8. Drainage and ditches

Drainage & Ditches - Consideration should be given to the water pressure within the village. this is a problem already when new homes are built.

Concern - the SST at Hardwick Woods. Looks like development is encroaching both ways from Hardwick and Caldecote.

Transport - need provision to assist people to get to the main roads to get the guided bus (proposed)

The severe flooding which occurred in 2014 is not shown/ This occurs to the North of the village. This flooding occurs next to where the Linden Homes development is being proposed, so there is an increased risk of flooding.

Twice in recent years our home has come within a few millimetres of being flooded. There has been talk for 20 years of the need for something to be done on a significant scale but nothing has happened. The proposals address the issue but with far too much bias to the visually appealing. With the scale of the proposed additional hard run off area. it is vital that the functional improvements are made.

Cambridgeshire LLFA welcome the consideration of using flood risk management measures to promote biodiversity in the Village Design Guide SPD. It should further promote sustainable drainage techniques (SuDS).

Comments by page, please acknowledge receipt.

Page 6 (or page 10)
The developments to the east of Highfields road since 2000 (e.g. around Clare Drive) and now completing with the in progress CALA development completes the previous strategic plan for the village to have a sustainable community right-sized for key facilities such as the school.

Page 9:
Add new priority: maintain and enhance transport links. E.g. there are now significant concerns that as part of the proposed Borne airfield development Caldecote may loose frequent and fast bus links to Cambridge from the roundabout at the north of the village (bus being re-routed to new stop in Bourne development significantly west of current site). N.B. Already referenced in map on page 15, but could be covered more in the text.

Page 14:
Would like to see extension of 'Caldecote Path' to perimeter of new developments (omitting road as necessary). E.g. Linden development southern edge backing onto Clare Drive.

Page 15: Support new pedestrian/cycle connections, or improvement to existing paths backing onto Clare Drive as shown in map.

Page 18:
Add words underlined: Any new vehicle access should preserve and enhance existing drainage channels (ditch or piped).

Page 19:
References to ditch to be extended to include reinstating pipes where ditches have been piped, not just open ditches (echos earlier comment).

Page 19:
Please add to drawing entrance/exit sight-lines to be be enhanced for both pedestrian and viechular access to existing and new development.

Page 20:
Any development should have goal of betterment of the overall village drainage, not simply maintaining status quo.
No development should impact water flowing into SSI around the village (I believe there are planning conditions that a new development should not increase the flow of water into an SSI?).

Page 20:
Add word to caption. It's a tiny 4" pipe that drains all the surface water from the North of the village. Note that we believe that this pipe is now blocked.

Page 21:
The indicative area of the 2014 flooding is incorrect - I have the source material provided to the county, and the area is larger and needs to be moved further north. I can provide a marked up map if needed. Some houses adjacent to the light blue dotted line flooded.

Page 21:
Please add north east from Clare Drive as a valued view. This is the furthest view from Caldecote that is not broken by trees and buildings clear to Hardwick.

This consultation response has been prepared by Andrew Martin - Planning on behalf of Countryside Properties (UK) Limited, in response to the Caldecote Village Design Guide Consultation Draft, April 2019.

2. South Cambs District Council (SCDC) define a Village Design Guide, on their website, as a document that describes the distinctive character of the village and sets out guidelines for how this should be enhanced by new developments. As stated "it helps communities and planners shape the character of new development in your area, in response to community priorities. It is a way to provide more locally specific detail, which augments and amplifies the Local Plan policies". The Adopted Local Plan refers to Village Design Guides at paragraph 5.9 as a method of providing additional guidance to support Policy HQ/1 - Design Principles.

3. Bourn Airfield is situated to the west of Highfields Caldecote and is designated in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan for development as a new village (Policy SS/7). It is proposed to deliver approximately 3,500 dwellings and supporting infrastructure. The adopted Policies Map Inset I - Bourn Airfield New Village, identifies the overall new village development area including the defined Strategic Site Boundary and the Major Development Site boundary. The policy requires that the design of the edges of the new village should have particular regard to ensuring an appropriate relationship with Cambourne and Highfields Caldecote, as well as setting out requirements for cycle/pedestrian/bus links to Highfield Caldecote. Furthermore, the policy requires a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to be prepared for the development. In accordance with this Local Plan policy the SPD is currently being prepared and SCDC anticipate public consultation on the draft SPD commencing in mid June and closing by the end of July. Adoption is anticipated in the Autumn.

4. The eastern boundary of Bourn Airfield Strategic Site Boundary overlaps with Caldecote Parish boundary. The Caldecote Parish boundary is shown highlighted on an aerial photograph of Caldecote on page 2 of the consultation draft Village Design Guide. The drawing attached to these representations shows the overlap between the Parish boundary and the Bourn Airfield New Village Strategic Site Boundary and Major Development Area (AM-P drawing no 12015_06). Paragraph 9.3 of the Caldecote Village Design Guide states:
"The overlap between Caldecote parish and the Bourn Airfield masterplan at the A428 roundabout should be treated as a chance to create a green amenity area and buffer between the settlements"

5. Therefore, it is considered that the Village Design Guide should make it clear both at the beginning of the document under the heading on page 3, under the heading 'Note to reader,' and in the Introduction on page 5, that the Parish boundary does overlap with the allocated Bourn Airfield New Village and that the Design Guide relates specifically to the remainder of the parish and not to Bourn Airfield Strategic Site. The words in bold should therefore be included on pages 3 and 5.

Additionally, in the Introduction a sentence should be added as follows:-
2

The Design Guide does however seek to ensure that the relationship with the Bourn
Airfield new village is positive, aiming to make the new development the best quality it can be with creative design approaches and allows for good off-road connections whilst maintaining their distinct identities. (as referred to in the last bullet on page 8).

7. The plan on page 11 shows the Local Plan notation shown on the respective Policies Maps for both Bourn Airfield and Caldecote, but it should have a key for clarity.

8. The plan on page 13, Fig 7 - Character areas also requires a key and is misleading in relation to the note in the bottom right hand corner. The Local Plan Policies Map Inset No.13 does not identify character areas and the note should be removed. The defined character areas are however relevant to the Design Guide.

9. Fig 11 on page 15 is supported and the pedestrian/cycle connections between Caldecote and the Bourn Airfield proposals are consistent with the Bourn Airfield masterplan and Access and Movement Parameter Plan - (Drawing no. RG-M-55E), with one exception, ie. the link to the north of the protected local green space via Grafton Drive, which could be accommodated within the Bourn Airfield part of the site.

10. Section 8 of the Design Guide deals with drainage and ditches. It is noted that flooding is a key issue in Caldecote, particularly at Highfields where the land surrounding the village is clay and slopes towards the village. Countryside Properties are aware of these flooding issues and potential risks and these are referred to in the Environmental Statement that accompanies the Bourn Airfield planning application. The overall flooding and drainage strategy in the application highlights that once the scheme has been constructed, there will be a change to the way the catchment within the site responds to rainfall. There will be an increase in impermeable surfacing but there will be a quicker response to rainfall and the potential to affect flows into the Bourn Brook. The scheme will also include various Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs) measures, such as wetlands, basins and
swales, which will intercept and attenuate the runoff to agreed maximum allowable runoff rates of 3.5 l/s/ha whilst enhancing the water quality and providing habitat or amenity opportunities as well. These measures will also take into account the existing flooding and drainage situation in Caldecote wherever possible and necessary to ensure that the new development does not adversely affect Caldecote.

11. Paragraph 9.3 of the Design Guide states:
"the overlap between Caldecote parish and the Bourn Airfield masterplan at the A428 roundabout should be treated as a chance to create a green amenity area and buffer between the settlements".
Countryside Properties considers that the Illustrative Masterplan does just that. The proposed open area of Gateway Park that provides public space and wetlands will create a substantial buffer separating the new village from Highfields. However, it is inevitable that the Caldecote community will want to enjoy safe and convenient connectivity to the wide range of new facilities to be provided in Bourn Airfield, including access to the secondary and primary schools, retail,
employment, recreation, sports and community uses. In particular the proposed new cycleways and pedestrian links to the rapid transit route, providing fast public transport connections to Cambridge and Cambourne will inevitably be especially attractive to Caldecote residents. Every opportunity should be taken through appropriate placemaking, design and new footpath and cycleway links to foster community integration between the existing Caldecote residents and new
community. If the open gap is over-generous it will create too much of a sense of isolation and separation and therefore a balance needs to be struck between the proximity of the new village gateway and the existing Caldecote Highfields village. This is one of the reasons why Countryside Properties propose an area of development that goes beyond the current defined Major Development Site boundaries in the north-east corner of the Airfield site, yet retains a wide
open area of separation to prevent coalescence of the two villages. This will ensure the creation of areas with distinctive identity and character.

5) There is no safe cycleway/footpath between old Caldecote and Highfields. One would make a huge difference. Safe to walk and cycle giving health benefits; cutting down car use.
5) B.A.D - (Bourn Airfield). If the entrance to this is off the roundabout by the BP service station, this will be terrible for the new residents and the residents of Caldecote.
8) Drainage - there is no point in telling people its their fault as it is their ditch as nothing will change.

Overall bpha are supportive of the approach taken within the South Cambridgeshire Village Design Statements.

bpha is a registered not for profit affordable housing provider with over 18,000 homes within the Cambridge to Oxford arc. We are committed to building and maintaining quality affordable homes in thriving communities.
More information can be found at — www.bpha.org.uk

bpha have a commitment to provide well-designed high quality housing for our customers. Our approach to delivery is informed by key financial viability considerations. We look forward to working with SCDC to deliver a range of housing opportunities for your residents that is financially sustainable and reflects that addresses the design issues raised in the statement.

As an organisation bpha are looking to increase the number of homes that we provide through land-led opportunities. The Village Design Guides provide a useful insight into the important design issues at a neighbourhood level that we will consider early in the development design and planning process. We remain committed to working with SCDC in order to find appropriate design responses to housing development.

We are currently in contract with various developers across multiple sites in the South Cambridgeshire area. Most notable locally is that bpha are contracted to deliver all affordable homes on Phase 1 at Northstowe. Via our Market sale arm Bushmead Homes we have acquired open market sites in Over, Swavesey and Gamlingay to deliver market sale and affordable homes.

Please find attached below comments on the Village Design Statements. Should you have any questions on the points raised please do not hesitate in contacting me.

In terms of an overall comment the Village Design Statements cover seven villages across South Cambridgeshire. What would be helpful is also identifying important design considerations for those villages that sit outside the areas covered by the Village Design Statements. We are currently actively looking at rural exception sites across South Cambridgeshire and such guidance would be useful.

In relatoin to the content of the Village Design Statements. The broad comments that can be read across all the statements can be summarised into the following categories:

Affordable Housing - the deliery of new affordable housing is key to the delivery of the strategic objectives of bpha. In terms of village sustainability the delivery of affordable homes to meet the needs of the local community is vital. This requires the delivery of a broad range and tenure of homes.

While there is reference to the importance of well-designed affordable housing such as in the case of Robinson Court, Gamlingay, many of the statements are silent on the issue of affordable housing. The planning system should balance the demand of particular the types of affordable housing within a village with the requirements of the densikty parameters set out in the Village Design Statements. Therefore the approach to meeting specific housing needs should be addressed in the Village Design Statements. Consideration to the Nationally Prescribed Space Standards, Lifetime Homes and Building Regulation accessibility/adaptability ought to considered.

Materials - the approach to taken to the appropriate materials to be used within new developments is broadly supported. It is welcomed that the document refers to the type of materials that are likely to be acceptable without specifying specific products.

The availability of materials is a critical factor for development delivery, with the lead in times for materials such as bricks having a significant impact on a development programme. Therefore we would welcome a dialogue with SCDC early in the development process of a broad palette of products that would be acceptable. This is cruicial for our cost planning of developments.

The Village Design Statements should also recognise that in relation to innovation in the building industry through Modern Methods of Construction to include off-site and modular housing. A sustainability balance should be struck between innovation and following a rigid design approach.

Public Realm Investment - In the case of the larger villages reference such as Sawston and Fulbourn reference is made to the need for public realm improvements being made to the local centre. We would strongly support improvements being made the public realm to contribute towards the viability of local service provision within village centres.

In terms of specific comments, we have the following comments on the individual Village Design Statements:

Caldecote

Support the principles of partnership working on flood management. There is no mention of affordable housing within the statement this should be addressed.

Fulbourn

The following statement is made 'The need for a housing mix including suitable dwellings for the elderly and for younger households' is identifed as not an issue to be addressed with the Village Design Statement. This is not correct as the approach taken to density in the Statements will affect the delivery of certain types of affordable housing.

The objective for an improved High Street is supported as improvements to the public realm will support the financial viability of local services as it will create a better environment to visit.

In relation to improvements to existing stock there needs to be a consideration of wider issues such as External Wall Insulation and the acceptability of such changes.

At paragraph 10.13 reference is made to self build reference in addition the reference should be extended to include custom build.

Gamlingay

Broad support to the reference that affordable housing can play in village i.e. Robinson Court. The reference to taking influence from non-residential uses in housing such as agricultural and live work influences is welcomed

Over

At paragraph 4.5 it is stated 'Development should seek to maintain and enhance wildlife corridors in ways that are not costly to maintain.' The importance of wildlife corridors is supported as is the recognition that this should be undertaken in a cost effective way.

We support the proposals for better linkages to the guided busway. Mobility is critical for access to jobs and services and it is recognised that access to a car is lower for those on lower incomes.

At paragraph 8.7 it is stated 'Surface of green lanes should be permeable and easy to maintain'. We support the provision of a green land network this should consider the whole life costing of mterials to be used. In addition consideration should be given to the materials being acceptable for cycling. Sustrans give useful guidance in the following document: www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/files/migrated-pdfs/Technical%20Note%208%20-%20Path%20surfaces(1).pdf

Papworth Everard

The statement makes a strong emphasis on corridors for movement, the point made above on Over is of relevance here.

Sawston

The use of terraces to raise densities is supported.
The proposed public realm improvements and frontages is supported although an appropriate upfront capital budget is important it is also critical that there is a long-term revenue maintenance budget

Swavesey

Support the need for collaborative working on flood risk. In relation to the requirement for low carbon housing this should take into account the need for schemes to be viable with a sustainable maintenance strategy. Consider design implications of electrical generation (solar PVs) due to the shift to electric cars etc.