Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Comment

Representation ID: 167980

Received: 23/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

1.3 KEY ISSUES (1, 3 & 4)

Archaeological trial trench evaluations and geo-physical surveys identify the application area was intensively settled and cultivated in the Iron Age and Roman period; the 20th century military aviation heritage is also of significance.

Historic Environment recommend an archaeological condition to reduce the impact upon sub-surface assets of archaeological interest.

Historic Environment consider that heritage assets within the site have greater potential to contribute to the character and distinctiveness of the new settlement.

Historic Environment can contribute to identified Key Issues 1, 3 & 4 and on considerations for open space and recreation, which could be supported by heritage trails and interpretation referring to both the archaeological and military heritage.

Consideration should be given to the north-east to south-west runway for the preservation of the site's heritage.

Comment

Representation ID: 168076

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

FIX C CAMBOURNE TO CAMBRIDGE HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC TRANSPORT ROUTE AND STOPS

The Council's current position on the route of the rapid transit scheme has come out of numerous discussions with the developer team and the GCP team. This concluded that it would be best located in the north of the site near the A428 as this appears to best balance the various needs of the project (catchment, speed, engineering requirements etc.). In the longer term, the Mayor has referred to innovative mass modes of transit. It would be useful if land could be safeguarded where practicably possible, to allow future evolution of the project.

Ultimately, the mass transit link will need to offer high speed and reliability, and should benefit from a good catchment. The route as shown in the draft SPD appears to meet the needs of the GCP.

Comment

Representation ID: 168243

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

2.4 ACCESS, MOVEMENT & CONNECTIVITY

Access, Movement and Connectivity - Cycle connection improvements need to link to Cambourne, Caldecote and Bourn village properly not just to the Broadway and Highfields Road as there is not suitable cycle infrastructure connecting these villages currently.

Figure 8 - Three existing vehicular accesses to the site are shown on the western edge in Figure 8. It should be made very clear in the SPD that only the most northerly access will access the whole site. The other two are just for the existing employment sites and will remain this way in perpetuity and at no point will be opened up as another access onto the Broadway for all vehicles as a through route or to access the rest of the development site.

Figure 8 - This also needs to show cycle links to Bourn and Caldecote as well as Cambourne.

Comment

Representation ID: 168244

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

1A A STREET NETWORK THAT INTEGRATES MOVEMENT AND PLACE

Page 34 bullet point 1 should read, "This should prevent access onto the Broadway for southbound traffic and also northbound traffic from the Broadway south to prevent rat running through the existing village of Bourn as per policy SS/7".

Comment

Representation ID: 168245

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

FIX A MAIN POINTS OF ACCESS AND PRIMARY STREET

Page 38 Point 1 should read "This should also prevent northbound traffic from the south accessing the site. To prevent rat running through the existing village of Bourn. It should be made clear that the junction design should restrict these left turn out and right turn in movements even if additional third party land is not able to be secured".

Comment

Representation ID: 168246

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

FIX B STRATEGIC WALKING AND CYCLING CONNECTIONS

Page 39 Figure 28 - The colour difference between the traffic free and the alongside streets pedestrian/cycle routes is not very clear. Different colours would be clearer.

Comment

Representation ID: 168247

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

FIX D VILLAGE CENTRE AND NEIGHBOURHOOD HUB

Page 44 - The village centre is proposed in the north western corner of the site. The Transport Assessment Team previously recommended the village centre should be more central as some of the site is not within an 800 metre walk, meaning that this option may not be as sustainable transport wise. Excellent cycle links are essential to try to improve the connectivity and discourage car use for travel within the site.

Comment

Representation ID: 168248

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

2.4 ACCESS, MOVEMENT & CONNECTIVITY

The SPD states that no access is required directly onto the A428. The County Council queried this with the developer and the developer made subsequent enquires with Highways England. Our understanding is that Highways England do not require this and have stated that a new access would not be desirable in policy or engineering terms.

Comment

Representation ID: 168249

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

2.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES - EDUCATION

The proposals for the provision of education facilities within the new village, i.e. 2 primary schools up to 7 forms of entry and a secondary school (6 forms of entry), meets the County Council's requirements and is therefore supported.

Comment

Representation ID: 168250

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

2.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES - SPORTS AND LEISURE FACILITIES

The County Council has historically supported integration of education facilities into the communities that they serve. In that respect there is support, in principle, for the shared and dual use of sports facilities however it is recognised in the SPD that this will be subject to the developer securing the necessary agreements to deliver the school facilities to the community.

It should be noted however that whilst the Council supports the principle, actual delivery will largely be dependent on securing agreement with the school operator. Whilst the Council can seek to influence this it is ultimately out of its control. Therefore until an operator is selected and there is certainty that shared use can be delivered it is advised that the LPA maintains a fall-back position to ensure that its sport and playing field standards are met.