Comment

Representation ID: 168335

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

6.6 PLANNING APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

Concern that Bourn Airfield SPD has far stricter requirements for preparation and submission of planning applications, compared with Waterbeach SPD. E.g. in section 1.5 it states that "Applications that fail to demonstrate a comprehensive approach to development, as set out in this document will be refused planning permission." Unreasonable and should be deleted. Bourn SPD states the Council requires a "site wide outline planning application", but this is not possible at Bourn Airfield because the two employment sites are in different control with former ThyssenKrupp site subject to a separate planning application (that does not cover the entire site boundaries), together with other land to south.

Also refers to a Statement of Compliance. No such wording in Waterbeach SPD and CP considers this to be overprescriptive and unnecessary. SPD sets out the requirement for Design Codes and Development Briefs, not required in the Waterbeach SPD.

As Waterbeach SPD has been adopted, it sets a precedent for dealing with Bourn Airfield in a similar way. There is no reason to treat planning application requirements and delivery of Bourn Airfield any differently. Request substitute, as appropriate, wording of Waterbeach Section 6.6 into Bourn Airfield SPD.