Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Comment

Representation ID: 167486

Received: 25/10/2018

Respondent: Historic England

1. INTRODUCTION
Welcome the SPD to support the Local Plan Policy and guide developers.

Welcome the preparation of this document to support policy in the South
Cambridgeshire Local Plan and to provide guidance to developers and help guide the preparation and assessment of future planning applications on the site. The document provides a thorough basis for planning for this large development site.

Comment

Representation ID: 167487

Received: 25/10/2018

Respondent: Historic England

1.3 KEY ISSUES
Welcome references to the need for comprehensive development, and the sensitive historical location and proximity of Denny Abbey, but other assets need to be referenced.

1.3 Key Issues - 1 The need for comprehensive development
We welcome reference to the need for comprehensive development of the site. This has been a key concern for Historic England over the years in relation to this site.

1.3 Key Issues - 5 Managing a sensitive historical location
We welcome reference to the sensitive historical location and proximity of Denny Abbey. We would highlight the fact that there are other designated heritage assets in the immediate surroundings. These include Denny Abbey Refectory listed at grade I, barn to the north of Denny Abbey listed at grade II and Waterbeach Conservation Area to the south of the site. These assets need to be specifically referenced in the SPD.

P10, para1 We welcome the reference Denny Abbey and the Major Development Site boundary outside of which built development is not permitted. This boundary was agreed through the EiP.

Comment

Representation ID: 167488

Received: 25/10/2018

Respondent: Historic England

2. SITE CONTEXT
Welcome references to historic assets and features, but a factual correction is needed in relation to the ownership of Denny Abbey.

P14 para 3 Strictly speaking, Denny Abbey is in the guardianship of the English Heritage Trust and open to the public via a management agreement with the Farmland Museum Trust.

P18 Section 2.4 para 3 We welcome reference to Car Dyke, the raised causeways and the Soldier's Hill earthworks.

P18 Section 2.4 para 6 We also welcome reference to distant views to Ely Cathedral to the north of the site.

P18 Section 2.4 para 7 We welcome reference to the runways and barracks. Whilst these are not designated heritage assets, they represent an important component of the history of the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 167489

Received: 25/10/2018

Respondent: Historic England

2.5 INHERITED ASSETS
Comment that this section should be renamed 'The Historic Environment' as it encompasses all aspects of heritage.

Section 2.5 We suggest that this section is renamed 'The Historic Environment, rather than 'Inherited Assets' The historic environment is considered the most appropriate term to use as a topic heading as it encompasses all aspects of heritage, for example the tangible heritage assets and less tangible cultural heritage. We would again highlight the fact that there are other designated heritage assets in the immediate surroundings. These include Denny Abbey Refectory listed at grade I, barn to the north of Denny Abbey listed at grade II and Waterbeach Conservation Area to the south of the site. These assets need to be specifically referenced in the SPD.

Comment

Representation ID: 167490

Received: 25/10/2018

Respondent: Historic England

2.6 SURROUNDING CONTEXT
Welcome references to the various historic assets needing to be preserved but suggest reference is made to drawing on local character and vernacular. Factual corrections proposed.

We welcome reference to the Conservation Area, listed buildings and Scheduled Monument in Waterbeach. Development will need to preserve, and where appropriate enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Clues may be drawn from the Conservation Area to influence the design and layout of the new settlement. The tower of St John's church should be considered as a key view in any future design for the site.

We suggest that reference should be made to the importance of drawing upon local character and the distinctive vernacular and materials palette.

Fig 11 We welcome the inclusion of heritage assets on this diagram. The grade II listed gate piers to Denny Abbey on the A10 would appear to be missing from this figure.

We also suggest the use of the term Scheduled Monument, rather than Scheduled Ancient Monument in the key. Modern convention is to refer to scheduled monuments rather than scheduled ancient monuments, given that a wide range and age of monuments are scheduled. This is in line with the terminology used in the NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 167491

Received: 25/10/2018

Respondent: Historic England

3. VISION
Welcome the reference to rich local heritage in aspirations for the new town, and reference to valuable historic setting and locally distinctive design.

P29 We welcome the reference to rich local heritage in the aspirations for the new town.

P30 para3 we welcome the reference to the valuable historic setting.

P31para 4 welcome the reference to locally distinctive design which recognises and enhances the character of the area. And existing features such as the causeways, Denny Abbey, Bannold Drove etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 167492

Received: 25/10/2018

Respondent: Historic England

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
Welcome guidance in relation to sports facilities, flood lighting, buildings, green infrastructure, aspirations for an expansive parkland, reference to former military uses and proposed enhancement of historical features. Additional detailed comments for clarification.

Broadly welcome section on setting of Denny Abbey and proposals to respond sensitively to setting and explore opportunities to enhance. Delete 'visual' in first bullet point as setting relates to more than just visual.

Welcome guidance on location of sports facilities and restrictions on floodlighting and changing facilities and other buildings. Parking would be unacceptable beyond northern boundary - suggest mentioned in SPD.

Welcome reference to maintenance of views of key landmarks, and aspirations for an expansive parkland with views to fenland landscape and Ely Cathedral with pockets of planting.

Welcome reference to former military uses and reflection of former runway in layout of Park.

Welcome locating green infrastructure along former historic routes such as causeways and droves, including proposals for A Causeway Link, between lake and Abbey.

Welcome proposed retention and enhancement of number of other historical features and reference to many of other heritage assets in and around site.

Include reference to Waterbeach Conservation Area and listed buildings, in particular church tower. Welcome the reference to Car Dyke.

Concerned at proposed heights in open flat landscape. May be inappropriate height and density for small fen-edge town. Suggest more appropriate to keep to 4-5 storeys as at Northstowe with tall punctuating buildings being limited to 6 storeys.

Points of clarification / corrections:
* Figure 21 - causeway link annotation is confusing and does not match key on either p50 or 70.
* Concerns about yellow annotation of setting of Denny Abbey - could imply setting is limited to this area, when it is much wider. Figures 22 and 27 introduce different interpretations of setting.
* P53 para 1 'listed building' should be plural

Comment

Representation ID: 167493

Received: 25/10/2018

Respondent: Historic England

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
SPATIAL FRAMEWORK DIAGRAM
Comment that the park and ride needs careful consideration to ensure the setting of Denny Abbey

P70 Spatial Framework Diagram We note the location of the Park and Ride site at the north west of the site. We can see the logic of this close to the employment site and also at the other side of the development to the park and ride site at the station. However, careful consideration will need to be given to the design of this proposal to ensure that the setting of Denny Abbey is appropriately protected and enhanced. Lighting for example will need to be carefully designed to minimise harm to setting.

Comment

Representation ID: 167494

Received: 25/10/2018

Respondent: Historic England

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
Welcome references to various heritage assets, but suggest some wording changes to provide greater clarity.

Table 8 Issue 5 - We welcome reference to the setting of Denny Abbey at Issue 5. However, the wording for the mechanism is not clear. Reference to 'Development proposals' for the SLA could be misinterpreted as meaning built development. From section 5 we appreciate that this is not the case but can we suggest hat this is reworded to more closely reflect the design aspirations for this area.

Table 8, Issue 7 We welcome reference to Bannold Drove and Car Dyke as well as Denny Causeway

Table 8 Issue 8 We welcome reference to heritage assets and landscape. We
welcome the requirement for archaeology strategies.

Table 8, Issue 10 - See comments above in relation to the edge treatments for the Strategic Landscape Area. Regarding Car Dyke, a green buffer will be requirement to protect the route of Car Dyke.

Comment

Representation ID: 167495

Received: 25/10/2018

Respondent: Historic England

5. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Comment that no reference to historic environment in this chapter (covered in Chapter 4), but welcome references to enhancing the local landscape context and protecting the most sensitive heritage environments.

Note that no reference is made to historic environment in this section. We assume this is because most of the historic environment issues are covered in Chapter 4.

Welcome reference to the retention of Military Heritage Museum.

Welcome requirement for development to respond to and enhance local landscape context. In particular, welcome references to planting to filter views, as well as protection of key views to church steeples (perhaps this should also say and towers?), Denny Abbey and Ely Cathedral.

Whilst welcome opportunities for allotments and community orchards, if any of these land uses are to be located to north of agreed limit of development, then built development e.g. toilet facilities etc. would be considered inappropriate.

Welcome reference to need locate land uses which generate most noise and light away from most sensitive heritage environments. One of our key concerns in relation to proposals for a park and ride site at northern edge.