/layout and environmental protection will also help to reinforce this. Impacts will take effect once development starts. Beyond that no significant temporal differences are identified. Pony Lodge site will provide significant benefits in terms of helping to meet local housing needs and addressing inequalities. As with most development, there are likely to be some adverse environmental impacts in terms of resource usage, additional emissions, waste production and pollution. The policy seeks to ensure that adverse impacts relating to accessibility, biodiversity, character and design and layout are mitigated. Other policies in the Plan relating to design/layout and environmental protection will also help to reinforce this. Impacts will take effect once development starts. Beyond that no significant temporal differences are identified.

80

LP8 – Delivering Prosperity and Jobs

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy making provision for

allocated and non-allocated sites for Employment uses

Option 2 A policy that makes

provision for significantly more allocated land for

employment uses


national policy

1.1 Undeveloped land + - ~




~ ~ ~





? ? ?



4.2 Waste production ~ ~ ~

4.3 Climate change ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ? ? ?




6.3 Housing need ? ? ?


~ ~ ~

7.1 Access to work +++ +++ +

7.2 Investment ++ ++ ++

7.3 Local economy +++ +++ ++

Commentary


Summary of mitigation measures – Need to ensure that new developments are accompanied by necessary improvements in infrastructure and community facilities – and by local jobs growth. Need to ensure new development is of high quality design and minimise impact on the natural and built environment.


81

LP9 – Equine Development

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy to ensure that equine development

is appropriate in scale and siting for its location


policy


1.2 Energy use ? ?








4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health ? ?

5.2 Crime ? ?

5.3 Open space ? ?

6.1 Accessibility ~ ~

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~


6.4 Community involvement ~ ~

7.1 Access to work ++ +

7.2 Investment + ++

7.3 Local economy +++ +

Commentary


Summary of mitigation measures – none identified.


82

LP10 – Development Affecting the Horse Racing Industry

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy ensuring that development does

not have an adverse impact upon the horseracing industry

Option 2 No Policy, rely on national

policy


1.2 Energy use ? ?








4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health ? ?

5.2 Crime ? ?

5.3 Open space ? ?





7.1 Access to work ++ +

7.2 Investment + ~

7.3 Local economy +++ +

Commentary




83

LP11 – Tourist Facilities and Visitor Attractions

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy that supports viable

development in of appropriate scale/design in appropriate

locations


national policy

Option 3 A policy that allows

greater flexibility for the development of tourist and visitor attractions

1.1 Undeveloped land - ? - -








? ? ?





5.1 Health ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ? ? ?


6.1 Accessibility ? ? ?


6.3 Housing need ~ ~ ~

6.4 Community involvement ~ ~ ~

7.1 Access to work ++ ? +


7.3 Local economy ++ + ++

Commentary


Summary of mitigation measures – Need to ensure that development is located in sustainable location and where possible accessible by public transport.


84

LP12 – Tourist Accommodation (excluding holiday cottages)

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy to support

appropriate and viable new or extended accommodation


national policy

Option 3 A policy to support appropriate tourist

accommodation, but allowing greater flexibility in respect of

location

1.1 Undeveloped land + ~ -








? ? ?





5.1 Health ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ? ? ?








7.3 Local economy ++ + +

Commentary




85

LP13 – Holiday Cottage Accommodation

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy supporting

accommodation that is well related to existing

settlements, or re-uses existing buildings in the

open countryside


national policy

Option 3 A policy generally supporting

holiday cottage accommodation without

placing restriction on location

1.1 Undeveloped land + ~ - -








? ? ?





5.1 Health ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ? ? ?








7.3 Local economy ++ + +

Commentary




86

LP14 –Retail and Other Main Town Centre Uses

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy defining town centres and

identifying appropriate development for within and outside of these areas


policy

1.1 Undeveloped land ~ ~

1.2 Energy use ? ?






3.2 Landscape / townscape character ++ +


4.1 Pollutants ? ?



5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ? ?





7.1 Access to work +++ ++

7.2 Investment ++ +


Commentary




87

LP15 – Retail uses in town centres


A policy protecting the retail function of town centres


policy


1.2 Energy use ? ?








4.1 Pollutants ? ?



5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ? ?





7.1 Access to work +++ ++

7.2 Investment ++ +


Commentary




88

LP16 – Infrastructure to Support Growth

SA Objective

Option 1 Policy setting out the need to

provide infrastructure, either in support of development or as development in its own right


national policy

Option 3 To have no specific

policy, but rely on site specific infrastructure

requirements delivered through allocation policies

1.1 Undeveloped land ? ? ?








? ? ?

3.3 Design and layout + ? +




5.1 Health ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space + + +

6.1 Accessibility ++ + +




7.1 Access to work + + +

7.2 Investment ++ + +

7.3 Local economy ? ? ?

Commentary


Summary of mitigation measures – Need to ensure that infrastructure development is located so as to maximise beneficial impacts for users, whilst having minimal negative impacts on the built and natural environments.


89

LP17 – Creating a Sustainable, Efficient and Resilient Transport Network


A policy setting out the requirements for new development in relation to the transport network


policy


1.2 Energy use ++ +






3.2 Landscape / townscape character ++ ?

3.3 Design and layout ? -

4.1 Pollutants ++ +



5.1 Health + +

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ++ +

6.2 Inequalities + +



7.1 Access to work + +

7.2 Investment ? ?

7.3 Local economy + ?

Commentary


Summary of mitigation measures – It will be a key to ensure that the design and layout of new developments and transport links are high quality and genuinely prioritise sustainable modes.


90

LP18 – Improving Cycle Provision

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy to ensure that accessibility to key

destinations by bicycle is safe and how this will be achieved


policy


1.2 Energy use + ~



2.2 Biodiversity + ~

2.3 Access to wildlife + ~


3.2 Landscape / townscape character + ~

3.3 Design and layout ? ~

4.1 Pollutants ++ ~



5.1 Health ++ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility + ~

6.2 Inequalities ? ~



7.1 Access to work + ~

7.2 Investment ? ~

7.3 Local economy ? ~

Commentary


Summary of mitigation measures – Particular care will need to be taken where new or improved cycle routes form part of the green infrastructure network to ensure that impacts upon biodiversity and wildlife remain positive and capitalise on the opportunity for improvements.


91

LP19 – Maintaining and Improving Community Facilities

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy to provide protection

to existing facilities and ensure that new community facilities

are well located within the community they are to serve

Option 2 No policy, rely

on national policy

Option 3 A policy to preserve

facilities, at all cost, if they are the last

facility in the settlement

Option 4 A policy to preserve all

facilities

1.1 Undeveloped land ~ ~ - -

1.2 Energy use ~ ~ ~ ~

1.3 Water consumption ~ ~ ~ ~


~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity + ? ~ +

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~ ~ ~

3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ - -


~ ~ - -

3.3 Design and layout ++ + - -

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ~ ~ ~ ~

4.3 Climate change ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health ++ + ? ?

5.2 Crime ++ + - -

5.3 Open space ~ ~ - -

6.1 Accessibility ++ ~ ++ ++


6.3 Housing need ~ ~ ~ ~


~ ~ ~ ~

7.1 Access to work + ~ - -

7.2 Investment ~ ~ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy ~ ~ ~ ~

Commentary


Summary of mitigation measures – None identified


92

LP20 – Delivering Green Infrastructure, Trees and Woodland

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy to secure new green infrastructure provision, either alongside development or

in its own right


policy


1.2 Energy use ~ ~

1.3 Water consumption + +

2.1 Nature sites and species ~ ?

2.2 Biodiversity ++ ?

2.3 Access to wildlife + ?


3.2 Landscape / townscape character + ?


4.1 Pollutants ~ ~


4.3 Climate change ++ +

5.1 Health + ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space +++ ~

6.1 Accessibility + ~





7.2 Investment + ~

7.3 Local economy + ~

Commentary




93

LP21 – Open Space, Sport and Recreational Facilities

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy

seeking to protect existing

and provide appropriate new open space to a specified standard

Option 2 No policy,

rely on national policy

Option 3 A policy seeking

to protect existing and provide new

open space to a higher standard improving the

level of provision

Option 4 A policy

insisting that all new open space is

provided within the

development site to which it

applies

Option 5 A policy that

requires developers to

provide financial

contributions to improve

existing open spaces

1.1 Undeveloped land - ? - - - ?

1.2 Energy use ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1.3 Water consumption ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


+ ? + + -

2.2 Biodiversity + ? + + -

2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? ? ? ~

3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


+ ? + ~ ++

3.3 Design and layout ++ ? ++ + +

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.3 Climate change + ? + + ~

5.1 Health ++ ? ++ + +

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space +++ ? +++ + +

6.1 Accessibility + ? + + ~

6.2 Inequalities ? ? ? ? ?

6.3 Housing need ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.1 Access to work ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.2 Investment ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Commentary




94

LP22 – Achieving Design Excellence

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy setting out standards

for design of new developments


national policy

Option 3 Policy as per Option 1, but

having specific design criteria for defined

character areas

1.1 Undeveloped land + ~ +

1.2 Energy use + + ++

1.3 Water consumption + ~ ++

2.1 Nature sites and species ~ ~ +

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ +


3.1 Historical assets +++ + +++


+++ + +++

3.3 Design and layout +++ ++ +++

4.1 Pollutants + ~ ++

4.2 Waste production + ~ ++

4.3 Climate change ~ ~ +

5.1 Health + ~ +

5.2 Crime ++ + ++

5.3 Open space + + +

6.1 Accessibility + + +


6.3 Housing need + ~ +

6.4 Community involvement + + +

7.1 Access to work ~ ~ ~



Commentary




95

LP23 – Water Efficiency

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy that requires the optional

Technical Housing standards for water efficiency


policy


1.2 Energy use + ~

1.3 Water consumption +++ ~

2.1 Nature sites and species + ~

2.2 Biodiversity + ~





4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~






7.2 Investment ~ ~


Commentary




96

LP24 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Development

SA Objective

Option 1 A policy in relation to

renewable and low carbon energy development


policy

Option 3 A policy that includes standards

and expectations and also identifies areas for wind farm

development

1.1 Undeveloped land + ~ +

1.2 Energy use ++ + +++



+ ~

+

2.2 Biodiversity + ~ +


3.1 Historical assets + ~ +


+ ~

+

3.3 Design and layout + ~ +

4.1 Pollutants ++ ~ +++


4.3 Climate change ++ + +++

5.1 Health + ~ +

5.2 Crime + ~ +

5.3 Open space + ~ +

6.1 Accessibility + ~ +

6.2 Inequalities + ~ +



++ +

+

7.1 Access to work ++ ~ ++

7.2 Investment ++ ~ ++

7.3 Local economy ++ ~ ++

Commentary


Summary of mitigation measures –

To support the protection of undeveloped land, the policy option could be amended to encourage the development of previously developed land, where such sites are available.


97

LP25 – Managing Water Resources and Flood Risk

SA Objective

Option 1 A criteria-based policy to protect the water environment and to ensure that new development does not increase the risk of flooding


policy


1.2 Energy use ~ ~

1.3 Water consumption +++ ~

2.1 Nature sites and species +++ ~

2.2 Biodiversity +++ ~





4.1 Pollutants + ~

4.2 Waste production + ~

4.3 Climate change +++ +++

5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~






7.2 Investment ++ ~


Commentary




98

LP26 – Pollution and Land Contamination


A criteria based policy to reduce pollution and land contamination


policy 1.1 Undeveloped land ~ ~

1.2 Energy use ~ ~

1.3 Water consumption ++ ~

2.1 Nature sites and species ++ +

2.2 Biodiversity ++ +





4.1 Pollutants +++ ++

4.2 Waste production + ~


5.1 Health +++ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~






7.2 Investment ~ ~


Commentary



None identified.


99

LP27 – Conserving and Enhancing Heritage Assets


A criteria based policy to conserve heritage assets


policy 1.1 Undeveloped land ~ ~

1.2 Energy use ~ ~





3.1 Historical assets +++ +

3.2 Landscape / townscape character +++ +

3.3 Design and layout ++ +

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~






7.2 Investment ~ ~


Commentary




100

LP28 Landscape, Treescape and Built Environment Character, including Cathedral Views

SA Objective

Option 1 Criteria based policy to conserve

landscape and townscape character, including Cathedral views


national policy


1.2 Energy use ~ ~


2.1 Nature sites and species ++ +

2.2 Biodiversity ++ +

2.3 Access to wildlife +++ +

3.1 Historical assets +++ +


+++ +

3.3 Design and layout +++ +

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~






7.2 Investment ~ ~


Commentary




101

LP29 – Conserving Local Green Spaces

SA Objective

Option 1 Set a policy which enables the

designation of Local Green Spaces in accordance with national policy


national policy

1.1 Undeveloped land + ~

1.2 Energy use ~ ~


2.1 Nature sites and species +++ ~

2.2 Biodiversity +++ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ++ ~

3.1 Historical assets +++ ~

3.2 Landscape / townscape character +++ ~

3.3 Design and layout ++ ~

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space +++ ~




6.4 Community involvement +++ +


7.2 Investment ~ ~


Commentary




102

LP30 – Conserving and Enhancing Biodiversity and Geodiversity

SA Objective

Option 1 Criteria based policy to ensure new development minimises impacts on

biodiversity and geodiversity


policy


1.2 Energy use ~ ~


2.1 Nature sites and species +++ ++

2.2 Biodiversity +++ ++




3.3 Design and layout +++ ~

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space + +






7.2 Investment ~ ~


Commentary




103

LP31 – Development in the Countryside / Part A: Affordable housing exception sites


Criteria based policy for the development of affordable housing exception sites


national policy 1.1 Undeveloped land - ~

1.2 Energy use ~ ~








4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health + ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility +++ ~

6.2 Inequalities +++ ~

6.3 Housing need +++ ~

6.4 Community involvement ? ~


7.2 Investment ? ~


Commentary




104

LP31 – Development in the Countryside / Part B: Dwellings for rural workers


Criteria-based policy enabling the development of dwellings for rural workers


policy

1.1 Undeveloped land - ~

1.2 Energy use ~ ~








4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~


6.2 Inequalities + ~

6.3 Housing need + ~



7.2 Investment ~ ~


Commentary




105

LP31 – Development in the Countryside / Part C: Replacement of a dwelling in the countryside


Criteria-based policy enabling the replacement of dwellings in the countryside


policy


1.2 Energy use ~ ~








4.1 Pollutants ~ ~

4.2 Waste production - ~


5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~



6.3 Housing need + ~



7.2 Investment ~ ~


Commentary




106

LP31 – Development in the Countryside / Part D: Re-use and conversion of non-residential buildings for residential use in the countryside

SA Objective

Option 1 Criteria-based policy enabling the re-use and conversion of non-residential buildings for

residential use in the countryside


policy


1.2 Energy use - ~





3.1 Historical assets +++ ~

3.2 Landscape / townscape character + ~


4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility - ~


6.3 Housing need ++ ~



7.2 Investment - ~


Commentary




107

LP31 – Development in the Countryside / Part E: Mobile homes within the countryside


Criteria-based policy enabling temporary development of mobile homes in rural areas


policy


1.2 Energy use ~ ~








4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~






7.2 Investment ~ ~


Commentary




108

LP31 – Development in the Countryside / Part F: Non-residential development in the countryside


Criteria-based policy enabling certain non-residential development in the countryside


national policy

1.1 Undeveloped land ? ~

1.2 Energy use ~ ~








4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ++ ~

6.2 Inequalities ++ ~



7.1 Access to work ++ ~

7.2 Investment ++ ~

7.3 Local economy ++ ~

Commentary




109

LP31 – Development in the Countryside / Part G: Agricultural diversification


Criteria-based policy which enables agricultural diversification


policy

1.1 Undeveloped land ? ~

1.2 Energy use ~ ~








4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ++ ~




7.1 Access to work ++ ~

7.2 Investment ++ ~

7.3 Local economy ++ ~

Commentary




110

LP31 – Development in the Countryside / Part H: Protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land


Criteria-based policy to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land


policy

1.1 Undeveloped land +++ ~

1.2 Energy use ~ ~








4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~






7.2 Investment ~ ~

7.3 Local economy +++ ~

Commentary




111

LP32 – Infill Development in Locations Outside of Development Envelopes


Criteria-based policy which has potential to provide more housing in rural areas


policy

1.1 Undeveloped land - - ~

1.2 Energy use ~ ~








4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ? ?

5.3 Open space ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility - ?




7.1 Access to work - ?

7.2 Investment + ?


Commentary




112

LP33 – Residential Annexes


Criteria-based policy on Residential Annexes Option 2

No policy, rely on national policy

1.1 Undeveloped land ++ ~

1.2 Energy use ~ ~







3.3 Design and layout ++ ?

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ? ?

5.3 Open space ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ~ ?

6.2 Inequalities + ~




7.2 Investment ~ ~


Commentary




113

Appendix C: Evaluate the likely effects of settlement policies and the sites submitted for allocation

As part of the Preliminary Draft and Further draft consultations, we invited sites to be submitted to us for potential development or as local green spaces that could be included as allocations in the Proposed Submission iterations of the emerging Local Plan. This report assesses how each of the sites put forward perform against the sustainability criteria.

It should be emphasised that criteria used for assessing sites can, in some respects, be different to a sustainability assessment and so a site may perform reasonably well in the sustainability appraisal but may not be a preferred site for allocation because of other factors. The Site Assessment Evidence Report provides more information (including site maps) on site selection and gives reasons as to why a site was rejected or why it is a preferred site. The report is available to view on our website (see link). http://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/local-development-framework/local-plan-review

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides communities with a means of protecting local green areas of importance. By designating land as Local Green Space, local communities will be able to rule out any new development other than in very special circumstances. A number of local green spaces were put forward for allocation and these have been assessed in this sustainability appraisal. As with sites, so it is with local green spaces, the criteria used in selecting local green spaces for allocation in the Local Plan is different to the SA objective. A report entitled ‘Local Green Spaces Evidence Report’ provides all the background information including assessment criteria. This report is available on our website to view at the above link.

All sites have been grouped by their settlement. Maps showing the locations of each site in are included in the Site Assessment Evidence Report which is available for view on our website (see link above).

Sites that have consent are not assessed as these sites would have been assessed for their suitability and sustainability before granting planning permission.


114

Settlement: Aldreth

Local Plan

Aldreth 1

Alternative Local Plan

Aldreth 2

Alternative

SA Objective

Option 1 A criteria based policy

protecting local character of Black

Horse Drove


national policy

Option 1 A criteria based

policy on infrastructure and

community facilities


national policy

1.1 Undeveloped land ? ? ? ?

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ~


~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ? ? ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? ~ ?

3.1 Historical assets ~ ? ? ~


++ ~ ~ ?

3.3 Design and layout + ? + ?

4.1 Pollutants ? ~ ? ?



5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?

5.3 Open space ? ~ ? ?

6.1 Accessibility + ? ~ ~

6.2 Inequalities ~ ? ~ ~

6.3 Housing need ? ~ ? ?


~ ? + ?


7.2 Investment + ~ ++ ~

7.3 Local economy ? ? + ?

Summary of assessment –

Both option 1s will have some positive impact mainly in terms of landscape and townscape character, design and layout and accessibility, as they are promoting development that would enhance the character of the village and provide investment for needed infrastructure. Providing additional development and infrastructure would help to promote the local economy. Having criteria based policies in the Local Plan to protecting local character and providing infrastructure and community facilities is valuable in terms of sustainability appraisal for the benefit of the village. Having no policies (option 2s) does not provide the same benefits of having policies (option 1s).

Conclusion –

Option 1 (policies) in both cases performs best.

115

Settlement: Aldreth

Allocated Sites

The following sites are identified in the Local Plan. Further information about each site is set out in the Site Evidence Report. Included in the table below are the allocated sites (unless where stated below) and an appraisal of any subsequent site specific policies. In addition, all reasonable alternative sites are considered.

Allocated: None

Local Plan Alternatives LGS Local

Plan LGS

Alternatives

SA Objective

None 12/02 De-Freville Farmyard

12/03 South of Aldreth Rd

12/04 4a High St

Nil

Nil


- - - - - -



? ? ?


~ ~ ~





? ? ?


4.1 Pollutants - - ~ ~



5.1 Health ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~


6.1 Accessibility - - - +


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++


? ? ?

7.1 Access to work - - - - - -

7.2 Investment + + +

7.3 Local economy + + +

Commentary

Sites Assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. Following are observations that are specific to an individual site. Site 12/02 will use undeveloped land and the land might be contaminated. Accessibility to the site and services would be difficult and so will access to work due to remote location. Housing site 12/03 will use undeveloped land. Accessibility to services would be difficult and so will access to work due to remote location. Housing site 12/04 will use undeveloped land. Accessibility to services would be difficult and so will access to work due to remote location.

Local Green Space Assessment -.None put forward for consideration.

116

Settlement: Ashley

Local Plan

Ashley 1

Alternative Local Plan Ashley 2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Ashley


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


117

Settlement: Ashley

Allocated Sites


Allocated: ASH.LGS1

Local Plan Alternatives Local Plan Alternatives

SA Objective

None Site/01/01 South and East of Elm Farm

Site/01/02 Potters House

Church Street

LGS/01/01 Wavier Pond Chapel Row/

Church Street

LGS/01/02

Ashley Recreation

Ground

LGS/01/03

Small and large green


- - - - ++ ++ +

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ?


? ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity - - - - ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

3.1 Historical assets - - ~ ~ ~ ~


- - - ++ ++ +

3.3 Design and layout ? ? ~ ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants ? ? ~ ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ? ? ? ? ?

4.3 Climate change ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health ? ? + + ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ? ? ?

5.3 Open space + + ++ ++ +

6.1 Accessibility - - ? ? ?

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ? ? ?


? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work ~ ~ ? ? ~

7.2 Investment + + ~ ~ ?

7.3 Local economy + + ~ ~ ~

Commentary

Sites Assessment – Two sites were put forward in Ashley, both greenfield sites and for housing development. Site 01/01 is a large site with mature tree and adjacent to historic building and would impact on biodiversity. A large site 01/02 provides good views to open countryside from the village and development on this site would have impact on the village setting and biodiversity.

Local Green Space Assessment -.LGS/01/01 is an attractive area within the village conservation area that is well

maintained. Site contains a pond and bench under a tree providing a pleasant location for quiet contemplation. A large site with an extensive feel on the edge of the village. Recreation uses are located in the corner nearest to the village

Please see separate evidence report on detailed consideration of LGS sites and their suitability for allocation in accordance with national criteria.

118

Settlement: Barway

Local Plan

Barway 1

Alternative Local Plan Barway 2

Alternative

SA Objective



Horse Drove


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + + ?






Conclusion –


119

Settlement: Barway

Allocated Sites


Allocated: None

Policy: None

Local Plan Alternatives LGS Local Plan LGS Alternatives

SA Objective

Nil. 23/22 23/36 None None


Site

too

sm

all

– n

ot

SA

’d

Site

too

sm

all

– n

ot

SA

’d

1.2 Energy use



2.2 Biodiversity


3.1 Historical assets



4.1 Pollutants


4.3 Climate change

5.1 Health

5.2 Crime

5.3 Open space

6.1 Accessibility

6.2 Inequalities

6.3 Housing need


7.1 Access to work

7.2 Investment

7.3 Local economy

Commentary

No reasonable sites were submitted which required appraisal

120

Settlement: Black Horse Drove

Local Plan

Black Horse Drove 1

Alternative Local Plan Black Horse Drove 2

Alternative

SA Objective



Horse Drove


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


121

Settlement: Black Horse Drove

Allocated Sites


Allocated: None

Policy: None


SA Objective

Nil. 18/24 None None


Site

too

sm

all

– n

ot

SA

’d

1.2 Energy use



2.2 Biodiversity





4.1 Pollutants


4.3 Climate change

5.1 Health

5.2 Crime

5.3 Open space

6.1 Accessibility

6.2 Inequalities

6.3 Housing need


7.1 Access to work

7.2 Investment

7.3 Local economy

Commentary

No reasonable sites were submitted which required appraisal

122

Settlement: Bottisham

Local Plan Bottisham1

Alternative Local Plan Bottisham2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Bottisham


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


123

Settlement: Bottisham

Allocated Sites


Allocated: BOT.H1, BOT.H2, BOT.E1 and BOT.LGS1

Policy: Bottisham4

Local Plan Alternatives LGS

Local Plan

LGS Alternatives

SA Objective

BOT.H1 Land E of Bell Road

Site/02/02

BOT.E1 Tunbri

dge Lane

Business Park Site/02/

04

Bottis-ham4 (no

alter-natives

)

Site/02/01

Land at High

Street

Site/02/03 West

of Bell Road

Site/02/04

East of Bell

Road

Site/02/06

Crystal Park

Tunbridge Rd

BOT.LGS1

Ancient

Meadows

LGS/02/02

LGS/02/03

LGS/02/04

1.1 Undeveloped land - - - - ~ - - - - - -

Site

Com

ple

ted

–N

o S

A r

eq

uire

d

++ ++ ++

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


? ? ~ ? ? ? ? ? ?


~ - ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity - - ~ - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife - - ~ - - - ~ ~ ~

3.1 Historical assets + ~ ~ - - - - - ~ ~ ~


+ ? ++

- - - - ++ ++ ++

3.3 Design and layout ? ? + ? ? ? ~ ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

4.3 Climate change ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health ? ? ~ ? ? ? + + +

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ? ? ?

5.3 Open space + - ~ + + + ++ ++ ++

6.1 Accessibility - + + - - - ? ? ?

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need +++ ~ ~ +++ +++ ~ ? ? ?


? ? ++

? ? ? + ? ?

7.1 Access to work ~ ++ ~ ~ ~ ++ ? ? ?

7.2 Investment + + + + + + ~ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy + ++ + + + + ~ ~ ~

Commentary

Sites Assessment – In terms of sustainability appraisal, all of the sites (excluding LGS sites – see below) have similar scores. Apart from 02/04, they score positively in catering for housing need of local residents and possibly for matters such as design, layout and open space. Site 02/04, promoted for employment, scores positively to a degree for access to work. However, 02/01, 02/03 and 02/04 score negatively on landscape/townscape character. They are located in the Green Belt for similar reasons. Bottisham4 (which provides detailed policy for BOT.H1) will help to deliver high quality housing development in the area while protecting the historic assets nearby and the adjoining Green Belt. It will help to mitigate against some of the negative or uncertain effects of simply allocating the site without detailed policy.

Local Green Space Assessment -.In terms of sustainability, all proposed Green Sites score similarly in that they will protect undeveloped land, preserve landscape and townscape character, provide publicly accessible open space and this will provide health benefits to local community as it will afford locations for them to exercise. LGS/02/02 and LGS/02/03 are already in the Green Belt and so are protected already.

All suggested LGS suggested sites have a mix of sustainability benefits. Please see separate evidence report on detailed consideration of LGS sites and their suitability for allocation in accordance with national criteria.

124

Settlement: Brinkley

Local Plan

Brinkley1


Brinkley2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Brinkley


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


125

Settlement: Brinkley

Allocated Sites


Allocated: BRI.LGS1

Local Plan Alternatives Local Plan Alternatives

SA Objective

None Site/03/01 South of High Street

Site/03/02 Carlton Road

LGS/03/01 Beechcroft Field

None


- - - - ++



? ? ?


~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity - - - - ~

2.3 Access to wildlife - - ~

3.1 Historical assets - - - - ~


- - - ++

3.3 Design and layout ? ? ~

4.1 Pollutants ? ? ~



5.1 Health ? ? +

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ?

5.3 Open space + + ++

6.1 Accessibility - - ?


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ?


? ? ?

7.1 Access to work ~ ~ ?

7.2 Investment + + ~

7.3 Local economy + + ~

Commentary

Sites Assessment – Site 03/01 is currently used as agricultural land and although it may provide low density housing, this would be in remote location and would have negative impact on the landscape and result in loss of agricultural land. Site 03/02 has similar assessment to site 03/01 and it is larger site and therefore greater impact particularly on landscape and character of the village.

Local Green Space Assessment -.The site LGS/03/01 is an informal play area within the village. In terms of sustainability, proposed LGS scores well in that it will protect undeveloped land, preserve landscape and townscape character, provide publicly accessible open space and this will provide health benefits to local community as it will afford locations for them to exercise.


126

Settlement: Burrough Green/ Burrough End

Local Plan

Burrough Green/ Burrough End 1


Burrough Green/ Burrough End 2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Burrough Green/ Burrough End


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


127

Settlement: Burrough Green/ Burrough End

Allocated Sites


Allocated: BRG.H1


SA Objective

BRG.H1 Site/04/01

Land off Brinkley Road

Site/04/02 Land off the B1052

Nil Nil

1.1 Undeveloped land - - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ?



~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity - - - -

2.3 Access to wildlife - -

3.1 Historical assets - - - -


- - -


4.1 Pollutants ? ?



5.1 Health ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space + +

6.1 Accessibility - -




? ?


7.2 Investment + +

7.3 Local economy + +

Commentary

Sites Assessment – The sites perform reasonably well in the sustainability appraisal assessment. They will provide housing for the local community. They have the potential to provide investment and thus help the local economy. However, they both would use undeveloped land and likely impact on biodiversity. As this is a relatively remote location, it would be difficult to find local work and therefore access to work would be difficult. Site 04/02 would have a greater impact on local character, due to its greater prominence in the countryside.

Local Green Space Assessment – None submitted.

128

Settlement: Burwell

Local Plan

Burwell1 Alternative Local Plan

Burwell2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Burwell


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


129

Settlement: Burwell

Allocated Sites


Allocated: BUR.H1, BUR.PH1, BUR.M1, BUR.E1

Policy: None

Local Plan

SA Objective

BUR.H1 (05/04) Land at Newmarket

Rd

BUR.PH1 (05/10) Stanford Park, Weirs

Rd

BUR.M1 (05/06) Former DS site, Reach Rd

BUR.E1 (05/03) Land at

Reach Rd


With consent – not SA’d



- -

1.2 Energy use ?


?


~

2.2 Biodiversity ~

2.3 Access to wildlife -

3.1 Historical assets - -


?

3.3 Design and layout ?

4.1 Pollutants ?

4.2 Waste production ?

4.3 Climate change ~

5.1 Health ?

5.2 Crime ~

5.3 Open space ~

6.1 Accessibility +

6.2 Inequalities ~

6.3 Housing need ~


?

7.1 Access to work ++

7.2 Investment +

7.3 Local economy ++

Commentary

Sites Assessment – Employment site (BUR.E1) will provide work for the local workforce and thus make the village more sustainable. However, it is a greenfield site and has potential archaeological issues on-site.

130

Settlement: Burwell

Alternatives

SA Objective

Site/05/01 Land at Low

Rd

Site/05/02 Factory Road

Site/05/05 Ness Rd

Site/05/07 Low Rd

Site/05/08 Swaffham Rd

Site/05/09 Newmarket

Rd

1.1 Undeveloped land - - + - - - - - - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ?


? ? ? ? ? ?


~ - ~ - - -

2.2 Biodiversity ~ - ~ ~ - - ~

2.3 Access to wildlife - - - ~ ~ ~

3.1 Historical assets - - ~ ~ - - ~ ~


~ ? ? ? - - - -

3.3 Design and layout ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants ? ? ? ? ? ?

4.2 Waste production ? ? ? ? ? ?

4.3 Climate change ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health ? ? ? ? ? ++

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~

6.1 Accessibility ++ - - - - - - -

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +++


? ? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work ~ + + - - - - - - - -

7.2 Investment + + + + + +

7.3 Local economy + + + + + +

Commentary

Sites Assessment – A housing site (05/01) within village with good access to facilities but has archaeological assets on site and is undeveloped land. Mixed use (05/02) on previously developed land has particularly scored well as it will provide both housing and employment on site as well as protect undeveloped land however, it is in remote location. A greenfield site 05/05 although it will provide usual benefits associated with housing but it has accessibility issues that would be difficult to overcome and is remote from employment. Development of the site would likely result in adverse harm to the historic built character of the village. Site 05/07 would not complement the built form, and could result in harm to the setting of listed buildings and the conservation area. There are concerns about the access to as it is constrained by historic buildings and structures. A remote site 05/08 not well related to the village with County wildlife on site but will provide homes and investment. The site 05/09 increasing the site area of draft site allocation BUR.H1. This extended site boundary encroaches into the open countryside and would likely be visually intrusive, causing harm to the landscape. Large housing development proposed with sports facilities which will provide health benefits.

131

Settlement: Burwell

LGS Local Plan LGS

Alternatives

SA Objective

BUR.LGS1 Pauline Swamp

None

1.1 Undeveloped land ++

1.2 Energy use ?


?


~

2.2 Biodiversity ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ~

3.1 Historical assets ~


++

3.3 Design and layout ~

4.1 Pollutants ~



5.1 Health +

5.2 Crime ?

5.3 Open space ++

6.1 Accessibility ?

6.2 Inequalities ~

6.3 Housing need ?


+

7.1 Access to work ?

7.2 Investment ~

7.3 Local economy ~

Commentary

Local Green Space Assessment -.The site BUR.LGS1 is located next to employment site and is valued by local residents. In terms of sustainability, proposed LGS scores well in that it will protect undeveloped land, preserve landscape and townscape character, provide publicly accessible open space and this will provide health benefits to local community as it will afford location for them to exercise.


132

Settlement: Chettisham

Local Plan

Chettisham1 Alternative Local Plan

Chettisham2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Chettisham


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


133

Settlement: Cheveley

Local Plan

Cheveley1


Cheveley2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Cheveley


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


134

Settlement: Cheveley

Allocated Sites


Allocated: CHV.H1, CHV.H2

Local Plan Alternatives LGS Local

Plan LGS

Alternatives

SA Objective

CHV.H1 (06/02)

CHV.H2 (06/04) Brook Stud High

St.

Site/06/01 Rear of Star and Garter Lane

Site/06/03 15-25 High St

None None


With

co

nse

nt –

no

t S

A’d

- -

Belo

w t

he m

inim

um

thre

sh

old

- -

1.2 Energy use ? ?


? ?


~ ~


2.3 Access to wildlife - ~



- --


4.1 Pollutants ? ?



5.1 Health ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space + +

6.1 Accessibility ~ - -




? ?

7.1 Access to work - - ~

7.2 Investment + +


Commentary

Sites Assessment – CHV.H2 site will gain access from CHV.H1 and will form a logical extension. This greenfield site will provide housing and associated benefits but it is away from employment sites. The capacity of this site 06/01 is below the minimum threshold (i.e. site capacity is fewer than 10 units) and therefore not assessed. Site 06/03 is back land developments which is difficult to access and is on greenfield land. It would impact on character of settlement. Local Green Space Assessment -.No Local Green Spaces were put forward for consideration in this settlement.

135

Settlement: Chippenham

Local Plan

Chippenham1 Alternative Local Plan

Chippenham2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Chippenham


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


136

Settlement: Chippenham

Allocated Sites


Allocated: None


SA Objective

None Site/07/01 Grange Farm Red Lodge

Site/07/02 Scotland End

None None


1.2 Energy use ? ?


? ?


~ ~


2.3 Access to wildlife - -



- -


4.1 Pollutants ? ?



5.1 Health ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space + +



6.3 Housing need +++ ++


? ?

7.1 Access to work - - - -

7.2 Investment + +


Commentary

Sites Assessment – Both sites will provide housing for the local community; provide investment and thus helping the local economy to be more sustainable. Site 07/01 will provide more dwellings. However, development will take place on undeveloped land, with consequent biodiversity concerns. These sites, especially 07/01, are in remote locations with access to work would not be easy.

Local Green Space Assessment -.No Local Green Spaces were put forward for consideration in this settlement.

137

Settlement: Coveney

Local Plan Coveney1

Alternative Local Plan Coveney2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Conveney


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


138

Settlement: Coveney

Allocated Sites


Allocated: None


SA Objective

None Site/08/01 East of Main

Street

Site/08/02 School Lane

None None


1.2 Energy use ? ?


? ?


~ ~


2.3 Access to wildlife + +



- -


4.1 Pollutants ? ?


4.3 Climate change ~ --

5.1 Health ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space + +





? ?

7.1 Access to work - - - -

7.2 Investment + +


Commentary

Sites Assessment – Both sites will provide housing for the local community; provide investment and thus helping the local economy to be more sustainable. However, development will take place on undeveloped land and as these sites are in remote location access to work and services would not be easy. Site 08/01 will have detrimental impact on the village setting and majority of the site 08/02 is located in Flood Zone 3a.

Local Green Space Assessment -.No Local Green Spaces were put forward for consideration in this settlement.

139

Settlement: Dullingham

Local Plan

Dullingham1 Alternative Local Plan

Dullingham2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Dullingham


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


140

Settlement: Dullingham

Allocated Sites


Allocated: DUL.H1

Local Plan Alternatives LGS Local Plan LGS

Alternatives

SA Objective

DUL.H1 (09/03)

Land at Kettlefields

Site/09/01Stechwort

h Road

Site/09/02 Highway

depot Brinkly Rd

Site/09/04Station Rd

None None

1.1 Undeveloped land - - - - ++ - -



? ? ? ?


~ ~ - -

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ? ? ?


3.1 Historical assets + ~ ~ ~


+ - - - - - -

3.3 Design and layout ? + + +




5.1 Health ? ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ - ~

6.1 Accessibility ~ - - - -


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ +++


? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work - - - - - - -

7.2 Investment + + + +

7.3 Local economy + + + +

Commentary

Sites Assessment – The site DUL.H1 has clear, defined boundaries and therefore relates well to Dullingham's built form. The site is in close proximity to the primary school but not so close to employment. Site 09/01 is undeveloped land although it would provide a range of housing but will not relate well to local low density built form and impact on townscape character. Access to facilities and work would be difficult. Site 09/02 will use previously developed land. Access to work will be difficult due to remote location of these sites. A large greenfield site 09/04 is outside the village will provide a range of housing and would be near the railway station. The site away from local facilities and work (though trains could provide such access) and would have impact on the landscape. Local Green Space Assessment -.No Local Green Spaces were put forward for consideration in this settlement.

141

Settlement: Ely

Local Plan

Ely1 Alternative Local Plan

Ely2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Ely


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?





Both option 1s will have some positive impact mainly in terms of design and layout, and townscape character as they are promoting development that would enhance the character of Ely and provide investment for needed infrastructure. Providing additional development and infrastructure would help to promote the local economy. Ely southern bypass and enhancing health facilities will help to local residents to be better connected and have health facilities nearby. Having criteria based policies in the Local Plan to protecting local character and providing infrastructure and community facilities is beneficial in terms of sustainability appraisal and for the benefit of Ely. Having no policies (option 2s) does not provide the same benefits of having policies (option 1s).

Conclusion –


142

Settlement: Ely

Allocated Sites


Allocated: ELY.H1, ELY.H2, ELY.H3, ELY.L1, ELYM1 - ELYM6, ELY.E1, ELY.E2.

Policy: ELY4, ELY5, ELY6, ELY7

Local Plan

SA Objective

ELY.H1, ELY.H2, ELY.H3

and ELY.L1

10/30, 10/31, 10/32, 10/20

ELY.M1

North Ely

10/13

ELY.M2 The Grange, Nutholt Lane

10/11

ELY.M3

Paradise Area, Nutholt Lane

10/12

ELY.M4

Station Gateway

10/19

ELY.M5

Octagon Business Park

10/18

ELY.M6

Prince of Wales Hospital

10/28

ELY.E1

Ely Road and Rail Distribution Centre10/25

ELY.E2 (a)

Lancaster Way Business Park

10/01

ELY.E2 (b)


10/02


With

co

nse

nt –

no

SA

- - ++ ++ ++ - - ++ ++ ++ -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~

3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - -


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

3.3 Design and layout ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


4.3 Climate change ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health ? ? + + ? ? ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ - - - ~ ~ - - -

6.1 Accessibility + ++ ~ ~ + + - - -

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need +++ ++ ++ +++ ~ ++ ~ ~ ~


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work ++ ++ + + + ~ ++ ++ ++

7.2 Investment ++ + + + + + + + +

7.3 Local economy ++ + + + + + ++ ++ ++

Commentary

Sites Assessment – ELY.M1 is a large mixed-use site that will provide most of facilities such as employment, local centres and school but it will use green field site. Site ELY.M2 is a brownfield site near town centre of Ely with good access to facilities. ELY.M3 is another brownfield site near playing fields. There is potential for other uses apart from housing. Another mixed-use scheme ELY.M4 will provide housing, employment and retail and may include a hotel. This will be on previously developed land. ELY.M5 is a retail led scheme with some leisure facilities on a greenfield site but no housing. Former hospital site (ELY.M6) will provide homes on a brownfield site. All mix-use site score similarly with the main difference of brownfield or greenfield site and type of development would alter the scoring.

ELY.E1 is an employment site outside Ely. It will provide access to work but is next to SSSI. ELY.E2 (a),(b) and (c) are employment sites and score similarly although site ELY.E2 (a) is the only (predominantly) brownfield site thus scores better than the other two. These employment sites will provide access to work for the local community and provide investments that goes along with employment and thus help to improve the local economy. There are some archaeological assets that will affect the development of these sites.

143

Settlement: Ely

Allocated Sites


Allocated: ELY.H1, ELY.H2 ELY.H3, ELY.L1, ELYM1 - ELYM6, ELY.E1, ELY.E2.



SA Objective

ELY.E2 (c)


10/04

ELY4 (no alternatives)




See next page

1.1 Undeveloped land - - ~ ~ ~ ~

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ?


? ~ ~ ~ ~


~ ? ? ? ?

2.2 Biodiversity ~ - - - -

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

3.1 Historical assets - - + ~ ~ ~


? ++ + ++ ++

3.3 Design and layout ~ ++ ++ + +

4.1 Pollutants ? ? ? ? ?


4.3 Climate change ~ ? ? ? ?

5.1 Health - ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ? ?

5.3 Open space - ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility - + + + +


6.3 Housing need ~ +++ ~ ++ ~


? ~ ~ ~ ~

7.1 Access to work ++ ++ ~ ~ ++

7.2 Investment + + + + +

7.3 Local economy ++ + + + +

Commentary

Site Assessment – Policies Ely4 to Ely7 provide additional guidance to development of larger sites in Ely. The policies generally require development to be of high quality, well connected to existing transport network and footpaths. Any additional infrastructure requirement or other specific requirement are mentioned in the policies to provide guidance to potential developers.

144

Settlement: Ely

Allocated Sites




Alternatives

SA Objective

10/01


10/02


10/03


10/04


10/05

Orwell Pit Farm

10/09

(I) Land south of West Fen Road (Housing)

10/09

(II) Land south of West Fen Road (Employment)

10/10

Land east of Hurst Lane

1.1 Undeveloped land ++ - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - -

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - -

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - -

3.1 Historical assets - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - -


? ? ? ? - - - - ? - -

3.3 Design and layout ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + + +

4.1 Pollutants - - ? - - - - ? ? ? ?

4.2 Waste production ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

4.3 Climate change ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health ? ? ? - ? ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space - - - - - - - -

6.1 Accessibility - - - - - - - -

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ ++ ~ ++


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work ++ ++ ++ ++ - - - - ++ - -

7.2 Investment + + + + + + + +

7.3 Local economy ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ +

Commentary

Sites Assessment – Sites 10/01 to 10/04 are employment sites and score similarly although site 10/01 is the only brownfield site thus scores better than the other three. These employment sites will provide access to work for the local community and provide investments that goes along with employment and thus help to provide work for local workforce. There are some archaeological assets that will affect the development of these sites.

Site 10/05 submitted for housing and both will cater for local housing needs and will provide investment and thus helping the local economy. The site will use undeveloped land, and access to work and wildlife issues would be difficult. Site 10/05 will have impact on the key views of the Ely Cathedral and remote from Ely. Site 10/09 is split into two parcels - 10/9 (I) for housing and 10/09(II) for employment. The site as a whole perform reasonably well when assessed against some sustainability criteria in that it has potential to provide housing and employment opportunities but when considered against others it would have detrimental effect on the visual impact, the countryside and the views of the Ely Cathedral. Site 10/10 would provide usual benefits associated with housing development. However, the development will take place on undeveloped land, access to the site has insurmountable safety issues and potentially harm views of the Ely Cathedral.

145

Settlement: Ely




Alternatives

SA Objective

10/14 south of Ely golf club and to the east of Cambridge Road

10/15 South of

Witchford Road

10/17 Cathedral

Marina

10/21-22 City centre sites

10/23

The Gardens

10/26 Lancaster Way Business Park

10/27 Land at Kiln Lane

1.1 Undeveloped land - - - - + +

Not lik

ely

deliv

era

ble

– n

ot S

Ad

Site

no

w c

om

ple

te

- ++

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ?

1.3 Water consumption ? ? ? ? ~

2.1 Nature sites and species ~ ~ - ~ - -

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ~ ?

2.3 Access to wildlife - - + ~ +

3.1 Historical assets - - ~ - - - ~


? ? ? ? ?

3.3 Design and layout + + ~ ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants - - - - ? ? ~



5.1 Health ? ? ? ? ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ?

5.3 Open space - - - - ~

6.1 Accessibility - - - - - - -

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~ ?

6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ~ ++

6.4 Community involvement ? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work - - + ++ +


7.3 Local economy + + + ++ +

Commentary

Site assessment – Sites 10/14 and 10/15 score similarly in the sustainability appraisal and would provide housing for local residents and benefits associated with it. However, both proposed development will be on undeveloped land, surrounded by road network which will cause noise pollution and would have impact on the historic environment due to archaeological evidence on site.

Mixed use development site (10/17) for housing and mooring/marina. As this is a brownfield site, it will protect undeveloped land and provide local housing and other benefits. Accessibility to the site is difficult.

Site 10/26 is a single site comprising sites 10/01-04, so refer to commentary on those sites.

Despite some benefits, Site 10/27 is isolated from the main settlement of Ely. Vehicular access is poor and is severed by a level crossing. Development of the site may result in harm to the SSSI.

Combined effects of allocations – due to the quantum of growth / large number of allocations in the Ely area, it is important to also consider the cumulative effect of the allocations, particularly in respect of SA objectives 2.1.and 2.2. However, it is clear that, for Ely, the vast majority of the quantum of growth is already consented and other sites are predominantly ‘brownfield’ regeneration sites. It has not, therefore, been identified that the proposals of the Local Plan will have a significant negative effect on designated sites or biodiversity, provided of course the district wide policies as a whole are applied (such as LP30 and LP21), which will ensure any potential effects are appropriately mitigated.

146

Settlement: Fordham

Local Plan

Fordham1


Fordham2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Fordham


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


+ ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?





Both option 1s will have some positive impact mainly in terms of design and layout, and townscape character as they are promoting development that would enhance the character of Fordham and provide investment for needed infrastructure. Providing additional development and infrastructure would help to promote the local economy. Fordham and at the same time protecting Breckland Rough SSSI and Chippenham Fen from adverse impact. Having criteria based policies in the Local Plan to protecting local character and providing infrastructure and community facilities is beneficial in terms of sustainability appraisal and for the benefit of Fordham. Having no policies (option 2s) does not provide the same benefits of having policies (option 1s).

Conclusion –


147

Settlement: Fordham

Allocated Sites


Allocated: FRD.H1, FRD.H2, FRD.H3, FRD.H4, FRD.M1, FRD.M2, FRD.E1.

Policy: Fordham4, Fordham5, Fordham6

Local Plan

SA Objective

FRD.H1Mildenhall Rd, E of Col’s

Hill

11/24

FRD.H2 NE of Rules Gardens

11/04

FRD.H3 Land off Station Rd

11/28

FRD.H4 Land off Steward’s Field

11/27

FRD.M1 Scotsdale Garden Centre

11/09

FRD.M2 North of Mildenhall Rd.

11/05

FRD.E1 South of Fordham

11/16-20

11/22-23

Fordham4 (no alternatives)




With

co

nse

nt n

o S

A

- - + - - + + - - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - + + +

2.2 Biodiversity ? ? ? ? ? ~ + + +

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

3.1 Historical assets ? ~ ~ - - ~ - - - - - - ++


+ ? ? ? - ? ? ? +

3.3 Design and layout ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + + ~

4.1 Pollutants ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


4.3 Climate change ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ - - ~ ~ - - + -

6.1 Accessibility + ++ ~ + ~ - + - -

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ~ ++ ~ +++ ++ ~


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work ~ + ~ ++ ~ ++ ++ ~ ++

7.2 Investment + + + + + + + + +

7.3 Local economy + + + + + ++ ++ + ++

Commentary

Sites Assessment – The site FRD.H1 is accessible and located close to village services but is on undeveloped land. The site has the potential to conserve and enhance the conservation area and listed buildings and their settings. The site FRD.H2 would provide a logical extension to neighbouring development at Rules Garden, with no apparent SA issues. FRD.H4 is an amended proposal of a larger scheme previously assessed. This smaller site offers a logical extension to the built area has few constraints and offers a suitable location for a modest scale development. The site FRD.M1 could provide a suitable location for a mixed-use (likely housing-led) scheme and other uses, such as employment and/or retail could also be provided. There are likely some Archaeological assets on-site. The site FRD.M2 has a minded to approve decision. Site would have some harm on landscape. FRD.E1 is a cluster of seven employment sites mostly on brownfield sites. Some of the sites have potential to impact on nature sites and historic assets. However, the sites will have considerable economic benefits Policies Fordham4, 5 and will help to deliver major sites in Fordham in a sustainable manner by mitigating issues arising from the allocation sites , such as requiring a concept plan, access to the site and links to existing network, provide community facilities and avoid adverse impact on SSSI and any other designated assets.

148

Settlement: Fordham

Alternatives

SA Objective 11/01

Fordham Rd 11/02 11/03

Station Rd

11/06 Mildenhall

Rd

11/07 Mildenhall

Lane

11/08 Station

Rd

11/10 Collin’s

Hill

11/11 Station Road

1.1 Undeveloped land - -

Se

e 1

1/2

8 –

sam

e s

ite

- - - - -

Site

too

sm

all

– n

ot

SA

’d

- - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ?

1.3 Water consumption ? ? ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ? ? - ?


- - -- -- - --

3.3 Design and layout ~ ~ - - - - ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants ? ? - - ? ?



5.1 Health ? ? ? ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space - - ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ? ? - - + -


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++


? ? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work - - - - - - - ~ -

7.2 Investment + + + + + +

7.3 Local economy + + + - + +

Commentary

Summary of site assessment –In terms of sustainability, all sites score similar. All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. Following are observations that are specific to an individual site. Site 11/01 is undeveloped, relatively isolated site, with impact on townscape and landscape. 11/03 is similar to 11/23, with some merit, though would have landscape/townscape impact. Site 11/06 is a considerable distance from the village core, with resultant impact on townscape / landscape, and access. Possible land contamination. Site 11/07 includes an element of employment land (which would be lost). Would have significant landscape/townscape impact, and difficult design / layout. Is relatively isolated from the village and its facilities. Site 11/10 alone would likely impact on townscape and historic assets, primarily due to difficult access and off site highway works. Bigger site 11/24 mitigates these issues. Site 11/11 for housing will be on undeveloped, with significant landscape/townscape impact, and relatively isolated from facilities. .

149

Settlement: Fordham

Alternatives

SA Objective

11/12 Station Road

11/13 Soham Rd / Stewards Field

11/14 Grove Park

11/15 Mildenhall

Rd

11/21 E of 24 Mildenhall Rd

11/25 Isleham Rd

11/26 Allotment Gardens

Collin’s Hill

1.1 Undeveloped land - - - - - -

Site

too

sm

all

– n

ot

SA

’d

- - - - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ?



~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

3.1 Historical assets - - ? ? ? ? ?


-- - -- + - - -

3.3 Design and layout ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants ? ? ~ ? ~ ~



5.1 Health ? ? ? ? ? -

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility - ~ - - + - ~


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++


? ? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work - - - - - ~ - - - -

7.2 Investment + + + + + +

7.3 Local economy + + + + + +

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – Site 11/12 for housing is on undeveloped land, possible archaeological assets on site. Significant landscape impact. Relatively isolated from facilities. Site 11/13 has some merit, though could have some townscape / landscape concerns. The site has been withdrawn by the landowner, in favour of smaller 11/27. Site 11/14 has challenging access issues, as well as significant impact on landscape. Isolated from village and facilities. Undeveloped land. Site 11/21 scores the same as 11/24, but 11/24 forms a larger site enabling 11/21 to be developed with another site. Site 11/25 is located in the open countryside and would likely be visually intrusive, resulting in severe adverse harm to the landscape. The site 11/26 is currently in use as allotments; development would result in the loss of this community facility as well as impact on character of village.

Combined effects of allocations – due to the quantum of growth / large number of allocations in the Fordham area, it is important to also consider the cumulative effect of the allocations, particularly in respect of SA objectives 2.1.and 2.2. For Fordham, some of the growth is already consented, but a significant number are not. Of particular concern (due to their location and sensitivity) is the potential impact on Brackland Rough SSSI and Chippenham Fen. To mitigate this, it is noted that the Proposed Submission Local Plan Policies Fordham1,2,4,5 and 6 all require measures specifically addressing this issue. It has not, therefore, been identified that the proposals of the Local Plan will have a significant negative effect on designated sites or biodiversity, provided of course the Fordham policies and district wide policies as a whole are applied (such as LP30 and LP21), which will ensure any potential effects are appropriately mitigated.

150

Settlement: Haddenham

Local Plan

Haddenham1 Alternative Local Plan

Haddenham2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Haddenham


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?





Both option 1s will have some positive impact mainly in terms of design and layout, and townscape character as they are promoting development that would enhance the character of Haddenham and provide investment for needed infrastructure. Providing additional development and infrastructure would help to promote the local economy in particular highway improvements, traffic management, traffic calming and safety measures. Having criteria based policies in the Local Plan to protect local character and provide infrastructure and community facilities are beneficial in sustainability terms. Having no policies (option 2s) does not provide the positive effects offered by the policies (option 1s).

Conclusion –

Option 1 (to include policies 1 and 2) provides greater positive impacts in sustainability terms than Option 2 (no policy).

151


Allocated Sites


Allocated: HAD.H1, HAD.H2, HAD.H3, HAD.E1

Policy: Haddenham4


SA Objective HAD.H1 West End

(12/16) HAD.H2 New Rd

(12/12) HAD.H3

Chewells Lane (12/06)

HAD.E1 Station Rd (12/13)

Haddenham4 (no

alternatives)

12/01 Hinton Hedges Rd

1.1 Undeveloped land - ~ - - ~ ++

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ?


? ? ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


3.1 Historical assets ? ? - - ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ ++ -

3.3 Design and layout ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ? ~ ~ - -



5.1 Health ? ? ? ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ++ ++ ++ - ~ -


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ~ ++ ++


++ ~ ? ? ++ ?

7.1 Access to work + + + +++ ~ -

7.2 Investment + + + + + +

7.3 Local economy + + ++ ++ + +

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and support the local economy. The following observations are specific to individual sites. Site HAD.H1 is a large site thereby delivering a greater range of housing to cater for a range of housing needs. The site is expected to provide community-led development ensuring greater benefits to the community. Policy Haddenham4 provides guidance to development of site HAD.H1. The site should be delivered through a Community Led Development and provide safe access, on site provision and mitigate visual impact. Site HAD.H2 is an existing allocation located on a mixed greenfield/brownfield site with few constraints and good access to village services and facilities. Site HAD.H3 has good access to village services and facilities from Chewells Lane (subject to footpath widening and junction improvement) and is largely free of constraints. Site HAD.E1 is an existing employment allocation, with relatively few constraints. Retaining the allocation would ensure a supply of employment land in the village. Site/12/01 will use existing employment land for housing. The site might be contaminated form previous uses and there are transport accessibility issues that would need to be overcome.

152


Alternatives

SA Objective

12/05 Metcalf

Way

12/07 Hod Hall Lane

12/08 Hinton

Hall Farm

12/09 Anson

Packaging site

12/10 Bury Lane

12/11 Rowan Close

12/14 North-umbria Close

12/15 Aldreth Road

12/17 Hadden

ham Road


Be

low

site

ca

pa

city th

resh

old

– n

o S

A

- - ++ -

Site

has c

onse

nt a

nd d

oes n

ot m

ee

t cap

acity t

hre

sh

old

– n

o S

A

Deve

lop

me

nt o

f th

e s

ite

is n

ow

co

mp

lete

– n

o S

A

Be

low

site

ca

pa

city th

resh

old

– n

o S

A

- -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ?

1.3 Water consumption ? ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ - - ~ ~ ~

3.1 Historical assets ? - - ~ ? ?


- -- ~ - - -

3.3 Design and layout - ~ ~ - -

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ - - ? ~



5.1 Health ? ? ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility + + - + -

6.2 Inequalities ~ - - ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ++ ++


? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work + + -- + +


7.3 Local economy + + + + +

Commentary

Site/12/05 will use undeveloped land and due to the slope of the achieving good design would be difficult. Generally good access to services. Site/12/08 will use undeveloped land. Vehicular access to the site is constrained and there may be archaeological assets on site that need to be taken into account. Site/12/09 is an existing, developed employment site. The proposal to develop the site for housing would therefore result in a loss of employment land. The site is likely to contain contaminated land. Vehicular access to the site is constrained.

Site 12/10 for housing is on agricultural land and development of the site could result in loss of views of the open countryside and impact upon the built form of the village. Site/12/15 is unlikely to accommodate sufficient dwellings to meet the minimum capacity threshold and is not assessed. Site/12/17 does not relate well to the built form of the village and would likely be visually intrusive to the open countryside, eroding the sense of separation between Haddenham and Wilburton. Development would result in the loss of good quality employment land.

153

Settlement: Isleham

Local Plan Isleham1

Alternative Local Plan Isleham2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Isleham


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?

5.3 Open space ? ~ + ?





~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


154

Settlement: Isleham

Allocated Sites


Allocated: ISL.E1, ISL.H1, ISL.H2, ISL.H3

Policy: Iselham4


SA Objective

ISL.E1 Hall Barn

Rd Industrial

Estate 13/02

ISL.H1 Lady

Francis Court

13/18

ISL.H2 5a

Fordham Rd

13/09

ISL.H3 Hall

Barn Rd 13/07

ISL.H4 Fordham

Rd. 13/03

Iselham4 (no

alternative)

13/01 Beck Rd

13/04 Beck Rd

13/05 Hall

Farm Rd

13/06 55 Sun

St.


With

co

nse

nt –

no

t S

Ad

With

co

nse

nt –

no

t S

Ad

- - - - - - - - - - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

1.3 Water consumption ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~

3.1 Historical assets - - ? - - - - ? -


- - + ? ? - ? - - -

3.3 Design and layout ~ + ~ ++ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ - ~ - - - ?


4.3 Climate change ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ++ ++ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility - + ~ ~ ~ + + ~

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need ~ ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++


? ~ ? ? ~ ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work ++ + ++ ++ + + + ~

7.2 Investment + + + + + + + +

7.3 Local economy + + + + + + + ++

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. Following are observations that are specific to an individual site. ISL.E1 is an existing employment allocation in the adopted Local Plan that is carried forward. The site is near conservation area, near listed building and has potential to impact on the landscape but it will provide local employment and investment. The site ISL.H1 (13/18) offers a suitable location for development with few constraints. Two sites were amalgamated to form this site. Housing site ISL.H4 is located near employment site and recreation ground. However, it will use undeveloped land with some possible archaeological assets on site. Could link with open space. Policy Isleham4 provides guidance for development of site ISL.H4 in particular providing open space and design and layout of dwellings, to mitigate impacts. Housing site 13/01 is close to village centre and accessible to wildlife sites. The site may have some contaminated land and is near some historic assets and will use some undeveloped land. Housing site 13/04 is close to village centre including employment sites and accessible to wildlife sites. The site is near some historic assets and will use undeveloped land. Not overly constrained. Housing site 13/05 is close to employment and wildlife sites. But it will use undeveloped land, near a contaminated site and development on this site will have adverse effect on views and setting of the village. Site 13/06 has reasonable access to services. There are historic assets nearby and the site is undeveloped land. Possibly some limited impact on townscape/landscape.

155

Settlement: Isleham

Alternatives (cont)

SA Objective

13/08 13/10 Pound Lane

13/11 Church

lane

13/12 Floral Farm

13/13 Wayside

Farm

13/14 Sun

Street

13/15 Station

Rd

13/16 Beck Rd

13/17 20

Waterside


To

o s

mall

– n

ot

SA

’d

To

o s

mall

– n

ot

SA

’d

- - - - - - - - - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

1.3 Water consumption ? ~ ? ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

3.1 Historical assets ? ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~


+ -- - - - - + -- ~

3.3 Design and layout ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ - - ~ - -

4.2 Waste production ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

4.3 Climate change ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility + - - + + + -

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need ++ ~ ++ ++ ++ +++ +


~ ? ? ? ~ ? ?

7.1 Access to work + + + + + + +

7.2 Investment + + + + + + +

7.3 Local economy + + + + + + +

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. Following are observations that are specific to an individual site. Sites 13/08 and 13/15 score similar as 13/18, which combines the two. The single site provides better design opportunities.. Site 13/12 is for employment development and will provide benefits for the local economy in providing work for the local workforce and improve business development, though it is isolated from the community. Development will be on predominantly greenfield site and will have impact on landscape. The site 13/13 is currently used for arable farming and would impact on the landscape if developed for housing. Relatively isolated. The site 13/14 is located close to the village centre and has clear defined boundaries. However, this undeveloped space is considered important for the character of the village by providing a break in the built area. Development would therefore be likely to result in harm to the landscape/townscape character. The site 13/15 is on the south side of the village close to the existing recreation ground and is adjacent to a number of residential properties. It is currently used for agricultural but proposed housing will bring benefits to local community. The site 13/16 is some way from the village centre, and encroaches considerably into open countryside with subsequent landscape impact but it has potential to deliver a large number of dwellings for the benefit of the community. The site 13/17 is some distance from the village centre and development would therefore be isolated from services and amenities.

156

Settlement: Kennett

Local Plan Kennett1

Alternative Local Plan Kennett2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Kennett


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?


6.1 Accessibility + ? + ~




~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


157

Settlement: Kennett

Allocated Sites


Allocated: KEN.M1

Policy: Kennett4


SA Objective

KEN.M1 Station Rd

14/09

Kennett4 (no

alternative) See next page


1.2 Energy use ? ?

1.3 Water consumption ? +


- ++

2.2 Biodiversity ~ +


3.1 Historical assets - - +


- - +

3.3 Design and layout ~ ++

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ? +

6.1 Accessibility - - - -


6.3 Housing need +++ +++


? +++

7.1 Access to work - +

7.2 Investment ++ ++


Commentary

Summary of site assessment – A large mixed-use site (KEN.M1) would provide both housing and employment. Access to services would be difficult at an early stage. There are historic assets on site that would need to mitigate against. Development of the site would potentially have impact on the village setting. Possible impact on designated sites. The site has the potential to improve connectivity between Kennett village and the rail station. Policy Kennett4 provides detail guidance for development of site KEN.M1 in particular; requirement for community-led scheme; provision for primary school, open space, transport assessment and design and layout of dwellings. It also provides requirements to mitigate against potential effects on a range of designated sites. The policy therefore mitigates against identified possible impacts of the site.

158

Settlement: Kennett

Allocated Sites


Allocated: KEN.M1

Policy: Kennett4

Alternatives

SA Objective

14/01 Wildtract Activities

Park

14/02 Station

Rd

14/03 Longstones Stud

Stable

14/04 42 Station

Rd

14/05 Station Rd

14/06 North of Dane Hill

Rd

14/07 West of

Dane Hill Rd

14/08 East of

Dane Hill

14/10 Longstone

s Stud

1.1 Undeveloped land ++ - - - - ++ - - - - - - - - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

1.3 Water consumption ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ -

2.2 Biodiversity - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

3.1 Historical assets - - ~ - - - - - - -


? - - - - + - - - - ~ ~ - -


4.1 Pollutants - - - ~ - - ~ - - - -


4.3 Climate change - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~

5.1 Health ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ? ~ ? ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need ~ ++ + ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

7.2 Investment + + + + ++ + + + +

7.3 Local economy + + + + ++ + + + +

Commentary

Summary of site assessment –. All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. Following are observations that are specific to an individual site. Proposed employment site 14/01 will use previously used land. The site is in remote location, not easy to access, and will encourage car based commuting. Housing site 14/02 is relatively isolated. Developing this site would result in some loss of agricultural land / stud farm and views of wider countryside. Greenfield housing site 14/03 is located away from services and employment sites. Access to the site is difficult. Site 14/04 is a brownfield site previously used for employment. The site is located away from services and vehicle access to the site would be difficult. Site 14/05 scores same as allocated 14/09, but is a much larger area, which would make mitigation more difficult to achieve than for 14/09. The site 14/06 is part of the open countryside and does not relate well to the built form of the village. Development may impact on the setting of heritage assets. The sites 14/07 and 14/08 are physically separate from the main part of the village, and would unlikely offer a sustainable location for development as there no facilities or employment nearby. The site 14/10 is located in open countryside; separate from the main part of the village and partially outside ECDC's boundary and away from facilities and employment opportunities. Impact on landscape, and closer to designated nature sites than allocated site.

159

Settlement: Kirtling

Local Plan

Kirtling1 Alternative Local Plan

Kirtling2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Kirtling


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


160

Settlement: Kirtling

Allocated Sites


Allocated: None

Policy: None

Local Plan Alternatives LGS Local Plan LGS

alternatives

SA Objective Nil 15/01

The Street LGS 15/01

Kirtling Playing Field

LGS 15/02 Cricket Pitch

Nil

1.1 Undeveloped land - - + +



2.1 Nature sites and species - + +

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ++ ++


3.1 Historical assets - ~ ~


- - ? ?


4.1 Pollutants - ~ ~



5.1 Health ? + +

5.2 Crime ~ ? ?

5.3 Open space ~ ++ ++

6.1 Accessibility - - ? ?


6.3 Housing need ++ ? ?

6.4 Community involvement ? ++ ++

7.1 Access to work - - ? ?

7.2 Investment + ~ ~

7.3 Local economy + ~ ~

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – The site 15/01 is a field on the eastern side of the road. This is a small village with very limited facilities and job opportunities. The size of the development will have detrimental effect on the character of the area.

Local Green Space Assessment - The site LGS/15/01 is a playing field is used for village events such as treasure hunts for children, classic car displays, falconry displays and the Kirtling produce show. In terms of sustainability, proposed LGS scores well in that it will protect undeveloped land, provide publicly accessible open space/play area and this will provide health benefits to local community as it will afford location for them to exercise. Site 15/02 is a cricket club made up mostly of villagers who play in a friendly cricket league. The cricket matches are a key social event in the village. In terms of sustainability, proposed LGS scores well in that it will protect undeveloped land, provide publicly accessible open space/play area and this will provide health benefits to local community as it will afford location for them to exercise. Please see separate evidence report on detailed consideration of LGS sites and their suitability for allocation in accordance with national criteria.

161

Settlement: Little Downham

Local Plan

Little Downham1 Alternative Local Plan

Little Downham2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Little

Downham


national policy





policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?





Both option 1s will have some positive impact mainly in terms of landscape and townscape character, design and layout and accessibility, as they are promoting development that would enhance the character of the village and provide investment for needed infrastructure. Providing additional development and infrastructure would help to promote the local economy. Having criteria based policies in the Local Plan to protect local character and provide infrastructure and community facilities are valuable in terms of sustainability of the village. Having no policies (option 2s) does not provide the benefits offered by the policies (option 1s).

Conclusion –


162

Settlement: Little Downham

Allocated Sites


Allocated: LTD.H1

Policy: None


SA Objective LTD.H1 West of Ely

Rd (16/01) 16/02 Ely Rd 16/04 Recreation

Field 16/06 South-East

Cemetery 1.1 Undeveloped land - ~ - - -


1.3 Water consumption ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~


2.3 Access to wildlife + ~ + ~

3.1 Historical assets - - - -


~ - - - -


4.1 Pollutants ~ - - ~ ~



5.1 Health ? ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility + + - - - -


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ++


? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work - -- - - -



Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. The following observations are specific to an individual site. Site LTD.H1 is an existing allocation (LP2015). The site has few constraints and good access to village services. Site/16/02 includes a mix of previously developed land and good quality agricultural land. Development could result in a loss of employment and harm to the landscape through loss of views of open countryside. Site/16/04 is good quality agricultural land, with poor vehicular access. Development may adversely impact on landscape character and the built form of the village. Site/16/06 is located away from employment sites and has poor vehicular access. Development may adversely affect landscape character, through a poor relationship to the built area.

163

Settlement: Little Thetford

Local Plan

Little Thetford1


Little Thetford2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Little

Thetford


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?





Both option 1s will have some positive impact mainly in terms of landscape and townscape character, design and layout and accessibility, as they are promoting development that would enhance the character of the village and provide investment for needed infrastructure. Providing additional development and infrastructure would help to promote the local economy. Having criteria based policies in the Local Plan to protect local character and provide infrastructure and community facilities are valuable in sustainability terms. Having no policies (option 2s) does not provide the same benefits of having policies (option 1s).

Conclusion –


164

Settlement: Little Thetford

Allocated Sites


Allocated: LTT.H1, LTT.H2

Policy: Little Thetford4


SA Objective

LTT.H1 The Wyches (17/02)

LTT.H2 Caravan Park

Two Acres (17/04)

Little Thetford4 (no alternatives)

17/01 Fish and Duck

Marina

17/03 Popes Lane

17/05 East of Caravan Park

1.1 Undeveloped land - S

ite

has p

lann

ing

con

se

nt

– n

o S

A

~ - - - - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ~ ? ? ?

1.3 Water consumption ? ~ ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ + ~ ~- ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~ - - - - ~



- ++ ? - - - -

3.3 Design and layout ~ ~ - - ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants + ~ - - + ?

4.2 Waste production ? ~ ? ? ?


5.1 Health ? ~ ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ++ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility + ~ - - - - - -


6.3 Housing need ++ ~ ? + ++


? ~ ? ++ ?

7.1 Access to work + ~ - - - - - -

7.2 Investment + ~ + + +

7.3 Local economy + ~ + + +

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. The following observations are specific to individual sites. Site LTT.H1 has relatively few constraints and good access to village services and facilities. Policy Little Thetford4 seeks to guide the development of site LTT.H1 to reduce potential conflict with the neighbouring pre-school thereby reducing crime/fear of crime, and seeks to retain trees and hedgerows and provide a green edge, thereby providing benefits in respect of landscape character and biodiversity sustainability objectives. Site/17/01 is a proposal for marina/mooring and associated leisure facilities. The site is in remote location with very limited access to services and employment. Site/17/03 has poor vehicular access. Development of the site would likely result in the loss of good quality agricultural land and adversely impact on the landscape setting of the village. Site/17/05, lacks safe vehicular access. Development would be visually intrusive to the open countryside, and would result in loss of views of the countryside from the recreation, thereby adversely impacting on sustainability objectives relating to landscape.

165

Settlement: Littleport

Local Plan

Littleport1


Littleport2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Littleport


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?


6.1 Accessibility + ? ++ ~




~ ? + ?





Both option 1s will have some positive impact mainly in terms of landscape and townscape character, design and layout and accessibility, as they are promoting development that would enhance the character of the village and provide investment for needed infrastructure. Providing additional development and infrastructure would help to promote the local economy. Having criteria based policies in the Local Plan to protect local character and provide infrastructure and community facilities is valuable in terms of sustainability. Having no policies (option 2s) does not provide the same benefits as having policies (option 1s).

Conclusion –


166


Allocated Sites

The following sites are identified in the Local Plan. Further information about each site is set out in the Site Evidence Report. Included in the table below are the allocated sites (unless where stated below) and an appraisal of any subsequent site specific policies. In addition, all reasonable alternative sites are considered. Allocated: LIT.H1, LIT.H2, LIT.H3, LIT.H4, LIT.H5, LIT.M1, LIT.M2, LIT.E1, LIT.E2

Policy: Littleport4, Littleport5, Littleport6, Littleport7

Local Plan

SA Objective LIT.H1 (18/01)

LIT

.H2–H

4

(18/1

7,

18,

19,

20)

LIT.H5 (18/12)

LIT.M1 (18/10)

LIT.M2 (18/22)

LIT.E1 (18/21)

LIT.E2 (18/15)

Little

port

4

(no a

ltrn

vs)

Little

port

5

(no a

ltrn

vs)

Little

port

6

(no a

ltrn

vs)

Little

port

7

(no a

ltrn

vs)

1.1 Undeveloped land ++

Site

has p

lann

ing

con

se

nt

– n

o S

A

- - - ++ - ~ ~ ~ ~

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~

1.3 Water consumption ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~

2.1 Nature sites & species ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ ~

3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ ~ ++ ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ ++ + ++

3.3 Design and layout ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ ++ + ~

4.1 Pollutants + + + + + + ++ ++ ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~

4.3 Climate change ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~

6.1 Accessibility ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ~ ++ ++

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ ~


? ? ? ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~

7.1 Access to work + + + +++ +++ +++ + + ++ ++

7.2 Investment + + + + + + ~ ~ + +

7.3 Local economy + + + + ++ ++ ~ ~ + +

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community as they will provide housing, investment and will support the local economy. The following observations are specific to individual sites. Site LIT.H1 is a brownfield site located close to Littleport rail station. Development of the site would protect greenfield land resources elsewhere and promote sustainable travel, reducing vehicle emissions and congestion. LIT.H5 is a major site with relatively few constraints, offering good access to services and employment, with defined boundaries providing a logical extension to the adjacent Highfields development site, thereby minimising visual impact. Policy Littleport 4 guides the development of LIT.H5, and addresses issues relating to infrastructure and facilities, accessibility, landscape, noise, pollution and views of heritage assets. Site LIT.M1 is an existing allocation (LP2015). The site has relatively few constraints, although vehicular access is constrained at Woodfen Rd, meaning an alternative access point will be required (such as via Wisbech Rd). The site has clear defined boundaries, minimising landscape impacts, and offers good access to services and facilities. Policy Littleport 5 informs the development of LIT.M1 and addresses issues such as vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access, infrastructure and facilities, employment, design and layout, landscape and noise. Site LIT.M2 provides a major development site, with relatively few constraints. The site has good access to services and facilities, and will require the provision of a range of on-site infrastructure and community facilities. Policy Littleport6 informs the development of site LIT.M2 and addresses issued such as infrastructure, community facilities, open space (inc. Country Park), green infrastructure, design and the historic environment. Site LIT.E1 includes an existing employment area, employment allocation (LP2015) and adjoining land. The site allocation will retain and increase opportunities for employment development and jobs growth in Littleport. Flooding is a potential issue, and is addressed in the SFRA Lv2. Policy Littleport 7 informs the development of LIT.E1 and addresses issues such as highway access, amenity and landscape character. Site LIT.E2 is an existing employment allocation (LP2015). The site is accessible, well-related to the built area and has few constraints. Retaining the allocation will ensure a continued supply of employment land in Littleport.

167


Alternatives

SA Objective 18/02 18/03 18/04 18/05 18/06 18/07 18/08 18/09

1.1 Undeveloped land - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?



~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


~ ? - - - ? ~ ~ -

3.3 Design and layout ? ? ? ? ? - - ? ?

4.1 Pollutants ++ + + ++ + ++ + +


4.3 Climate change - - - ~ ~ - - - - - ~ ~ - -

5.1 Health + + + + + + + +

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ++ ++ + ++ + ++ ++ +

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ++ ~ ++ ++ ~


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work + + ~ + ++ + + +

7.2 Investment ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy ~ ~ + + + ~ + +

Site/18/02 is located predominantly in Flood Zone 3a, and is rejected due to the increases risk of flooding. Site/18/03 has few constraints, and presents an opportunity for major housing development, with good access to local services and facilities. However the site is physically separate from the built area and has therefore been combined with Site/18/08, as LIT.M2, to ensure development reflects Littleport’s built form and character. Site/18/04 is located outside the boundary formed by the A10 road and would likely be visually intrusive to the landscape. Site/18/05 is located in flood zone 3a and would therefore increase the risk of flooding to people and property. Site/18/06 intersects part of an existing Local Plan 2015 allocation and includes additional land. Allocation of the site would provide benefits to the economy and is combined with adjacent proposals as LIT.E1. Site/18/07 lacks suitable vehicular access. Site/18/08 has few constraints, and presents an opportunity for a major mixed-use development scheme with good access to local services and facilities. The site is combined with Site/18/03, and proposed for allocation as LIT.M2. Site/18/09 would provide benefits to the economy by enabling expansion of the adjacent business park, and is proposed for allocation as LIT.E1.

168


Alternatives (cont)

SA Objective 18/11 18/13 18/14 18/16 18/23 18/25

1.1 Undeveloped land - - - - - - - - - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ?



~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


- ~ ~ ~ ? - -

3.3 Design and layout ? ? ? ? ? ?

4.1 Pollutants ++ + ++ + ~ +


4.3 Climate change ~ - - - ~ ~ - - - - -

5.1 Health + + + ~ + +

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ++ + ++ ++ ? +


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ~ ~ ~


? ? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work + ~ + +++ ++ ++

7.2 Investment ~ ~ ~ + + ~

7.3 Local economy ~ ~ ~ ++ + +

Site/18/11 presents an opportunity for large scale housing development in close proximity to local services and facilities. However, there is some uncertainty regarding the ability to achieve suitable highways access to the site, and therefore the extent to which the site can provide a sustainable design and layout. Site/18/13 is located in flood zone 3a and would therefore increase the risk of flooding to people and property. Site/18/14 lacks suitable vehicular access. Site/18/16 is an existing Local Plan 2015 allocation for employment. The site has been tested through the planning system and determined to be sustainable. Site LIT.E1 extends the allocation to include Site/18/16 and adjacent sites in the wider business park area. Site/18/23 seeks to provide additional employment land accessed via a new roundabout. The feasibility of such infrastructure is uncertain. Site18/25 extends some distance into the open countryside and would likely result in adverse visual impact and harm to the landscape. Combined effects of allocations – due to the quantum of growth / large number of allocations in the Littleport area, it is important to also consider the cumulative effect of the allocations, particularly in respect of SA objectives 2.1.and 2.2. However, Littleport is slightly less sensitive than other locations, because no designated sites are immediately ‘on its doorstep’. Nevertheless, the HRA did assess the impact of proposals in Littleport, and drew the conclusion of no significant effect. It has not, therefore, been identified that the proposals of the Local Plan will have a significant negative effect on designated sites or biodiversity, provided of course the district wide policies as a whole are applied (such as LP30 and LP21), which will ensure any potential effects are appropriately mitigated.

169

Settlement: Lode with Long Meadow

Local Plan

Lode with Long Meadow1


Lode with Long Meadow2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Lode with

Long Meadow


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


170

Settlement: Lode with Longmeadow

Allocated Sites


Allocated: LOD.H1

Policy: None


SA Objective LOD.H1 (19/01) Sunny Ridge

Farmyard

19/02 Lode Station Yard

19/03 Lode Station Yard


+ + ++ + +



? ? ?


~ ~ ~


2.3 Access to wildlife - - ?



~ -- - -


~ -- - -




5.1 Health ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~


6.1 Accessibility ? - ?




? ? ?

7.1 Access to work - - + - -



Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. Following are observations that are specific to an individual site. A brownfield housing site LOD.H1 is located within the village envelope and within a conservation area. The site is close to some of the facilities however, employment sites are some distance away and so are wildlife sites. A mixed use brownfield site 19/02 is located on the edge of the village. Development in this location would not reflect the built form and would likely be visually intrusive to the countryside. Access to services and wildlife sites would be difficult from the site but it would provide employment on site. Site 19/03 (same site as 19/02, but now just housing) is located outside the natural extent of the village. Development in this location would not reflect the built form and would likely be visually intrusive to the countryside. Access to employment would be difficult. Achieving a good design and layout difficult on the site, in both cases.

171

Settlement: Mepal

Local Plan

Mepal1 Alternative Local Plan

Mepal2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Mepal


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


+ ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


172

Settlement: Mepal

Allocated Sites


Allocated: MEP.H1

Policy: Mepal4


SA Objective

MEP.H1 (26/01)

Brick Lane

Mepal4 (no alternatives)

20/01 20/02 20/03 20/04

1.1 Undeveloped land - - ~ - - - - - - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ~ ? ? ? ?

1.3 Water consumption ? ~ ? ? ? ?


- ~ - - - - - - - -


2.3 Access to wildlife ? ~ - - - - - - - -

3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ? ? ? ?


~ +++ - - - - - - - -

3.3 Design and layout ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ~ ~ ? ? ? ?

4.3 Climate change ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health + ++ ? ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ - -

6.1 Accessibility ++ +++ ~ ~ ~ - -


6.3 Housing need ++ ~ ++ ++ ++ ++


? ~ ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work - - ~ - - - - - - -

7.2 Investment ~ + + + + +

7.3 Local economy ~ ~ + + + +

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. The following observations are specific to individual sites. Site/26/01 is located within the administrative boundary of Sutton parish, but adjoins the built area of Mepal village. The site has few technical constraints, however mitigation measures will be required to reduce road noise from A142 and ensure good amenity for residents. However, this is addressed by policy Mepal4, which seeks to mitigate noise and landscape impacts and improve accessibility. The site (or any site in Mepal for that matter) could have an impact on the designated Ouse Washes, but this is mitigated for via policy wording in Mepal1. Site/20/01 is an open meadow, which is publicly accessible via PROW. Part of the site is designated as a County Wildlife site. The site would therefore have adverse impacts in respect of ecology, access to wildlife and result in the loss of publicly accessible open space. Site/20/02 intersects a County Wildlife Site and is located adjacent to nationally & internationally designated wildlife sites. The site is accessible via a PROW. Development would likely result in adverse impacts in respect of ecology and access to wildlife. Site/20/03 would likely be visually intrusive to the open countryside and result in harm to the landscape. Site/20/04 would likely be visually intrusive to the open countryside and result in harm to the landscape, and lacks a suitable vehicular access.

173

Settlement: Newmarket Fringe

Local Plan

Newmarket Fringe1 Alternative Local Plan

Newmarket Fringe2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of

Newmarket Fringe


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


174

Settlement: Newmarket Fringe

Allocated Sites


Allocated:

Policy:


SA Objective

NFR.H1 (35/04)

St John’s Ave

Site/35/01 Peterhouse

Drive

Site/35/02 Cricketfield

Road

LGS/35/01 Peterhouse

Drive

Nil


With

co

nse

nt –

no

S/A

- -

Deve

lop

me

nt

Com

ple

te –

no S

A

+

1.2 Energy use ? ?


? ?


~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ +


3.1 Historical assets ? ~


- ?


~ ~

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~


? ?


5.1 Health ? +

5.2 Crime ~ ?

5.3 Open space - - ++

6.1 Accessibility + ?


6.3 Housing need ++ ?


? ++

7.1 Access to work - - ?

7.2 Investment + ~


Commentary

Summary of site assessment – Site 35/01 is currently used as a playing field and has been awarded ‘Asset of Community Value’ status. The development on this site would result in loss of open space and undeveloped land, and access to employment sites would be difficult. Would impact on character of area.

Local Green Space Assessment - The site LGS/35/01 is a small playing field next to the enclosed school playing field. This area provides an informal play area. In terms of sustainability, proposed LGS scores well in that it will protect undeveloped land, provide publicly accessible open space/play area and this will provide health benefits to local community as it will afford location for them to exercise.

175

Settlement: Prickwillow

Local Plan Prickwillow1

Alternative Local Plan Prickwillow2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Prickwillow


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?





Both option 1s will have some positive impact mainly in terms of landscape and townscape character, design and layout and accessibility, as they are promoting development that would enhance the character of the village and provide investment for needed infrastructure. Providing additional development and infrastructure would help to promote the local economy. Having criteria based policies in the Local Plan to protecting local character and providing infrastructure and community facilities is valuable in terms of sustainability of the village. Having no policies (option 2s) does not provide the same benefits of having policies (option 1s).

Conclusion –


176

Settlement: Prickwillow

Allocated Sites


Allocated: None

Policy: None


SA Objective

Nil. 10/24 Putney Hill Road


1.2 Energy use ?

1.3 Water consumption ?

2.1 Nature sites and species ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~


3.1 Historical assets -


~


4.1 Pollutants ~


4.3 Climate change - - -

5.1 Health ?

5.2 Crime ~

5.3 Open space ~


6.2 Inequalities ~

6.3 Housing need ++

6.4 Community involvement ?

7.1 Access to work - -

7.2 Investment +

7.3 Local economy +

Commentary

Sites Assessment – Site/10/24 is an existing Local Plan 2015 allocation. The SFRA update indicates the site is located in Flood Zone 3a and is considered not sustainable, principally due to risk of flooding

177

Settlement: Pymoor

Allocated Sites


Allocated: None

Policy: None

Local Plan

Pymoor1


Pymoor2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Pymoor


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


178

Settlement: Pymoor

Allocated Sites


Allocated: None

Policy:

Local Plan

Alternatives

SA Objective Nil 16/03 16/05 16/07 16/08 16/09 16/10 16/11


Not

assessed

– s

ite b

elo

w m

inim

um

siz

e/c

ap

acity t

hre

sh

old

- -

Not

assessed

– s

ite b

elo

w m

inim

um

siz

e/c

ap

acity t

hre

sh

old

- - - - - -

Not

assessed

– s

ite b

elo

w m

inim

um

siz

e/c

ap

acity t

hre

sh

old


1.3 Water consumption ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~



3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ~ ~


- - - - - - - -


4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ ~


4.3 Climate change - - - - - - - - - - - -

5.1 Health ? ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~


6.1 Accessibility - - - - - - - -


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ++


? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work - - - - - - - -



Commentary

Summary of site assessment – Site/16/03 is not assessed as it is below the threshold of 10 dwellings. Site 16/05 is located in Flood Zone 3a, and is considered not sustainable due to risk of flooding. Site/16/07 was promoted for, and is unlikely to accommodate 10 or more dwellings and is therefore not assessed. Site/16/08 is an existing local plan 2015 allocation. However, the SFRA update indicates the site located in Flood Zone 3a and is considered not sustainable, principally due to risk of flooding. Site/16/09 is located in Flood Zone 3a and is considered not sustainable due to risk of flooding. Site/16/10 is located in Flood Zone 3a and is considered not sustainable due to risk of flooding. Site 16/11 is not assessed as it is below the threshold of 10 dwellings.

179

Settlement: Queen Adelaide

Local Plan

Queen Adelaide1


Queen Adelaide2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Queen

Adelaide


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


180

Settlement: Queen Adelaide

Allocated Sites


Allocated: None

Policy: None

Local Plan

Alternatives

SA Objective

Nil 10/06

Queen Adelaide South

10/07

Queen Adelaide North

10/08

Queen Adelaide Farmland


- - - - - -



? ? ?


~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity - ? ~

2.3 Access to wildlife - ~ -



~ ? -


~ ~ ~



4.3 Climate change - - - - ~

5.1 Health ? ? ++

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space - - +++

6.1 Accessibility - - - - --


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ~


? ? ?

7.1 Access to work - - + ~


7.3 Local economy + + ~

Commentary

Site/10/06 is located in Flood Zone3a and is therefore considered not sustainable, principally due to flood risk. Site/10/07 is located in Flood Zone3a and is therefore considered not sustainable, principally due to flood risk.

Site/10/08 was promoted for open space/outdoor recreation. The site lacks suitable access and does not relate well to the village, which may therefore adversely impact landscape character.

181

Settlement: Reach

Local Plan

Reach1 Alternative Local Plan

Reach2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Reach


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?





Both option 1s will have some positive impact mainly in terms of landscape and townscape character, design and layout and accessibility, as they are promoting development that would enhance the character of the village and provide investment for needed infrastructure. Providing additional development and infrastructure would help to promote the local economy. All development proposals will be carefully scrutinised to ensure that there is no adverse impact on the Devil’s Dyke earthworks and The Hythe. Having criteria based policies in the Local Plan to protecting local character and providing infrastructure and community facilities is valuable in terms of sustainability appraisal for the benefit of the village. Having no policies (option 2s) does not provide the same benefits of having policies (option 1s).

Conclusion –


182

Settlement: Reach

Allocated Sites


Allocated:

Policy:

LGS Local Plan LGS Alternatives

SA Objective LGS21/01 The Hythe

Nil


+

1.2 Energy use ?


?


+

2.2 Biodiversity ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ++



++


~

4.1 Pollutants ~



5.1 Health +

5.2 Crime ?

5.3 Open space ++

6.1 Accessibility ?

6.2 Inequalities ~

6.3 Housing need ?


++


7.2 Investment ~

7.3 Local economy ~

Commentary

Local Green Space Assessment - The site LGS/21/01 ‘The Hythe’ is an historic area used by leisure boats and with potential for further historical, recreational and wildlife value. The well used by the village. In terms of sustainability, proposed LGS scores well in that it will protect undeveloped land, provide publicly accessible open space/play area and this will provide health benefits to local community as it will afford location for them to exercise.

Please see separate evidence report on detailed consideration of LGS sites and their suitability for allocation in accordance with national criteria

183

Settlement: Saxon Street

Local Plan

Saxon Street1 Alternative Local Plan

Saxon Street2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Saxon

Street


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


184

Settlement: Snailwell

Local Plan Snailwell1

Alternative Local Plan Snailwell2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Snailwell


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


185

Settlement: Snailwell

Allocated Sites


Allocated:

Policy:


SA Objective Nil 22/01 22/02 Nil Nil


1.2 Energy use ? ?



~ ~



3.1 Historical assets - ~


-- --

3.3 Design and layout - - - -

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ? ~


5.1 Health + +

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility - - - -




? ?


7.2 Investment + +


Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. Following are observations that are specific to an individual site. Site 22/01 is located outside the boundary of the village, formed by Chippenham Road and services could not be easily accessed. Development of the site would likely harm the form and character of the village and impact on the conservation area. Site 22/02 is located beyond the 'entrance' to the village from Chippenham Road and away from services. Development is unlikely to reflect the built form of surrounding dwellings, and would likely harm wide open views of the countryside.

186

Settlement: Soham

Local Plan

Soham1 Alternative Local Plan

Soham1 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Soham


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


+ ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ + ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?





Both option 1s will have some positive impact mainly in terms of landscape and townscape character, design and layout and accessibility, as they are promoting development that would enhance the character of the village and provide investment for needed infrastructure. Providing additional development and infrastructure would help to promote the local economy such re-introduction of a railway station, town centre improvements. Having criteria based policies in the Local Plan to protecting local character and providing infrastructure and community facilities is valuable in terms of sustainability appraisal for the benefit of the village. Having no policies (option 2s) does not provide the same benefits of having policies (option 1s).

Conclusion –


187

Settlement: Soham

Allocated Sites


Allocated: see below

Policy: see below

Local Plan

SA Objective

SOH.H3 / H7- H8 / H12-15

(sites: 23/24; 23/33; 23/34; 23/35; 23/37; 23/46; 23/47)

SOH.H1 (23/04)

SOH.H2 (23/41)

SOH.H4 (23/23)

SOH.H5 (23/08)

SOH.H6 (23/20)

SOH.H9 (23/03)

SOH.H10 (23/48)

SOH.H11 (23/14)

SOH.M1 (23/38)


With

co

nse

nt –

no

S/A

- - + + - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?



~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


- + - - - - - - -

3.3 Design and layout ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.3 Climate change - ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health ~ ~ ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ++ ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work ~ - ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

7.2 Investment + + + + + + + + +

7.3 Local economy + + + + + + + + +

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. Following are observations that are specific to an individual site. SOH.H1 (23/04) is at risk of partial flooding, but Soham4 mitigates this issue. The site is accessible and close to services, and otherwise largely unconstrained. SOH.H2 (23/41) is a brownfield site, close to facilities and can bolster local character of area. Loss of employment land. SOH.H4 (23/23) has no substantial constraints. SOH.H5 (23/08) is similarly largely unconstrained, though some flood risk and possible health impacts from A142. Policy Soham5 mitigates issues for this site. SOH.H6 (23/20) ) is similarly largely unconstrained, though some flood risk and possible health impacts from A142. Policy Soham6 mitigates issues for this site. SOH.H9 (23/03) has no substantial constraints. SOH.H10 (23/48) has no substantial constraints, subject to mitigation measures as per the policy. SOH.H11 (23/14) is similarly largely unconstrained, though some possible health impacts from A142. Policy Soham8 mitigates issues for this site. SOH.M1 (23/38) is a large site, though largely unconstrained. Policy Soham9 mitigates issues for this site.

188

Settlement: Soham

Allocated Sites


Allocated:

Policy:

Local Plan

SA Objective SOH.M2 (23/39)

SOH.M3 (23/40)

SOH.E1 (23/15)

Soham4 Soham5 Soham6 Soham7 Soham8 Soham9 Soham10


- - ++ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


~ ~ ~ + + + + + + +

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ + + + + + + +


? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +


- - -- + + + + + + +


? ? ? + + + + + + +

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.3 Climate change ~ ~ ~ + + + + + + +

5.1 Health ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~ + + ++

5.2 Crime ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ + + + + + + +

6.1 Accessibility ~ ~ - + + + + + + +

6.2 Inequalities ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need + ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


- - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.1 Access to work + + + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.2 Investment + + ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy + + ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. Following are observations that are specific to an individual site. SOH.M2 (23/39) is largely unconstrained and will help generate economic benefits.

SOH.M3 (23/40) is brownfield and provide a range of benefits, especially when issues are mitigated by Soham10.

SOH.E1 (23/15) has landscape impact, and access issues, but has considerable economic impacts.

Policies Soham4-11 all mitigate issues for allocated sites.

189

Settlement: Soham


SA Objective Soham11 Soham12 Soham

13 23/01 23/02 23/05 23/06 23/07

1.1 Undeveloped land + ++ + - - - - - - - - - -

1.2 Energy use ~ ~ ~ ? ? ? ? ?

1.3 Water consumption ~ ~ ~ ? ? ? ? ?


~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ -- ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~ + ? ? ? ? ?

3.1 Historical assets ~ + + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


+ + + - -- ~ -- --

3.3 Design and layout + + ~ ? ? ~ ? ?

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ -- ~ + ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.3 Climate change ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ - ~

5.1 Health ~ ~ + ? ? + ? ?

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ? ? ~ ? ?

5.3 Open space ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility + + + -- - + -- -

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ? ? ~ ? ?

6.3 Housing need ~ + ~ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++


~ ~ ~ ? - ? - -

7.1 Access to work + + ~ ? ? - - ? ?

7.2 Investment ~ + ~ + + + + +

7.3 Local economy + + ~ + + + + +

Commentary

Policies Soham12 and Soham13 have a range of positive benefits, and no negative issues. Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. Following are observations that are specific to an individual site. Site 23/01 is constrained by odour from the sewerage works, as well as poor access. Site 23/48 mitigates these issues. Site/23/02 is a large site and is visually intrusive to the countryside and does not relate well to the built form. Site/23/05 is unconstrained, but will not provide the same economic benefits of its current allocation for employment use in the Local Plan 2015, or benefits of 23/39. Site/23/06 is larger than 23/20, including an eastern parcel of land beyond the A142 and is therefore isolated from the main settlement, impact on landscape and potential impact on designated sites. Site/23/07 proposes major housing development. However, the site would likely be visually intrusive and harm the setting of Soham.

190

Settlement: Soham

Alternatives (cont)

SA Objective 23/09 23/10 23/11 23/12 23/13 23/16 23/17 23/18 23/19


With consent

(see SOH.H8)

– not SAd

With consent

(see SOH.H8)

– not SAd

- - + - - - - - - -- - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

1.3 Water consumption ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


- - - - - - - - -

3.3 Design and layout ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.3 Climate change - ~ - ~ ~ ~ -

5.1 Health ? ? ~ ~ ~ ? ~

5.2 Crime ? ? ~ ~ ~ ? ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility - ~ ++ - - ~ ++

6.2 Inequalities ? ? ~ ~ ~ ? ~

6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++


- ? ? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work ? ? ~ ~ ~ ? ~

7.2 Investment + + + + ~ + +

7.3 Local economy + + + + ~ + +

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. Following are observations that are specific to an individual site. Site/23/11 has limited constraints; however, local services and facilities are located some distance from the site, potentially resulting in a car dependent development. In addition, the site may have adverse landscape impacts. Site/23/12 is a brownfield site, and, other than that, scores the same as 23/38 which it forms part of. Similarly, 23/18 scores the same as 23/38 which it forms part of.

Site/23/13 and 23/19 score the same as 23/04, of which they form part.

Site/23/14 has good access to local service and facilities with few constraints and therefore offers a sustainable location for housing development. Site/23/15 is an existing Local Plan 2015 employment allocation. The site has therefore been determined to be sustainable through the planning process.

Site/23/16 has a poor relationship to the built form and may have adverse impacts on the landscape. Accessibility to local services is likely to be poor.

Site/23/17 has a poor relationship to the built form and may have adverse impacts on the landscape. Accessibility to local services is likely to be poor, and suitable highways access may be difficult to achieve.

191

Settlement: Soham

Alternatives (cont)

SA Objective 23/21 23/25 23/26 23/27 23/28 23/29 23/30 23/31 23/32

1.1 Undeveloped land ++ - - - - ++ - - - - - - - -

Site

co

mp

lete

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?



~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


- - - - -- + + +

3.3 Design and layout ? ? -- ? ~ ~ ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


4.3 Climate change ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health ? ? ? ? - - - -

5.2 Crime ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ~ ~ - ~ + + + +

6.2 Inequalities ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

6.3 Housing need ++ ~ ~ ++ ++ + + +


- - - - - - - -

7.1 Access to work + ++ ++ + ~ ~ ~ ~

7.2 Investment + + + + + + + +

7.3 Local economy + ++ ++ + + + + +

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. Following are observations that are specific to an individual site.

Site/23/27 and 23/21 score the same as 23/40, of which they form part.

Site/23/25 is unconstrained, and will provide economic benefits but not the same housing benefits of 23/39.

Site/23/26 is largely superseded by consented 23/46. As a stand alone, it would bring economic benefits, though there is doubt employment is viable.

Site/23/28, 23/29, 23/30 and 23/31 are existing Local Plan 2015 allocations, but not for substantial development. As an allocation for development, 23/28 has considerable impact on townscape and open space. 23/29-31 would have less impact, and possible some benefits. 23/31 has been subject to recent redevelopment.

192

Settlement: Soham

Alternatives (cont) LGS Local Plan LGS alternatives

SA Objective 23/42 23/43 23/44 23/45 Nil LGS/23/01

1.1 Undeveloped land + - - + - - +

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ?


? ? ? ? ?


- ~ ~ ~ +


2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? ? ? +

3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ~ ~ ++


+ - - - - - - ++

3.3 Design and layout ? ? ? ? ~

4.1 Pollutants ~ - - ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ~ ~ ~ ~ ?


5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~ +

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ?

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ++

6.1 Accessibility ++ - ~ ~ ?


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ~ ?


? ? ? ? ++

7.1 Access to work - ~ ~ ++ ?

7.2 Investment + + + + ~

7.3 Local economy + + + + ~

Commentary

The site (23/42) adjoins a County Wildlife Site and has potential to harm the County Wildlife Site. Brownfield Part of site allocated (23/41).

The site (23/43) is an extension of SOH.H8, which has consent. Whilst not overly constrained, the extension is considered to be on important land establishing the agricultural landscape setting of Soham. Access may also be challenging. The site (23/44) is isolated from Soham and would have poor access to services and facilities. Development of the site would likely be visually intrusive and result in adverse harm to the landscape. Site 23/45 lacks definite boundaries and is part of the open countryside. The visual impact of development would likely cause adverse harm to the landscape.

Combined effects of allocations – due to the quantum of growth / large number of allocations in the Soham area, it is important to also consider the cumulative effect of the allocations, particularly in respect of SA objectives 2.1.and 2.2. For Soham, a significant proportion of the quantum of growth is already consented, but a large number are not (albeit they are almost entirely carried over from the present adopted Local Plan). Of particular concern is any impact on the Commons and other nearby designated sites. However, it is noted that Policy Soham1 specifically requires measures to protect the Commons and designated sites, whilst Soham13 is a specific policy on the Commons ensuring any development in the locality will not adversely harm it. It has not, therefore, been identified that the proposals of the Local Plan will have a significant negative effect on designated sites or biodiversity, provided of course the district wide policies as a whole are applied (such as LP30 and LP21) as well as the Soham specific policies noted, which will ensure any potential effects are appropriately mitigated.

Local Green Space Assessment - The site LGS/23/01 are fields already hosting a multitude of wildlife and would protect the adjacent tree belt and is also in the vicinity of the SSSI sites managed by Natural England. The site has recreation value for the village, has history as it was used as a port and provides access to wildlife. Please see separate evidence report on detailed consideration of LGS sites and their suitability for allocation in accordance with national criteria.

193

Settlement: Stetchworth

Local Plan

Stetchworth1


Stetchworth2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Stetchworth


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


194

Settlement: Stetchworth

Allocated Sites


Allocated: Nil


SA Objective

Nil 24/01 Nil Nil


1.2 Energy use ?


?


~

2.2 Biodiversity ~




- -


4.1 Pollutants -

4.2 Waste production ~


5.1 Health ~

5.2 Crime ~

5.3 Open space ~

6.1 Accessibility ~

6.2 Inequalities ~

6.3 Housing need ++


?

7.1 Access to work +

7.2 Investment +

7.3 Local economy +

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. Following are observations that are specific to an individual site. The site 24/01 has a poor relationship to the main built area of the village and will use undeveloped land. Development may therefore result in harm to the built form of the village and experience poor access to services and facilities. In addition, development of the site may harm the setting of heritage assets (inc. listed building(s) and SAM).

195

Settlement: Stretham

Local Plan

Stretham1


Stretham2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Stretham


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


196

Settlement: Stretham

Allocated Sites


Allocated: STR.H1

Policy: Stretham4


SA Objective

STR.H1 (25/07)

Stretham4 (no alternative)

25/01 25/02 25/03 25/04, 25/05, 25/06

25/08

1.1 Undeveloped land ~ ~ - - -

Site

has p

lann

ing

con

se

nt

– n

ot

ap

pra

ise

d

-

1.2 Energy use ? ~ ? ? ? ?

1.3 Water consumption ? ~ ? ? ? ?

2.1 Nature sites and species ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ~ + ~ ~ ?

3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


~ ~ - ~ - - - - -

3.3 Design and layout ? ~ ? ? ? ?

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ - ? - - -

4.2 Waste production ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility + ++ - + - - - - -


6.3 Housing need ++ ~ ++ ++ ++ ++

6.4 Community involvement +++ +++ - +++ ? ?

7.1 Access to work - ~ - - - - -

7.2 Investment + +++ + + + +

7.3 Local economy + ~ + + + +

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and support the local economy. The following observations are specific to individual sites. STR.H1 combines a number of sites (25/04-06), including existing consents and commenced development. The allocation seeks to provide a single, coherent allocation, and provides additional development. The development is a community-led scheme by the local Community Land Trust, and therefore scores highly positively for community involvement. Policy Stretham4 makes CLT development a policy requirement, improves accessibility and makes provision for a cemetery, thereby contributing to the village’s infrastructure. Site/25/01 has few constraints, but was not favoured by the parish council. Concern the site would adversely impact on the village through traffic volume, and some limited impact on landscape. Site/25/02 has few constraints, and provides a logical extension to adjacent development site, with good accessibility to village services. The site is allocated as part of STR.H1. Site/25/03 lacks suitable access; does not relate well to the built form of the village, which may result in adverse impact on landscape character; and is directly adjacent to the A10 which may expose residents to noise, vibration and pollution. Site/25/04, 05 and 06 have extant planning permission and are therefore not subject to SA. Site/25/08 is isolated, physically separate from any settlement, with poor access to services and facilities. Safe, suitable vehicular access is unlikely to be achievable.

197

Settlement: Stuntney

Local Plan Stuntney1

Alternative Local Plan Stuntney2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Stuntney


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ + ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?





Both option 1s will have some positive impact mainly in terms of landscape and townscape character, design and layout and accessibility, as they are promoting development that would enhance the character of the village and provide investment for needed infrastructure. Providing additional development and infrastructure would help to promote the local economy. Having criteria based policies in the Local Plan to protect local character and provide infrastructure and community facilities is valuable in terms of sustainability appraisal for the benefit of the village. Having no policies (option 2s) does not provide the same benefits of having policies (option 1s).

Conclusion –


198

Settlement: Stuntney


SA Objective Nil Nil LGS/10/01 Nil

1.1 Undeveloped land +

1.2 Energy use ?



+

2.2 Biodiversity +

2.3 Access to wildlife +



++


4.1 Pollutants ~



5.1 Health +

5.2 Crime ?

5.3 Open space ++

6.1 Accessibility ?

6.2 Inequalities ~

6.3 Housing need ?


++


7.2 Investment ~

7.3 Local economy ~

Commentary

Local Green Space Assessment - The site LGS/10/01 is central to the community. It is well-used; has recreational and sporting value; along with richness in plant species and bird life. The site offers; a tranquil location in the village and it is the only 'public' open space in the village. Please see separate evidence report on detailed consideration of LGS sites and their suitability for allocation in accordance with national criteria.

199

Settlement: Sutton

Local Plan

Sutton1 Alternative Local Plan

Sutton2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Sutton


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? + ?






~ ? + ?





Both option 1s will have some positive impact mainly in terms of landscape and townscape character, design and layout and accessibility, as they are promoting development that would enhance the character of the village and provide investment for needed infrastructure. Providing additional development and infrastructure would help to promote the local economy. Having criteria based policies in the Local Plan to protect local ‘isle’ character and provide infrastructure and community facilities is valuable in terms of sustainability of the village. Having no policies (option 2s) does not provide the same benefits of having policies (option 1s).

Conclusion –


200

Settlement: Sutton

Allocated Sites


Allocated: SUT.H1, SUT.H2, SUT.E1

Policy: Sutton4, Sutton 5


SA Objective

SUT.H1 (26/05)

SUT.H2 (26/04)

SUT.E1 (26/10)

Sutton4

(no alternative)

Sutton5

(no alternative)

26/02 26/03

1.1 Undeveloped land - - - - ~ ~ ~ ++ - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ~ ~ ? ?

1.3 Water consumption ? ? ? ~ ~ ? ?

2.1 Nature sites and species ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? ? ~ ~ ? ?

3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ~ ~ ++ ? ~


~ ~ ~ ++ ++ - - ~

3.3 Design and layout ? ? ? ++ ++ ? ?

4.1 Pollutants + + + ++ ~ - -

4.2 Waste production ? ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~

4.3 Climate change ++ ++ ~ ~ ++ ++ ++

5.1 Health + + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space + + ~ ++ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ++ ++ ++ ++ ~ - -


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ~ ~ ~ ++ ++

6.4 Community involvement ? ? ? ~ ~ ? ?

7.1 Access to work + + +++ ~ ~ - - - -

7.2 Investment ~ ~ ++ ++ ~ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy ~ ~ +++ ~ ~ ~ ~

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. Sutton is defined as a Large Village, with a range of village services and facilities. The Elean Business Park is also located at Sutton, and therefore sites in Sutton generally have good access to employment by walking, cycling, public transport and motor vehicles. Please note, as the Elean Business Park is not an existing employment allocation, the Site Assessment Evidence Report implies that sites in Sutton have poor access to employment, which is generally not the case. The following observations are specific to individual sites. SUT.H1 is located within a reasonable walking distance of the village centre and therefore has good access to village services and facilities. This may also reduce the need to use a private car, thereby reducing pollutants. The site is relatively large, and therefore provides a significant contribution to the area’s need for housing. Additional infrastructure provision, namely education and highways, would be required to meet the needs of the development. Policy Sutton4 informs the development of the site, and mitigates issues as design and layout, provision of open spaces and infrastructure, access, and landscape, noise and pollution. SUT.H2 has few constraints and is located within a short walking distance of the village centre and therefore has good access village services and facilities. Policy Sutton5 mitigates development of site SUT.H2 and seeks to retain vegetation and reflect Conservation Area, thereby ensuring good design and enhancing landscape/townscape character; and addresses flood risk. SUT.E1 is an existing business park, and is partly developed and subject to a range of planning consents. The site retains a supply of employment land in a location accessible to Sutton. Site/26/02 is physically separate from the main built area of the village. Whilst development of the site would enable the redevelopment of a brownfield site, residents would likely have poor accessibility to local services and facilities, and the development may harm landscape character. Site/26/03 is located to the west of the main built area of the village. Whilst physically connected to the built area of the village, the site is some distance from village services and employment and therefore is likely to have poor accessibility and be relatively car dependent.

201

Settlement: Sutton

Alternatives

SA Objective 26/06 26/07 26/08 26/09 26/11 26/12 26/13 26/14 26/15

1.1 Undeveloped land - ++ - - - + + - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?



~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?



- - ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - - - -

3.3 Design and layout ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

4.1 Pollutants - - + + + + + - - + +


4.3 Climate change - - ++ + + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health ~ + + + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility - - ++ + + + + + + - -

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need ++ ~ ++ ++ ++ ~ ++ ++ ++


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work + ++ + + + ++ + + +

7.2 Investment ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy ~ ++ ~ ~ ~ ++ ~ ~ ~

Commentary

Site/26/06 is physically separate from the built area of the village and would likely have poor access to village services and facilities. The site is in an elevated position, and may be visually intrusive on the landscape. Site/26/07 is a developed site within an existing business park served by existing infrastructure, including public transport, footpaths and cycleways, in an accessible location at the A142. Allocation of the site would therefore have positive impacts on the local economy by enabling continued employment development at the existing business park. The site is allocated as part of SUT.E1. Site/26/08 is a sloping site in an attractive landscape setting. Development of the site would likely result in significant adverse impacts on the landscape. Site/26/09 is situated in an attractive part of the landscape at Bury Lane. Development of the site would likely result in significant adverse impacts on the landscape Site 26/11 is physically separate from Sutton village, with poor access to villages services and facilities and would likely be highly visually intrusive on the landscape. Site/ 26/12 is a brownfield site in use as an auction, located adjacent to the Elean Business Park. Allocation fo the site would provide employment land. However, the need for the site is uncertain, with large areas of the adjacent Elean business park remaining undeveloped. Site/26/13 is located in close proximity to the A142 and therefore noise and air quality are major concerns. Site/26/14 has the potential to impact upon the listed buildings, conservation area and their setting. Sutton's infrastructure is constrained. Site/26/15 is unlikely to achieve suitable vehicular access.

202

Settlement: Sutton


SA Objective LGS/26/03 LGS/26/04 LGS/26/01 LGS/26/02 LGS/26/05

1.1 Undeveloped land + + + + +

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ?


2.1 Nature sites and species + + + + +

2.2 Biodiversity ~ + ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ~ ++ ++ ~ ~



++ ++ ++ ++ ++

3.3 Design and layout ~ ~ ~ ~ ~




5.1 Health + + + + +

5.2 Crime ? ? ? ? ?

5.3 Open space ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

6.1 Accessibility + + + + +


6.3 Housing need ? ? ? ? ?

6.4 Community involvement ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

7.1 Access to work ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.2 Investment ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Commentary

Local Green Space Assessment –Part of site LGS/26/01 is a playing field offering recreational value (see LGS/26/04). LGS/26/02 is meadows on rising land to the west and east of Bury Road connecting Sutton village to Sutton Gault and the National Nature Reserve of the Ouse Washes. A large site is currently in use as agricultural land which offer open space and access to wildlife but it is difficult to access. LGS/26/03 includes existing playing fields behind the school & British Legion site. The Paddock & Old Recreation Ground (site LGS/26/04) is regularly used by residents for informal recreation. LGS/26/05, has some merit for wildlife, but does not sufficiently fulfil the criteria.

Please see separate evidence report on detailed consideration of LGS sites and their suitability for allocation in accordance with national criteria

203

Settlement: Swaffham Bulbeck

Local Plan

Swaffham Bulbeck1 Alternative Local Plan

Swaffham Bulbeck2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Swaffham

Bulbeck


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


204


Allocated Sites


Allocated: SWB.H1, SWB.H2, SWB.H3

Policy: Swaffham Bulbeck4, Swaffham Bulbeck5, Swaffham Bulbeck6

Local Plan

SA Objective

SWB.H1 (27/01) Heath Rd and Quarry Lane

SWB.H2 (27/04) Heath Road

SWB.H3 (27/06) Hillside Mill Quarry Lane

Swaffham Bulbeck4 (no

alternative)


alternative)


alternative)


- - - - + + ~ ~ ~

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ?


? ? ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



? ? ? ? ? ?

3.1 Historical assets ~ ? ? ~ ? +


+ + + + ++ +


~ ? ? ++ + ++

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.3 Climate change ~ ? ? ~ ? ?

5.1 Health ? ~ ~ ? ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ++ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility ++ - - ++ ++ -


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ~ ~ ~


? ? ? ? + ?

7.1 Access to work - - - - - - ~ ~ ~

7.2 Investment + + + ~ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy + + + ~ ~ ~

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. Swaffham Bulbeck is defined as a Medium Village, with a range of village services. Site SWB.H1 is surrounded by residential development in middle of the village. The Greenfield site is adjacent a conservation area and so design and layout would have to take this into account. There are few constraints to developing this site. Site SWB.H2 is a greenfield site, well screened from the approach to the village and the open countryside and thus development of this will reduce impact. Linear shape of the site would lend to individual plots and thus suitable for self-build site although access to work would be difficult. An accessible brownfield land, site SWB.H3, considered suitable for development but the boundary should be amended to ensure no development takes place within the greenbelt. Policies Swaffham Bulbeck4-6 provides additional guidance on development of the sites and help mitigate against any potential adverse affects.

205


Alternatives LGS

Local Plan

LGS Alternat

ives

SA Objective 27/02 Heath

Rd 27/03

Commercial End

27/05 Gutter Bridge

27/07 Station Rd

27/08 Green Bank Rd

Nil Nil

1.1 Undeveloped land - - - - - - - - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ?



~ ~ ~ ~ ~


2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? ? ? ?

3.1 Historical assets ? ? ? ? ~


- - - - - - - - - -

3.3 Design and layout ? ? ? ? ?

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ ~ +

4.2 Waste production ~ ~ ~ ~ ?

4.3 Climate change ? ? ? ? ~

5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility - - - - +


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ++ ~


? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work - - - - - - - - ++

7.2 Investment + + + + ~

7.3 Local economy + + + + ++

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. Swaffham Bulbeck is defined as a Medium Village, with a range of village services. Proposed linear site 27/02 would use agricultural land on the edge of the village and this would have impact on the setting and approach to the village. Remote location would make it difficult to access work. Proposed linear site 27/03 would use agricultural land on the edge of the village and this would have impact on the setting and approach to the village. Remote location would make it difficult to access work. Site 27/05 is agricultural land outside the village. There would be limited links to village and an impact on the landscape and would also be remote from the work. Proposed site 27/07 (a larger version of 27/05) would use agricultural land on the edge of the village and this would have impact on the setting and approach to the village. Remote location would make it difficult to access work. The employment site 27/08 surrounds a junction which forms a gateway to the village, open and green in character. Development of the site would dramatically alter this, and would likely result in adverse harm to the landscape.

Local Green Space Assessment – No LGS submitted for this village for consideration.

206

Settlement: Swaffham Prior

Local Plan

Swaffham Prior1 Alternative Local Plan

Swaffham Prior2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Swaffham

Prior


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


207


Allocated Sites


Allocated: SWP.H1,SWP.E1

Policy: Swaffham Prior4, Swaffham Prior5


SA Objective

SWP.H1 (28/06)

High Street

SWP.E1 (28/02)

Goodwin Farm )

Swaffham Prior4

(no alternativ

e)

Swaffham Prior5

(no alternativ

e)

28/01

High street

28/03 Roger

Rd.

28/04 Lower End

28/05

High Street

28/07 38 Mill Hill

1.1 Undeveloped land - - - - - - - - - -

Site

Com

ple

ted

- - - - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?



~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

3.1 Historical assets - ? ? - - ? - - -


~ - - ++ ++ ~ - - ~ - -

3.3 Design and layout ? ? + ? ? ? ? ?

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


4.3 Climate change ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility - - - + -- ? -- ?

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need ++ ~ ~ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work ~ ++ ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.2 Investment + + + + + + + +

7.3 Local economy + + + + + + + +

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy.

SWP.H1 (28/06) could have limited impact on the conservation area and views of the church nearby, and access might be challengeable, but otherwise it is largely constrained. Policy Swaffham Prior5 mitigates issues arising. The site SWP.E1 is an existing employment use Local Plan 2015 allocation. Employment use on a greenfield site, outside village and this could impact on setting of the village but it will provide employment and investment. Policy Swaffham Prior5 mitigates issues arising.

Sites 28/01 and 28/05 predominantly make up 28/06, and therefore scores the same apart from on access.

The site 28/04 is currently an agricultural land which affords a view to the open countryside from the village. The proposed development would block this view of countryside and open space, affecting village character . The site 28/07 is located in open countryside and development would likely be visually intrusive and result in adverse harm to the landscape. Development risks affecting a nearby listed building and its setting - namely historic windmill.

208



SA Objective

SWP.LGS1 (28/01)

High Street

SWP.LGS2 (28/02) Coopers

Green, Green Head Road

LGS 28/03 Town Close

LGS 28/04 East of B1102





LGS 28/09

West of B1102

1.1 Undeveloped land + + + + + + + + +

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?



+ + + ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ + + ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ? + + ? ? ~ + + +

3.1 Historical assets ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~


++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++


4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


4.3 Climate change ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health + + + + + + + + +

5.2 Crime ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

5.3 Open space ++ ++ ++ ~ ~ ++ ++ ++ ++

6.1 Accessibility ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


++ ++ ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.1 Access to work ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

7.2 Investment ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Commentary

Local Green Space Assessment - The site LGS/28/01 is currently used as a sports field and so has some recreation value and some historic values. The proposed local green space LGS 28/02 is an open space adjacent to the two village churches with bench / seat for view and contemplation due to tranquillity of the area. Open space adjacent to the Village Youth Club and Children's Play Area is proposed as a local greenspace.

The sites LGS03, LGS/28/04, LGS/28/05 and LGS/28/28/08 are an extensive tract of land adjacent to each other currently used for agriculture. Although the sites have landscape value, the land is not used by community and has no access to wildlife or any historic interest on site. The proposed local green space LGS/ 28/06 is a large agricultural field which provides some views of historic building when approaching the village from Swaffham Bulbeck. Although the sites have landscape value in terms of agricultural land, the land is not used by community and has no access to wildlife or any historic interest on site. Protecting this site LGS/28/07 would protect setting of some listed buildings and Devil’s Dyke. The site is not used by community and has no access to wildlife or any historic interest on site. The Proposed LGS/28/09 is an area between lower End and Swaffham Prior - land to the west of the B11032 and this creates a separation between the hamlet of Lower End and the main village. The site is not used by community and has no access to wildlife or any historic interest on site. Please see separate evidence report on detailed consideration of LGS sites and their suitability for allocation in accordance with national criteria.

209


LGS Alternatives (cont)

SA Objective

LGS 28/10 North of 49 Lower

Road

LGS 28/11 Adjacent 75 High Street

1.1 Undeveloped land + +

1.2 Energy use ? ?



~ ~


2.3 Access to wildlife + +



++ ++


4.1 Pollutants ~ ~



5.1 Health + +

5.2 Crime ? ?

5.3 Open space ++ ++



6.3 Housing need ? ?


~ ~


7.2 Investment ~ ~


Commentary

Local Green Space Assessment - The sites LGS/28/10 and LGS 28/11 are an extensive tract of land currently used for agriculture. Although the sites have landscape value, the land is not used by community and has no access to wildlife or any historic interest on site.


.

210

Settlement: Upend

Local Plan

Upend1 Alternative Local Plan

Upend2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Upend


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


211

Settlement: Upware

Local Plan Upware1

Alternative Local Plan Upware2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Upware


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


212

Settlement: Wardy Hill

Local Plan Wardy Hill1

Alternative Local Plan Wardy Hill2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Wardy Hill


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?





Both option 1s will have some positive impact mainly in terms of landscape and townscape character, design and layout and accessibility, as they are promoting development that would enhance the character of the village and provide investment for needed infrastructure. Providing additional development and infrastructure would help to promote the local economy. Having criteria based policies in the Local Plan to protect local character and provide infrastructure and community facilities is valuable in terms of sustainability of the village. Having no policies (option 2s) does not provide the same benefits of having policies (option 1s).

Conclusion –


213

Settlement: Wentworth

Local Plan Wentworth1

Alternative Local Plan Wentworth2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Wentworth


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


214

Settlement: Wentworth

Allocated Sites


Allocated:

Policy:


SA Objective Nil 29/01 – 29/03 29/04 29/05


Site

s b

elo

w s

ize

/ca

pa

city th

resh

old

– n

ot

SA

’d

- - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ?







- - - -


4.1 Pollutants - - - -



5.1 Health ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility - - ?





7.2 Investment + +


Commentary

Site/29/04 is unlikely to achieve safe, suitable vehicular access. Noise and air quality issues from the A142 are likely to affect residential amenity significantly. The site is isolated from any settlement, and would likely have poor access to services and facilities.

Site/29/05 is located close to the A142, which would likely impact upon residential amenity, exposing occupants to pollutants. In addressing noise, air quality and drainage, such mitigation measures would likely render the site unable to accommodate sufficient dwellings.

215

Settlement: Westley Waterless

Local Plan

Westley Waterless1 Alternative Local Plan

Westley Waterless2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Westerly

Waterless


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


216

Settlement: Wicken

Local Plan

Wicken1 Alternative Local Plan

Wicken2 Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Wicken


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


+ ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? + ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


217

Settlement: Wicken

Allocated Sites


Allocated:

Policy:


SA Objective Nil 31/01 31/02 31/03 31/04 31/05


- - - - - - - - - -

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ?


? ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~


2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? ? ? ?

3.1 Historical assets ? ? ? ? ?


- - - - - - - -

3.3 Design and layout ? ? ? ? ?


4.2 Waste production ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.3 Climate change ? ? ? ? ?

5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility - - -- - - -- --


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ++ ++


? ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work - - - - - - - - - -


7.3 Local economy + + + + +

Commentary


All rejected sites score very similar, with impacts on landscape/townscape and accessibility concerns. Wicken lacks substantive facilities, has no meaningful public transport or employment base and is classed as a small village. These weigh against all the sites.

218

Settlement: Wicken

Alternatives LGS Local Plan LGS Alternatives

SA Objective 31/06 – 31/07

31/08 31/09 31/10 Nil Nil


Sites too small – not

SAd

- - - - - -



? ? ?


~ ~ ~





- - - - - -





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~


6.1 Accessibility - - - - --




? ? ?

7.1 Access to work - - - - - -



Commentary


All rejected sites score very similar, with impacts on landscape/townscape and accessibility concerns. Wicken lacks substantive facilities, has no meaningful public transport or employment base and is classed as a small village. These weigh against all the sites.

219

Settlement: Wilburton

Local Plan Wilberton1

Alternative Local Plan Wilberton2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Wilberton


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?





Both option 1s will have some positive impact mainly in terms of landscape and townscape character, design and layout and accessibility, as they are promoting development that would enhance the character of the village and provide investment for needed infrastructure. Providing additional development and infrastructure would help to promote the local economy. Having criteria based policies in the Local Plan to protect local character and provide infrastructure and community facilities is valuable in terms of sustainability appraisal for the benefit of the village. Having no policies (option 2s) does not provide the same benefits of having policies (option 1s).

Conclusion –


220

Settlement: Wilburton

Allocated Sites


Allocated: WIL.H1, WIL.H2

Policy: Wilburton4


SA Objective

WIL.H1 (32/04)

WIL.H2 (32/01)

Wilburton4 (no alternative)

32/02 32/03 32/05 32/06 32/07

1.1 Undeveloped land - - - ~ - - - - - - - -

Site

too

sm

all

– n

ot

SA

’d

1.2 Energy use ? ? ~ ? ? ? ?

1.3 Water consumption ? ? ~ ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? ~ ? ? ? ?

3.1 Historical assets ? ? ~ ? ? ? - -


~ ~ + - - - - -

3.3 Design and layout ? ? +++ ? ? ? ?

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


4.3 Climate change ? ? ~ ? ? ? ?

5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility + + ~ - - - - - -


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ~ ++ ++ ++ ++


~ ~ +++ ? ? ? ?

7.1 Access to work - - ~ - - - - - - - -

7.2 Investment + + ~ + + + +

7.3 Local economy + + ~ + + + +

Commentary


WIL.H1 has few constraints and is located close to village services and facilities. WIL.H2 has few constraints and is located close to village services and facilities. Policy Wilburton4 helps mitigate issues and delivers community involvement, through requiring the site be developed as a community-led scheme. In addition, the policy improves accessibility and retains mature vegetation to conserve amenity. Site/ 32/02 would likely be visually intrusive to the open countryside, thereby adversely impacting upon landscape character. Vehicle access to the site would likely be difficult to achieve. Site/32/03 would be visually intrusive to the countryside, thereby adversely impacting landscape criteria. Suitable vehicular access may be difficult to achieve. Site/32/05 is distant from village services and facilities and would likely be visually intrusive. Site/32/06 would likely result in harm to the character and setting of listed buildings.

221

Settlement: Witcham

Local Plan Witcham1

Alternative Local Plan Witcham2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Witcham


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


222

Settlement: Witcham

Allocated Sites


Allocated: WTM.H1

Policy: None


SA Objective WTM.H1

33/01 33/02


With

co

nse

nt –

no

t S

A’d

- -

1.2 Energy use ?


2.1 Nature sites and species ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ?


3.2 Landscape / townscape character - -


4.1 Pollutants ~

4.2 Waste production ~

4.3 Climate change ?

5.1 Health ~

5.2 Crime ~

5.3 Open space ~


6.2 Inequalities ~

6.3 Housing need ++

6.4 Community involvement ?


7.2 Investment +

7.3 Local economy +

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – Site/33/01 has extant planning permission for housing development. The principle of development has therefore been accepted through the planning process.

Development of Site/33/02 may not relate well to the built form of the village, resulting in harm to landscape/townscape character.

223

Settlement: Witchford

Local Plan Witchford1

Alternative Local Plan Witchford2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Witchford


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


224


Allocated Sites


Allocated: WFD.H1, WFD.H2, WFD.H3, WFD.H4, WFD.E1, WFD.LGS1 WFD.LGS2, WFD.LGS3, WFD.LGS4, WFD.LGS5, WFD.LGS6, WFD.LGS7

Policy: Witchford4, Witchford5, Witchford6

Local Plan

SA Objective

WFD.H1

(34/18)

WFD.H2

(34/14)

WFD.H3 & H4 (34/07 & 34/19)

WFD.E1 (34/10)

Witchford4 Witchford5 Witchford6

1.1 Undeveloped land ~ -

With

co

nse

nt –

no

t S

A’d

+ ~ ~ ~

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ~ ~ ~


? ? ? ~ ~ ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? ? ~ ~ ~

3.1 Historical assets ? ? ? ~ ~ ~


~ - ~ ~ ++ +++

3.3 Design and layout ? ? ? ~ ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants ? ~ ~ ++ ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility + + + ++ ++ ~


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ~ ~ ~ ~


~ ++ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.1 Access to work + + ++ ~ ~ ~

7.2 Investment + + + ~ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy + + + ~ ~ ~

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. WFD.H1 includes a site with planning consent and adjacent land to enable concerns around air quality and noise to be better addressed. Policy Witchford 4 includes requirements for a noise buffer, and seeks to deliver pedestrian and cycle access. WFD.H2 has few constraints, is located close to village services and facilities, and was particularly favoured by the Parish Council. Witchford5 informs the development of the site and includes mitigation measures to reduce landscape and noise impacts and improve accessibility. WFD.H3 and WFD.H4 have extant planning permission, and therefore are not appraised. WFD.E1 is an existing, developed business park. Allocation of the site retains employment use of the site. Witchford6 designates a Green Wedge between Witchford, Ely and the Lancaster Way Business Park, to retain Witchford’s identity and village character, and prevent the physical coalescence of settlements.

225


Alternatives

SA Objective 34/01 34/02 34/03 34/04 34/05 34/06 34/08 34/09

1.1 Undeveloped land - - - - - - -

Site

has p

lann

ing

con

se

nt

– n

ot

ap

pra

ise

d

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ?



~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? - - ? ? ? ?

3.1 Historical assets ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


- - - - - - ~ ~ - - - -

3.3 Design and layout ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~

6.1 Accessibility - -- - - - - -


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++


? ? ? ? ? ? - -

7.1 Access to work ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.2 Investment + + + + + + +

7.3 Local economy + + + + + + +

Site/34/01 would limit wide open views of the countryside if developed, thereby adversely impacting landscape/townscape character. Site/34/02 has a poor relationship to the built form of the village, likely resulting in harm to landscape/townscape character. In addition, safe, suitable vehicular access is likely to be difficult to achieve. Site/34/03 has a poor relationship to the built form of the village, likely resulting in harm to landscape/townscape character. Safe, suitable vehicular access is likely to be difficult to achieve. Development may adversely impact the County Wildlife Site located on site. Site/34/04 lacks suitable vehicular access.

Site/34/05 lacks suitable vehicular access and is located close to the A142, and therefore may be affected by noise and air pollution. The site offers some potential, when combined with Site/34/09, to overcome noise and air quality constraints, and forms part of WFD.H1.

Site/34/06 would likely result in the loss of open views of the countryside, leading to adverse impact on landscape/townscape character. Development would also change the character of the PROW crossing the site which provides access to the countryside.

Site/34/08 lacks safe, suitable vehicular access, and was not supported by the parish council or residents. Village infrastructure is constrained.

Site/34/09 has extant planning permission and is therefore not appraised.

226


Alternatives

SA Objective 34/11 34/12 34/13 34/15 34/16 10/29 34/17 No Witch-

ford6 1.1 Undeveloped land

-

Site

belo

w s

ize

/ca

pacity t

hre

sh

old

- - - -- -- ~

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ~


? ? ? ? ? ? ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ? ~

2.3 Access to wildlife ? ? ? ? ? ? ~

3.1 Historical assets ? ? ? ? ? ? ~


-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


? ? ? ? ? ? ~

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


4.3 Climate change ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.3 Open space ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.1 Accessibility - - - - + + ~


6.3 Housing need ++ ++ ++ ++ +++ +++ ~


? ? ? ? ? ? ~

7.1 Access to work + ~ ~ ~ + + ~

7.2 Investment + + + + ? ? ~

7.3 Local economy + + + + + + ~

Commentary

Development of Site/34/11 would not complement the built form of this part of the village, and would adversely impact landscape/townscape character.

Site 34/12 is unlikely to accommodate 10 or more dwellings, and is therefore not appraised.

Development of Site/34/13 would be visually intrusive to the open countryside and result in adverse harm to the landscape.

Site 34/15 has a poor relationship to the built form and may result in adverse impacts in respect of landscape/townscape criteria.

Site/34/16 would unlikely complement the built form of the village, resulting in adverse impact on landscape/townscape character.

Site/10/29 is located adjacent to Witchford village, with most of the site area in Ely parish. Site 34/17 is a similar proposal which includes most of Site/10/29, combined with Site/34/08. The site is a major strategic scale and would significantly alter the character of the village, and risks coalescence with Ely and the Lancaster Way Business Park. Uncertainty regarding capacity of Witchford’s infrastructure to accommodate development of this scale.

‘No Witchford6’ – in the absence of a Green Wedge, the area of green open space between Witchford, Ely and Lancaster Way Business Park, would lack protection (beyond the protection which is provided to the open countryside). Some forms of development are acceptable in the open countryside. Due to the specific development pressures in this part of the district, this open area could be gradually eroded, resulting in harm to Witchford’s distinct and separate village character and identity.

227


LGS Local Plan

SA Objective WFD.LGS1 LGS/34/02

WFD.LGS2 LGS/34/04

WFD.LGS3 LGS/34/05

WFD.LGS4 LGS/34/10

WFD.LGS5 LGS/34/12

WFD.LGS6 LGS/34/09

WFD.LGS7 LGS/34/15

1.1 Undeveloped land + + + + + + +

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ?



~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


2.3 Access to wildlife ++ + + + + + ~

3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

3.3 Design and layout ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4.2 Waste production ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


5.1 Health + + + + + + +

5.2 Crime ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

5.3 Open space ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

6.1 Accessibility ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


6.3 Housing need ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.1 Access to work ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

7.2 Investment ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Commentary

Local Green Space Assessment –

The site LGS/34/01 is a long strip of land and has some recreation value and is well used by residents.

The site LGS 34/02 is an attractive pond and forms a vital green lung at the centre of the village, providing an attractive visual break in the built-up landscape. The green is located close to the primary school and the play area on the green is very popular with children after school, as well with families with younger children during the day.

The site LGS 34/03 has recreational value, views into the open countryside and Lancaster Way. This is a large site.

The site LGS 34/04 has significant recreational value with access to wildlife and some tranquil places in the wooded are. The site well-used resource for the village.

The site LGS/34/05 is used as an allotment for the village. It has some recreational value and is well-used resource for the village.

The site LGS/34/06 is a footpath made available to residents and form part of a circular walk, This has some recreational value.

The site LGS/34/07 is detached from the village and although it has some recreational values, it is not the ‘heart’ of the village.

The site LGS/34/08 has some recreational values but it is a byway.

The site LGS/34/09 is registered common land and forms a vital green lung at the centre of the village, providing an attractive visual break in the built-up landscape. The green is located close to the primary school and the play area on the green is very popular with children after school, as well with families with younger children during the day.

228


LGS Alternatives

SA Objective LGS/34/

01 LGS/34/

03 LGS/34/

06 LGS/34/

07 LGS/34/

08 LGS/34/

11 LGS/34/

13 LGS/34/

14 LGS/34/

16

1.1 Undeveloped land + ++ + + + + + + +

1.2 Energy use ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?



~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.2 Biodiversity ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2.3 Access to wildlife + ~ + + + ~ ~ + +



++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ~ ++ ++


4.1 Pollutants ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


4.3 Climate change ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5.1 Health + + + + + + + + +

5.2 Crime ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

5.3 Open space ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

6.1 Accessibility ? ? ? ? ? - ? ? ?

6.2 Inequalities ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6.3 Housing need ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.1 Access to work ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

7.2 Investment ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

7.3 Local economy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Commentary

The site LGS/34/10 is a vital green lung at the centre of the village, providing an attractive visual break in the built-up landscape. A permissive footpath leads off this open space.

The site LGS/34/11 is a large site which is used as grazing land and has no public access.

The site LGS/34/12 is used as an allotment for the village. It has some recreational value and is well-used resource for the village.

The site LGS/34/13 does not have recreational value and access to site could be difficult.

The site LGS/34/14 is detached from the village and although it has some recreational values, it is not the ‘heart’ of the village.

The site LGS/34/15 is currently used as a paddock and has no public access.

The site LGS/34/16 is remote from the village and it does not have recreational value or historic value.


229

Settlement: Woodditton

Local Plan

Woodditton1


Woodditton2

Alternative

SA Objective


protecting local character of Woodditton


national policy





national policy




~ ~ ~ ?


? ? ? ?





++ ~ ~ ?





5.1 Health ~ ~ ~ ~

5.2 Crime ~ ? ? ?






~ ? + ?






Conclusion –


230

Settlement: Woodditton

Allocated Sites


Allocated: None

Policy: None


SA Objective Nil 35/03

South of Stetchworth Road


1.2 Energy use ?


?


~

2.2 Biodiversity ~

2.3 Access to wildlife +

3.1 Historical assets ?


- -


4.1 Pollutants ~



5.1 Health ?

5.2 Crime ~

5.3 Open space ~


6.2 Inequalities ~

6.3 Housing need ++


?


7.2 Investment +

7.3 Local economy +

Commentary

Summary of site assessment – All housing sites will deliver benefits for the local community in that they will provide housing, associated investment and help local economy. The site 35/03 is located outside of the village boundary. Low-density development opposite the proposed site, and estate style development would be unlikely to complement the character of village. Remote location of the site will make it difficult to access facilities and employment.

231

Appendix D: Summary of Baseline Data and Indicators

Sustainability Appraisal Objective

Indicator Current Situation Trends

Assessment Data Source(s) District Comparator District Comparator

1 Land and Water Resources

1.1 Minimise the irreversible loss of undeveloped land and productive agricultural holdings

Percentage of dwellings completed on previously developed land

39.3% (2013/14)

Cambridgeshire: 51.51% (2013/14)

42.9% (2002-2014)

Cambridgeshire 51.5% (2002-2014)

Local Plan sets no target, although 35% from 2001-2025. Could be achievable.

Cambridgeshire County Council Monitoring

Net density of dwellings

39.40dph (2013/14)

Cambridgeshire: 36.648dph (20013/14)

37.74dph (2003-2014)

Cambridgeshire: 36.64.dph (2003-2014)

Local Plan sets no target but needs to be appropriate to the site..


1.2 Reduce the use of non-renewable energy sources

Average Consumption of Domestic Gas (kwh)

13,740kwh (2013)

GB average: 13,680kwh (2013)

18,656kwh (2005) 18,066kwh (2006)

East of England average: 18,854kwh (2005) 18,032kwh (2006)

Current trend favourable. Consumption is gradually reducing.

DECC

Average Consumption of Domestic Electric (kwh)

4,490 kwh (2013)

GB average: 3,940kwh (2013)

4,720 kwh (2010) 5,120 kwh (2007)

GB average: 4,150 kwh (2010) 4,390 kwh (2007)

Current trend favourable. Consumption is gradually reducing

DECC

1.3 Limit water consumption to levels supportable by natural processes and storage systems

Water use per household

No data available at present

Anglian Water: 160 litres per person per day (unmetered); 128 (metered) (2005/06)

No data available at present

Anglian Water: 158 litres per person per day (unmetered); 123 (metered) (2000-2006)

No data available at present.

OFWAT

2 Biodiversity

2.1 Avoid damage to designated statutory and non statutory sites and protected species

Percentage of SSSIs in favourable or unfavourable recovering condition

43.2% (2013/14)


43.2% (2012/13) 42.2% (2011/12)

Cambridgeshire: 77.7% (2012/13) 73.0% (2011/12)

No significant trend.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Environmental Records Centre

2.2 Maintain and enhance the range and vitality of characteristic habitats and species

Total area designated as SSSI and CWS (ha)

SSSI: 2367ha CWS: 1545ha (2013/14)

Cambridgeshire: SSSI: 8512ha CWS: 5689ha (2013/14)

No Changes to boundaries or number of CWS.

Cambridgeshire: SSSI: no change CWS: -8.19ha (2013/14)

No significant trend.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Environmental Records Centre

232

2.3 Improve opportunities for people to access and appreciate wildlife and wild places

Percentage of rights of way that are easy to use

61.8% (2009)

No data for Cambridgeshire available.

2006: 55.1% 2007: 71.8% 2008: 67.4%


Current position favourable.

Cambridgeshire County Council Annual Rights of Way Survey

3 Landscape, Townscape and Archaeology

3.1 Avoid damage to areas and sites designated for their historic interest, and protect or enhance their settings

Number of listed buildings ‘at risk’

15 (2015) No data for Cambridgeshire available.

20(2014) 20 (2012)


Current trend favourable. District monitoring

Percentage of conservation areas with a conservation area appraisal

44% (2015) No data for Cambridgeshire available.

83% (2010/11)


Current position unfavourable.

District monitoring

3.2 Create places, spaces and buildings that work well, wear well and look good

Percentage of residents satisfied with their neighbourhood

84% (2006) Cambridgeshire: 80% (2006)

No direct comparison available.

No direct comparison available.

Current position favourable.

Cambridgeshire Quality of Life Survey 2006

Percentage of new homes developed to Ecohomes good or excellent standard

0% (2013/14)

No data available.

2009/10: 0%

2007/08: 0%

No data available. Unfavourable situation. District monitoring

4 Climate Change and Pollution

4.1 Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants (including air, water, soil, noise, vibration and light)

Total CO2 emissions per year (kilotonnes) 794 (2013)

Cambridgeshire: 5,463 (2013)

800 (2012)

778 (2011)

Cambridgeshire: 5,565 (2012)

5,325 (2011)

Difficult to predict trend at district-level.

DECC

Annual average concentration of nitrogen

dioxide (g/m3)

22.5 (2009) No comparable data for Cambridgeshire available.

24.7 (2008) No comparable data for Cambridgeshire available.

Current trend favourable. District has not exceeded the national air quality objective since 2004.

Air Quality Review and Assessment Cambridgeshire Local Authorities Progress Report 2008

Percentage of main rivers of good or fair quality (chemical and biological)

Biological: 100% Chemical: 83.6% (2006)

Cambridgeshire: Biological: 100% Chemical: 81.0% (2006)

Biological: 100% Chemical: 88.6% (2005)

Cambridgeshire: Biological: 100% Chemical: 84.4% (2005)

Current trend unfavourable. Water quality has worsened at district and county level.

Defra e-Digest of Statistics

233

4.2 Minimise waste production and support the recycling of waste products

Household waste collected per person per annum (kg)

384kg (2006/07)

No comparable data for Cambridgeshire available.

353kg (2003/04)

No comparable data for Cambridgeshire available.

Slight increase but not significant.

District monitoring

Percentage of household waste which is recycled

45.7% (2013/14)

Cambridgeshire average: 54.8% (2013/14)

35.1% (2006/07)

32% (2005/06)

Cambridgeshire average: 43% (2005/06) 49% (2006/07)

Current trend favourable. The Recap Partnership

4.3 Limit or reduce vulnerability to the effects of climate change (including flooding)

Number of planning permissions granted contrary to Environment Agency advice

0 (2010/11) No data for Cambridgeshire available.

0 (2006/07) 0 (2007/08) 0 (2008/09)


Current trend favourable. Environment Agency


5.1 Maintain and enhance human health

Life expectancy at birth 82.4 (2011-2013)

East of England: 82.05 (2011-2013)

82.14 (2006-2008)

East of England: 80.85 (2006-2008)

Favourable situation, higher than the regional figure and improving

ONS

5.2 Reduce and prevent crime, and reduce the fear of crime

Number of recorded crimes per 1,000 people

30.40 (2015) Cambridgeshire 56.23 (2014)

37.0 (2009/10) 40.1 (2008/09)

Cambridgeshire 52.66 (2013) 57.4 (2012)

Current trend favourable ONS

Percentage of residents feeling ‘safe’ or ‘fairly safe’ outside in the local area after dark

58% (2006) Cambridgeshire: 54% (2006)

57% (2003) Cambridgeshire: 56% (2003)

Significant room for improvement


5.3 Improve the quantity and quality of publicly accessible open space

Amount of strategic open space per 1,000 people (ha)

11.1ha per 1,000 people (2004)

Cambridgeshire average: 4.6ha per 1,000 people (2004)

No data available

No data available

There is a large area of natural greenspace but accessibility is poor due to the isolation of the sites.

Cambridgeshire Strategic Open Space Study 2004

Number of sports pitches available for public use 99 (2005) No data available

No data available

No data available No data is yet available to assess the trend.

District monitoring

Amount of informal open space (ha) 166ha (2005) No data available

No data available


District monitoring

Number of play areas 61 (2005) No data available

No data available


District monitoring

234

6 Inclusive Communities

6.1 Improve the quality, range and accessibility of services and facilities (e.g. health, transport, education, leisure opportunities)

Proportion of new dwellings completed within 30 mins public transport of all key services

2

34.8% (2010/11)


53.3% (2007/08) 44.1% (2008/09) 52% (2010/11)


Current trend favourable Cambridgeshire County Council Monitoring

6.2 Redress inequalities related to age, gender, disability, race, faith, location and income

Percentage of residents who feel that people from different backgrounds get on well together

79% (2008) Cambridgeshire: 52% (2006)

60% (2003)

50% (2006) Cambridgeshire: 64% (2003)

Favourable situation - improving

East Cambridgeshire Place Survey 2008 / Cambridgeshire Quality of Life Survey 2006

Index of multiple deprivation (rank - 1 is most deprived and 354 is least deprived)

285 (IMD 2007)

Cambridgeshire average: 264 (IMD 2007)

282 (IMD 2004)

Cambridgeshire average: 256 (IMD 2004)

Current district-level trend favourable but some pockets of deprivation in the north

English Indices of Deprivation (ODPM 2004 & 2007)

6.3 Ensure all groups have access to decent, appropriate and affordable housing

Housing affordability (lower quartile affordability ratio)

6.93 (2013) No information available

8.60 (2008) 7.22 (2009) 8.12 (2010)

No information available

Unfavourable situation at district level

Land Registry and ASHE

Percentage of dwellings completed that are affordable

11.3% (2013/14)


30.7% (2010/11) 15.1% (2008/09)

29.7% (2010/11) 28.69%

(2008/09)

Unfavourable situation at district level


6.4 Encourage and enable the active involvement of local people in community activities

Percentage of adults who feel they can influence decisions affecting their local area

14% (2006) Cambridgeshire: 17% (2006)

16% (2003)

Cambridgeshire: 21% (2003)

Unfavourable situation. Lower then county average and decreasing


Percentage of adults who have given support to non-relations in the past year

68% (2006) Cambridgeshire: 68% (2006)

No data available

Cambridgeshire: 74% (2003)

Currently equal to county average


2 Includes employment area, town centre, GP surgery, hospital, primary school and secondary school

235

7 Economic Activity

7.1 Help people gain access to satisfying work appropriate to their skills, potential and location

Unemployment rate 3.9% (2014/15)


1.0% (Apr 2008) 2.5% (Apr 2009) 2.4% (Apr 2010)

2.7% (Apr 2009)

2.5% (Apr 2010) 2.9% (Apr 2011)

Current trend unfavourable

NOMIS Neighbourhood Statistics

7.2 Support appropriate investment in people, places, communications and other infrastructure

Percentage achieving 5+ GCSEs grades A*-C

75.4% (2014)

East of England 77.4% (2014)

71.8% (2009/10) 80.4% (2010/11)

East of England: 69% (2009/010)

Better than regional average

NOMIS Neighbourhood Statistics

7.3 Improve the efficiency, competitiveness, vitality and adaptability of the local economy

Annual net change in VAT registered firms

+4.6% (2007 to 2008)


+4.5% (2006 to 2007)


Current trend favourable NOMIS Neighbourhood Statistics

Economically active 77.1% (2014/15)


85.9% (2009) 89.3% (2008)

Cambridgeshire: 80.9% (2007) 81.6% (2008)

Current trend unfavourable

NOMIS Local area labour force survey

236

Appendix E: Abbreviations used in this report

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology CAMS Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy CHP Combined Heat and Power CIL Community Infrastructure Levy CO2 Carbon Dioxide CPRE Campaign to Protect Rural England DCLG Department of Communities and Local Government DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change DPD Development Plan Document EA Environment Agency GCSE General Certificate of Secondary Education GI Green Infrastructure GTANA Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment GVA Gross Value Added HMA housing Market Area IMD Indices of Multiple Deprivation kWh kilowatt hour kWp kilowatt peak JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee LDS Local Development Scheme LED Light Emitting Diode LNR Local Nature Reserve LSOA Lower Super Output Area MWDF Minerals and Waste Development Framework MWh Megawatt hour NE Natural England NNR National Nature Reserve NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NVZ Nitrate Vulnerable Zone OAN Objectively Assessed Need ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister ONS Office of National Statistics PCPA Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act PPG Planning Policy Guidance RIGS Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Site SA Sustainability Appraisal SAC Special Area of Conservation SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment SHMA Strategic Housing Market Assessment SINC Site of Importance for Nature Conservation SPA Special Protection Area SPD Supplementary Planning Document SSSI Sites of Special Scientific Interest SuDS Sustainable Drainage Systems WFD Water Framework Directive

237

Appendix F: LP2 Distribution of Growth Options

The following is extracted from the East Cambridgeshire Growth Study, but also forms part of the SA of the Local Plan

Alternative Growth Options

SA Objective Alternative Growth Option 1: Proportionate Growth

Alternative Growth Option 2: Corridor Growth (Growth in Large and Medium Villages)

Alternative Growth Option 3: Main Settlement Led Growth

Alternative Growth Option 4: Prioritise Growth In and Close to Ely

1.1 Undeveloped land + + ~ -

As the district is predominantly rural and agricultural in nature, allocating sufficient sites to meet the minimum housing requirement will inevitably involve the development of greenfield land. However, by distributing development across the district, the AGO will provide greater opportunity to utilise previously developed land.

Other draft policies promote efficient use of land and protect the best and most versatile agricultural land.

As the district is predominantly rural and agricultural in nature, allocating sufficient sites to meet the minimum housing requirement will inevitably involve the development of greenfield land. However, by distributing development across the district (but principally focused in large and medium villages, with less than pro rata growth at Main Settlements and Small Villages), the AGO will provide opportunity to utilise previously developed land. Other draft policies promote efficient use of land and protect the best and most versatile agricultural land.

Concentrating development in Main Settlements would likely result in the need to develop numerous greenfield sites in these locations. The AGO distributes a proportion of development to Large Villages and Medium Villages, thereby enabling the development of previously developed land in these settlements.

Restricting development in Small Villages may fail to utilise previously developed land in these locations. However the supply of PDL is likely to be very limited in these settlements.

Concentrating development in, or in villages close to, Ely would likely result in the need to develop numerous greenfield sites in this area. The AGO also distributes a proportion of development to Large Villages and Medium Villages, thereby enabling the development of previously developed land in these settlements.

Other draft policies promote efficient use of land and protect the best and most versatile agricultural land.

238

1.2 Energy use - - + ++ +++

Motorised transport is a major consumer of energy, principally from fossil fuels. Distributing development across all settlements would likely result in a pattern of development, which is highly car dependent. However, many rural settlements are served by buses, walking and cycle routes, and some rail services.

Settlements in the highest tiers of the Settlement Hierarchy generally have the best access to infrastructure and services. They are generally best served by public transport and offer established walking and cycle routes. Concentrating development in these tiers thereby reduces the need to travel, in turn reducing fossil fuel consumption. However, settlements in lower tiers may look to higher tier settlements for services, and a small proportion of development is identified in Small Villages which would likely be car dependent.

The Main Settlements of Ely, Littleport and Soham are well-served by public transport, with bus services providing connections to many destinations. Both Ely and Littleport are served by rail stations. Soham is scheduled to receive a rail station in the plan period. In addition, the Main Settlements provide employment, education, local services (such as retail) and community facilities. Generally in the Main Settlements, day-to-day needs can be met without the need for a car, thereby reducing the need to travel.

Ely is the district’s main centre, offering employment, education, retail, community facilities, etc. It is relatively compact, meaning it is walk-able/cycle-able in scale. Longer distance routes provide pedestrian and cycle access to some surrounding villages. Ely is well served by busses. Ely Rail Station provides good connectivity to many major destinations (e.g. Cambridge, Peterborough, London, Norwich, King’s Lynn, etc.). There are ample opportunities to meet one’s day-to-day needs in Ely without the need of a private motor vehicle. Therefore concentrating development in and around Ely provides the greatest opportunity to reduce the need to travel using private motorised vehicles, in turn reducing fossil fuel consumption.


~ ~ ~ ~

No individual AGO is likely to affect rates of water consumption more so than any other. Therefore the effects are considered ‘neutral’. However, spatial distribution may have impacts upon the provision of water infrastructure. This will be addressed through preparation of the Water Cycle Study and through engagement with technical stakeholders.

No individual AGO is likely to affect rates of water consumption more so than any other. Therefore the effects are considered ‘neutral’. However, spatial distribution may have impacts upon the provision of water infrastructure. This will be addressed through the Water Cycle Study and through engagement with technical stakeholders



239


~ ~ ~ ~

There are a number of designated sites for nature conservation across the district. Each AGO is a high level, strategic growth option. Effects upon designated sites will be determined through site-specific assessment – sites resulting in adverse harm will be avoided. Therefore no AGO is expected to have a lesser or greater impact than any other, and the effects are determined to be ‘neutral’.





There are a diverse range of habitats and species across the district. Each AGO is a high level, strategic growth option. Effects upon habitats and species will be determined through site-specific assessment – sites resulting in adverse harm will be avoided. Therefore no AGO is expected to have a lesser or greater impact than any other, and the effects are determined to be ‘neutral’.




240


The district is predominantly rural in nature. Access to the countryside is provided through a network of Public Rights of Way (PROW), bridleways and rural lanes. There are many publicly accessible sites which offer access to wildlife, such as County Wildlife Sites, Local Nature Reserves and Common Land. Each AGO is a high level, strategic growth option. Access to PROW will be determined through site-specific assessment – sites with good access to the PROW network are scored more favourably than those which do not. Therefore no AGO is expected to have a lesser or greater impact than any other, and the effects are determined to be ‘neutral’.




241

3.1 Historical assets ~ ~ ~ ?

Across the district, there are many sites and features of historic, archaeological and cultural significance. Each AGO is a high level, strategic growth option. Effects upon the historic environment will be determined through site-specific assessment, which will seek to avoid harm. Ely Cathedral is of particular significance due to its historic importance and dominance upon the landscape. The Ely area is particularly sensitive. The AGO distributes development widely, thereby providing greater choice in development location. Impact on the historic environment is therefore considered neutral.

Across the district, there are many sites and features of historic, archaeological and cultural significance. Each AGO is a high level, strategic growth option. Effects upon the historic environment will be determined through site-specific assessment, which will seek to avoid harm. Ely Cathedral is of particular significance due to its historic importance and dominance upon the landscape. The Ely area is particularly sensitive. The AGO provides less than pro rata growth at Main Settlements (inc. Ely), steering development to Large and Medium Villages. Therefore the impacts are considered neutral.

Across the district, there are many sites and features of historic, archaeological and cultural significance. Each AGO is a high level, strategic growth option. Effects upon the historic environment will be determined through site-specific assessment, which will seek to avoid harm. Ely Cathedral is of particular significance due to its historic importance and dominance upon the landscape. The Ely area is particularly sensitive. The AGO provides flexibility by focussing development across the Main Settlements, thereby enabling impacts to be mitigated.

Ely Cathedral is of particular significance due to its historic importance and dominance upon the landscape. The Ely area is therefore particularly sensitive. Concentrating development in and around Ely poses the greatest risk to the conservation of Ely’s historic assets. At this stage impacts are difficult to determine – such effects will depend on the availability and supply of suitable sites, where development will not harm views or the landscape setting of Ely Cathedral. Such impacts could potentially be reduced by locating more development within surrounding villages, rather than Ely itself. However, many of these villages enjoy distant views of Ely Cathedral, which may be affected. In conclusion, the effects of the AGO are uncertain.

242


~ ~ ~ ?

The district has a diverse range of distinct landscape and townscape areas. Distributing development widely across many settlements increases the likelihood that new development can be accommodated without resulting in adverse impacts upon landscapes and townscapes. Consequently, the effects are determined to be neutral.

The district has a diverse range of distinct landscape and townscape areas. Distributing development widely across many settlements increases the likelihood that new development can be accommodated without resulting in adverse impacts upon landscapes and townscapes. Consequently, the effects are determined to be neutral.

The district has a diverse range of distinct landscape and townscape areas. It is noted that Ely has a particularly sensitive historic environment. Whilst the AGO focuses development in the Main Settlements (inc. Ely), the AGO4 offers flexibility, thereby mitigating impacts by allowing the housing requirement to be met in the other Main Settlements. Consequently, the effects are determined to be neutral.

The district has a diverse range of distinct landscape and townscape areas. As a historic Cathedral city, Ely has a sensitive character and landscape setting. In addition, distant views of Ely Cathedral are enjoyed from the surrounding landscape and neighbouring settlements. The full extent to which Ely can accommodate growth is somewhat uncertain. Redistributing growth to neighbouring villages could also impact on the character of those settlements and potentially distant views of the Cathedral. Consequently, the effects are scored as ‘uncertain’.


Dwelling design is influenced by other draft policies. No individual AGO is expected to have greater influence over design and layout than any other, and is therefore scored neutral.




243

4.1 Pollutants - - + ++ +++

Motorised transport is a major producer of greenhouse gas emissions. Distributing development across all settlements would likely result in a pattern of development which is principally car dependent, as more people will need to travel by car to access employment and services. Whilst, many rural settlements are served by buses (and some rail services), a wide distribution of development may prove uneconomical to serve by public transport.

Settlements in the highest tiers of the Settlement Hierarchy generally have the best access to infrastructure and services. They are generally best served by public transport and offer established walking and cycle routes. Concentrating development in these tiers provides an opportunity to reduce the need to travel – and consequently reduce vehicle emissions. However, to achieve this would likely require significant investment in sustainable transport infrastructure. The AGO provides less than pro rata growth at Main Settlements, and therefore may fail to utilise the opportunity to provide development in the settlements which offer the greatest access to employment and services i.e. settlements with greatest opportunity to reduce the need to travel, thereby reducing pollution from vehicle emissions.

The Main Settlements of Ely, Littleport and Soham are well-served by public transport, with bus services providing connections to many destinations. Both Ely and Littleport are served by rail stations. Soham is scheduled to receive a rail station in the plan period. In addition, the Main Settlements provide employment, education, local services (such as retail) and community facilities. Generally in the Main Settlements, day-to-day needs can be met without the need for a car, thereby reducing vehicle emissions.

Ely is the district’s main centre, offering employment, education, retail, community facilities, etc. It is relatively compact, meaning it is walk-able/cycle-able in scale. Longer distance routes provide pedestrian and cycle access to some surrounding villages. Ely is well served by busses. Ely Rail Station provides good connectivity to many major destinations (e.g. Cambridge, Peterborough, London, Norwich, King’s Lynn, etc.). There are ample opportunities to meet one’s day-to-day needs in Ely without the need of a private motor vehicle. Therefore concentrating development in and around Ely provides the greatest opportunity to reduce vehicle emissions.


No individual AGO is likely to affect rates of rates of waste production more so than any other. Therefore the effects are considered ‘neutral’. However, spatial distribution may have impacts upon the provision of waste collection infrastructure. This will be addressed through engagement with technical stakeholders.




244

4.3 Climate change + + + ?

The district is predominantly flat and low-lying. Consequently, there are many areas at risk from flooding. Distributing development of across the Settlement Hierarchy tiers will provide wide choice and flexibility in selecting sites. A sequential approach will be applied, favouring those sites at least risk from flooding over those at greater risk.



Areas of low-lying land around Ely are at risk from flooding. However, the AGO enables development to take place in one or more villages in proximity of Ely, thereby potentially avoiding areas at risk from flooding. Implementation of the AGO is dependent on

5.1 Health - - + ++ +++

All new developments (above a specific threshold) will make provision for open space and recreation facilities in accordance with policies in the emerging plan, thereby ensuring each development’s sport and recreation needs are met.

Distributing growth widely across many settlements is likely to result in a highly car dependent pattern of development. This does not encourage day-to-day walking and cycling and therefore does not promote healthy lifestyles.

All new developments (above a specific threshold) will make provision for open space and recreation facilities in accordance with policies in the emerging plan, thereby ensuring each development’s sport and recreation needs are met. Settlements in the highest tiers of the Settlement Hierarchy generally have the best access to infrastructure and services. Concentrating development in these tiers thereby reduces the need to travel by car. However, settlements in lower tiers may look to higher tier settlements for services, and a small proportion of development is identified in Small Villages which would likely be fairly car dependent. Therefore, to some extent, the AGO does encourage walking and cycling to meet day-to-day needs.

All new developments (above a specific threshold) will make provision for open and recreation facilities in accordance with policies in the emerging plan, thereby ensuring each development’s sport and recreation needs are met.

Main settlements offer infrastructure and services to meet day-to-day needs. Focussing new development in Main Settlements provides promotes walking and cycling to meet people’s day-to-day needs. The AGO therefore has a beneficial impact in promoting healthy lifestyles.

All new developments (above a specific threshold) will make provision for open space and recreation facilities in accordance with policies in the emerging plan, thereby ensuring each development’s sport and recreation needs are met.

Concentrating new development in and close to Ely provides the greatest opportunity to encourage walking and cycling to meet people’s day-to-day needs. The AGO has a strong beneficial impact in promoting healthy lifestyles.

245

5.2 Crime ~ ~ ~ ~

Distribution of development through the AGO is not expected to affect crime rates or the fear of crime. Therefore the effects are considered ‘neutral’.





All new developments (above a specific threshold) will make provision for open space in according with policies in the emerging plan, thereby ensuring each development’s sport, recreation and leisure needs are met.

All new developments (above a specific threshold) will make provision for open space in according with policies in the emerging plan, thereby ensuring each development’s sport, recreation and leisure needs are met



6.1 Accessibility - - + ++ +++

The AGO distributes development across all settlements. Some settlements, particularly Small Villages, offer limited services.

This may result in a significant proportion of growth being located in places with poor accessibility to infrastructure and services, which could leave those without access to a private car isolated. Increasing car use could also increase congestion, thereby increasing journey times. Development in rural locations could help to sustain some local services, such as shops, pubs, primary schools, etc. However, such a dispersed pattern may result in some services, such as public transport, being uneconomical to sustain.

Settlements in the highest tiers of the Settlement Hierarchy generally have the best access to infrastructure and services Distributing growth across these top tiers thereby ensures new development has good access to infrastructure and services.

However, Main Settlements offer the greatest provision of infrastructure and services, and this AGO provides less growth in Main Settlements than other AGOs. To counter this, Large Villages and Medium Villages would require considerable investment in infrastructure and services.

Settlements in lower tiers may look to higher tier settlements for services, and a small proportion of development is identified in Small Villages which would likely be car dependent.

The Main Settlements of Ely, Littleport and Soham are well-served by infrastructure and services. Concentrating development in Main Settlements will ensure that the majority of development has good access to infrastructure and services, particularly without the need for a car. In addition, concentrating development in these locations may help to sustain services, such as public transport.

The AGO provides a proportion of development in Large Villages and Medium Villages, which provide accessibility to some infrastructure and village services. No development is identified for Small Villages which offer very limited infrastructure and services.

Ely is the district’s main centre, offering a wide range of infrastructure and services. It is relatively compact, and is walk-able/cycle-able in scale, with good public transport (rail and bus), thereby providing ample opportunities to meet one’s day-to-day needs in Ely without the need of a private motor vehicle. Therefore concentrating development in and around Ely offers best access to local services and facilities, and least dependency on private motor vehicles.

246

6.2 Inequalities ? ? ? ?

The AGO distributes development across all settlements. Some settlements, particularly Small Villages, offer limited services. This could result in social exclusion for those without the means to travel to access employment, community facilities and services.

However, enabling development to take place in small, rural communities, such as Small Villages, could help to sustain local services and facilities.

The effects of the AGO are therefore uncertain.

Settlements in the highest tiers of the Settlement Hierarchy generally have the best access to infrastructure and services Distributing growth across these top tiers, the AGO ensures new development has good access to employment, community facilities infrastructure and services. However Main Settlements offer the greatest provision of infrastructure and services, and this AGO provides less growth in Main Settlements than other AGOs.

Enabling development to take place in smaller rural communities could help sustain local services and facilities, and may facilitate the provision of additional infrastructure and services. The effects of the AGO are therefore uncertain.

The Main Settlements of Ely, Littleport and Soham are well-served by infrastructure and services. Concentrating development in Main Settlements will ensure that the majority of development has good access to employment, community facilities, infrastructure and services, particularly without the need for a car, thereby reducing social exclusion and poverty.

By providing a proportion of growth in Large and Medium Villages may help support services and reduce social exclusion in these settlements.

However no growth is identified for Small Villages, which could increase isolation and exclusion for those villages.

Ely is the district’s main centre, offering a wide range of employment, infrastructure, community facilities and services. Concentrating development in and around Ely offers best access to local services and facilities for most new development, and requires least dependency on private motor vehicles, thereby reducing poverty and exclusion.

By providing a proportion of growth in Large and Medium Villages may help support services and reduce social exclusion in these settlements.

However no growth is identified for Small Villages, which could increase isolation and exclusion for those villages,

6.3 Housing need +++ +++ +++ ++

The AGO distributes development to meet in full the district’s housing requirement and therefore provides significant positive impacts. By distributing development across many settlements, the need for new homes at a highly local level. The AGO distributes development across all settlement tiers, meaning a large proportion of homes being built in rural areas which have been shown to be especially viable, and also provides greater choice for homebuyers.

The AGO distributes development to meet in full the district’s housing requirement and therefore provides significant positive impacts. By distributing development across many settlements, the need for new homes at a highly local level. The AGO distributes development across the settlement tiers, meaning a large proportion of homes being built in rural areas which have been shown to be especially viable, and also provides greater choice for homebuyers.

The AGO distributes development to meet in full the district’s housing requirement and therefore provides significant positive impacts. By distributing development across many settlements, the need for new homes at a highly local level. The AGO concentrates development in Main Settlements, of which Soham and Littleport are typically less viable than other areas in the district. However, by providing development across many settlement hierarchy levels provides choice for homebuyers, thereby aiding delivery.

The AGO distributes development to meet in full the district’s housing requirement and therefore provides positive impacts. Whilst, most development is focussed in and around Ely, a lesser proportion will be provided in large and medium villages, thereby enabling housing need to be met across the district. By focussing the majority of development in the Ely area would provide a large number of homes in this local market. This could reduce delivery rates, as developers would build only as quickly as the houses can be sold.

247


~ ~ ~ ~

The AGO addresses the distribution of development and is not expected to affect community engagement or empowerment. The AGO therefore has a ‘neutral’ impact on the objective.




7.1 Access to work - ? + ++

Major locations for employment in the district tend to be located at Main Settlements and Large Villages. There are also high levels of out-commuting to locations such as Cambridge, Peterborough, London, Newmarket, etc.

Increasing the number of people living in the rural area could benefit the rural economy. However, on balance, distributing development across all settlements would likely result in a car dependent form of development, with many people travelling by car to access employment. This could leave those without access to a car isolated form employment opportunities, and could lead to an increase in congestion, harming journey times and in turn the local economy.

Major locations for employment in the district tend to be located at Main Settlements and Large Villages. There are also high levels of out-commuting to locations such as Cambridge, Peterborough, London, Newmarket, etc. Distributing development across the top tiers of the Settlement Hierarchy would likely result in a car dependent form of development, with many people travelling by car to access employment. However, due to the large proportion of growth to be delivered in Large Villages and Medium Villages could support the rural economy. Therefore the effects of the AGO are uncertain.

Major locations for employment in the district tend to be located at Main Settlements and Large Villages. There are also high levels of out-commuting to locations such as Cambridge, Peterborough, London, Newmarket, etc. Concentrating developments in Main Settlements provides best access to existing employment locations, and good access to public transport for out-commuting. A proportion of growth is identified for Large Villages and Medium Villages, thereby potentially benefiting the rural economy.

Ely is the district’s main centre, providing a number of locations for employment within and close to the city. In addition, Ely offers public transport services to other employment centres across the region. Focussing development in and around Ely provides good access to employment, particularly without the need to travel by car. A proportion of growth is identified for Large Villages and Medium Villages, thereby potentially benefiting the rural economy.

248

7.2 Investment - - + ++ ++

The AGO distributes development across all settlements. Through the payment of CIL, growth will contribute to the delivery of key infrastructure. However, this broad dispersal of development may mean infrastructure is used less efficiently and could require greater investment in infrastructure. It may place burden on existing infrastructure yet lack the ‘critical mass’ to deliver improvement.

The AGO places a large proportion of development in Large Villages and Medium Villages (with less than pro-rata growth in Main Settlements). This could reduce the dominance of the main settlements and increase the importance of Large and Medium Villages. To support this ‘multi-centred’ approach would likely result in a need to deliver significant additional strategic infrastructure.

Whilst the delivery of such infrastructure would likely have positive effects in terms of the sustainability criteria, it may be extremely costly and challenging to deliver. New development will contribute to this through payment of CIL.

Main Settlements offer the greatest provision of infrastructure. Therefore, focussing development in Main Settlements is likely to make efficient use of existing infrastructure. Investment in additional infrastructure will be required to support growth, and new development will contribute to this through CIL payments. Main Settlements typically serve not only there residents, also people who live and work across the district. Therefore investment in infrastructure at Main Settlements may provide wider benefits.

Ely is the district’s main centre, offering a wide range of infrastructure and facilities benefitting the district as a whole, not just residents of Ely.

Focussing development in Ely may make efficient use of existing infrastructure, and where additional infrastructure is required; provide investment which benefits the district as a whole.

The AGO suggest providing development within Ely, or in one or more neighbouring villages. Such villages would likely require significant investment in infrastructure, which could be costly. New development would contribute to this through CIL payments.

7.3 Local economy + ? + +

Through ensuring all tiers grow proportionately, the AGO would likely support the shopping hierarchy, with Main Settlements receiving the greatest levels of growth.

Through providing less than pro-rata growth in Main Settlements, and a greater proportion of growth in Large and Medium Villages the AGO could reduce the dominance of Main Settlements and potentially alter the shopping hierarchy.

Through focussing growth at Main Settlements would retain their status at the top of the Settlement Hierarchy. This would also support the shopping hierarchy.

Through focussing growth in the Ely area would retain Ely’s status as the district’s main centre. This would also support the shopping hierarchy.

249

Commentary

Summary of assessment – AGO1

AGO1 Key points:

- The AGO distributes growth proportionately across all tiers of the Settlement Hierarchy. This enables housing need to be met across the district.

- By distributing growth broadly, it offers potential to utilise Previously Developed Land across the district. However, PDL resources likely to be limited;

- The AGO is likely to result in highly car dependent patterns of development as people travel to higher tier settlements to meet their day-to-day needs, such as employment, education, community facilities, retail and services. This may have adverse environmental and social impacts, including:

o Increases in consumption of fossil fuels and pollution from greenhouse gas emissions;

o Increases in traffic volumes leading to congestion and increases in journey times, and in turn greater infrastructure costs;

o Poor/limited accessibility to employment and services for those without a car, potentially leading to social exclusion and poverty;

o Failure to promote healthy lifestyles (by not encouraging walking and cycling) as residents may be reliant on private cars to carry out day-to-day tasks.

- Through enabling development in rural locations the AGO may have positive effects through enabling local services to be maintained e.g. extra footfall for village shop, and providing homes for workers in rural locations. This could enhance the rural economy. However, the AGO may have negative impacts as some local services may be unviable to provide over a broad area e.g. rural bus services.

- The impacts on infrastructure provision are, on balance being scored as likely to have significant adverse impacts. However there is some uncertainty as to what the impact may be, for example it may:

o Enable the ‘burden’ of growth to be shared, meaning new growth can be more readily accommodated within existing infrastructure, with less need for additional infrastructure investment. However, it is already known that existing infrastructure cannot accommodate growth fully OR

o Require additional infrastructure investment over a very wide area, which may be more costly and make less efficient use of existing infrastructure.

In conclusion, AGO1 did not perform favourably in respect of the sustainability criteria. Minor positive impacts were identified in respect of the utilisation of previously developed land and effects on the rural economy. However, development would likely be highly car dependent leading to adverse environmental and social impacts. There is great uncertainty about the impact upon infrastructure provision.


The AGO distributes growth proportionately by Settlement Hierarchy category. This allows flexibility to distribute a greater or lesser amount of development to individual settlements within each tier. Therefore the AGO can reflect local characteristics such as infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints, market forces and availability of land. Some uncertainty, but likely that significant investment in infrastructure would likely be required across the district.

250


AGO2 Key points:

- The AGO provides higher than pro rata growth in Large Villages and Medium Villages, and less than pro rata growth in Main Settlements and Small Villages.

- As all tiers receive some level of growth, the AGO provides opportunity to meet the housing need over a wide areas, and also to utilise Previously Developed Land

across the district.

- By ‘weighting’ development in favour of those settlements in higher tiers could reduce car dependency to some extent, as more growth will take place in those

settlements with best access to employment, infrastructure and services. However, Main Settlements have the greatest provision of infrastructure of development,

yet the AGO provides less than pro rata growth in these settlements. Therefore many day-to-day journeys may still require the use of a car.

- To facilitate substantial growth of Large Villages and Medium Villages would likely require significant investment in infrastructure, particularly for public transport and

local services and facilities. Increasing the size of Large and Medium Villages would mean the district would have multiple ‘centres’, which would require additional

infrastructure and services both within settlements and to improve connectivity between them.

- The AGO enables growth across all Settlement Hierarchy tiers. Providing growth in rural settlements could support the rural economy.

- Providing less than pro-rata growth in Main Settlements and greater than pro-rata growth in Large and Medium Villages could reduce the dominance of Main

Settlements and increase the status of large and medium villages. This could affect local economies, including the shopping hierarchy.


As growth is distributed by Settlement Hierarchy tier, there is flexibility to provide greater or lesser development in individual settlements. Settlements with greatest provision of employment, infrastructure, services and community facilities should be prioritised to reduce car use. Significant investment in infrastructure along key corridors would be required.


AGO3 Key points:

- The AGO focuses growth at a rate greater than pro rata in Main Settlements. Less than pro rata growth would be provided in Large and Medium Villages. No growth is proposed for Small Villages. This broad distribution of growth will enable the housing need to be met across the district.

- Main Settlements (and to a lesser extent Large Villages and Medium Villages) provide the greatest offer of employment, community facilities, infrastructure and services and are therefore considered the most sustainable locations for new development. Each is well served by public transport. Focussing development in Main settlements could therefore reduce car use, thereby providing positive environmental and social impacts.

- Concentrating development in Main Settlements (and to a lesser extent large villages and medium villages) will ensure the majority of development has good access to existing infrastructure and services – this will ensure existing infrastructure and services are used efficiently. As the main providers of infrastructures and services, Main Settlements may be well-placed to accommodate growth. However, significant investment in infrastructure will be required. As Main Settlements serve a wider area than simply their own residents, such investment may benefit the district as a whole.

- Main Settlements provide significant employment opportunities. Locating growth at Main Settlements will likely support the local economy (including the shopping hierarchy) and reduce the need to travel for work.

- The Main Settlements of Littleport and Soham have been shown to be les viable than other locations. However the AGO provides development across many settlement hierarchy tiers providing choice and is therefore expected to support delivery.

251

- Providing growth also in Large Villages and Medium Villages may support the rural economy.


The AGO allows flexibility; where one Main Settlement is constrained, another can accommodate a greater proportion of growth. Significant investment is likely to be required, particularly at Main Settlements. However, the AGO provides opportunity to make efficient use of existing infrastructure, and investment in infrastructure at Main Settlements may benefit a wider catchment.


AGO4 Key points:

- The AGO concentrates the majority of new development in and around Ely (within Ely itself and at one or more villages within a 3 mile radius).

- Ely is the district’s main centre providing employment, education, retail, community facilities, etc. It is walkable/cycleable in scale, and is well-served by bus and rail public transport. It therefore provides the greatest opportunity to reduce car use, thereby providing significant positive environmental and social impacts. Consequently, in sustainability terms, the AGO receives the greatest number of positive scores.

- Providing development in a nearby village(s) to Ely could reduce the amount of development taking place in Ely itself, thereby protecting the historic setting of Ely and its Cathedral. However, these adjacent villages also have their own distinct character, and enjoy distant views of Ely Cathedral. It is likely that focussing development in and around Ely could have some negative impacts on the historic landscape and townscape, however the extent of this harm is somewhat uncertain at this stage.

- To implement the AGO would require there being sufficient suitable sites available in areas of least flood risk.

- The option would require significant investment in infrastructure. However providing development in Ely will enable existing infrastructure to be used efficiently and have wider benefits for residents across the district.

- Impact on the local market for housing, and therefore delivery uncertain due to concentrating development in the Ely area.

- As the main centre of employment and retail in the district, focussing growth in and around Ely could reduce the need to travel to work and support the local economy and shopping hierarchy.


The AGO would require significant investment in infrastructure in the Ely area, and at one or more villages selected to accommodate growth. Further mitigation may be required to reduce landscape and townscape impacts and possibly to manage flood risk.

252

Preferred option (on sustainability grounds)–

AGO4 was scored most positively against the sustainability criteria. Principally AGO4 is the most sustainable option as it focuses development in and around Ely, the district’s main centre, thereby enhancing accessibility and reducing car dependency.

However, there remains some considerable uncertainty regarding the sustainability impacts of AGO4, particularly in respect of environmental constraints, such as landscape and townscape impacts on Ely and one or more surrounding villages, and also in terms of flood risk.

AGO3 was also scored positively by focussing development in Main Settlements to improve accessibility and reduce car dependency. The option may offer greater flexibility, and enable the uncertainties relating to environmental constraints to be mitigated. AGO3 also scores more positively in respect of housing need than AGO4, as providing development over a wider area may improve delivery.

In terms of determining the final approach for distributing growth, however, consideration will need to be given to wider issues than just those which arise through the sustainability appraisal process, such as delivering housing in the short term, and providing for (and maintaining) a five year land supply. These factors will need consideration alongside the sustainability appraisal conclusions.