Issue details

On 26 July 2017 the Planning Portfolio Holder considered a report on Local Green Spaces. This was in response to a letter from the Local Plan Inspectors which provided their interim findings on the issue, and requesting that the Council carry out a review of all sites included in the plan.

The Portfolio Holder:

i) Agreed to submit to the Local Plan Examination Inspectors the ‘Further work on Policy NH/12: Local Green Space responding to the Inspectors’ Interim Findings’ document in Appendix A in response to their Interim Findings;

ii) Agreed to Proposed Modifications to the submitted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan that relate to sites identified as Local Green Space in the Submission Local Plan set out in Appendix B  be submitted to the Inspectors examining the Local Plan; and

iii) Agreed that delegated authority be given to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to make any subsequent minor amendments (particularly relating to sites in Bassingbourn, Fulbourn and Orwell) and editing changes, in consultation with the Planning Portfolio Holder.

Officers have reviewed the Reports in relation to item iii. However, it is considered that the issues identified warrant a further decision by the portfolio holder.

A technical problem has been identified arising from the formulas used to output from a spreadsheet to the report document, resulting in inconsistencies in some of the site testing criteria (particularly PVAA criteria 2) between the summary scoring sheet in appendix 4, and the site proformas in appendix 6. In some cases superfluous elements of assessment have been published (for example, an ICF assessment where a site is identified to remain as LGS). Whilst these corrections are numerous as a result of the formula error affecting a number of sites, they do not impact on the outcome of the assessment. These have been addressed in the errata attached, along with some other numbering issues.

At the meeting, and reflecting the decision, it was agreed that the details of site proformas would be reviewed at 3 sites:

·         Bassingbourn – The Rouses - NH/12 – 16 - The conclusion regarding the side is unchanged. The local Member expressed concern whether the value of the site had been expressed in the proforma. The proforma has been reviewed, but no further amendments are considered to be required.

·         Fulbourn – Field between Cox's Drove, Cow Lane and Land adjacent the Horse Pond - NH/12 – 74 - The conclusion regarding the site is unchanged. The proformas have been reviewed to draw on the information from the planning appeal more clearly. Revised proformas are included in the errata attached.

·         Orwell – Glebe Field, behind St Andrews Church - NH/12 – 128 - The conclusion regarding the site is unchanged. However, as discussed at the meeting, a number of errors were present in the proforma. These have been addressed in a revised proforma in the errata attached.

However, as a result of the review following the meeting there are a number of further amendments proposed where the decision regarding the status of sites is affected:

·         Lolworth - Sites 107b and 107c – The assessment split this area into two parts, making one PVAA and one no longer designated. However, the whole site comprises the allotments, and warrants PVAA status, therefore 107c should also be identified as PVAA. A revised map is included in the errata attached.

·         Linton – Glebe Land - NH/12 – 98 –The whole site shown on the map on agenda pack page 99 is proposed to return to being PVAA (the same as it is in the adopted LDF). A proposed modification resulting from a decision taken at the Planning Portfolio Holder on 10 March 2015 deleted the LGS area shown on the Submission Policies Map, and, replaced it with an area adjacent to the river. The Proposed Modification in this report proposes both areas as PVAA. The profroma is not clear in this respect, therefore revisions are provided to clarify this.

·         Whittlesford - Newton Road Play Area (NH/12-171) – this site was reviewed and identified as not suitable for LGS. However, the site should not have been reviewed at all, as it is already in the Green Belt (LGS is not applied in the Green Belt as it would duplicate protection), and as such was already not included on the Submission Policies Map. The report will be updated to reflect this.

·         Great Chishill - Bull Meadow and Playing Field – An error has occurred where two sites were not assessed in the report. Site assessments have been prepared and are included in the errata. They propose that the Recreation Ground remain a Local Green Space, but the Bull Meadow lying outside the framework is no longer designated.

The purpose of this decision is to agree the errata attached, such that these amendments are made to the report to be submitted to the Local Plan Examination Inspectors.