Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Comment

Representation ID: 168208

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK

Comparison of SPD Spatial Framework and Countryside's application - areas of difference:

1. HQPT alignment (moved eastwards). Secondary school building will not end vista from Runway Park.
2. Broadway access located within land outside applicant's control.
3. HQPT stop located in proximity to primary network junction, which would be difficult to achieve.
4. Local Centre located away from HQPT stop and would not benefit from footfall.
5. Formal sports provision split within four sites which improves catchment but will result in management issues and reduced changing/parking facilities.
6. Primary road network different alignment.
7. Green corridor follows different alignment. More direct pedestrian/cycle routes along it would be beneficial.
8. Additional green link shown.
9. Consistent runway corridor width.
10. Significant additional Country Park Area shown.
11. Country Park area outside applicant's control.
12. Primary school does not create an important event and focal element along primary route.
13. HQPT alignment discounts options running through St Neots roundabout.
14. HQPT stop moved westwards in front of existing DB Group cement manufacturing facility which would create poor gateway experience.
15. Mixed uses such as hotel might benefit from being closer to St. Neots roundabout. Primary road alignment slightly different.
16. Larger formal sports provision more appropriate along A120 corridor. Formal sports provision split within four sites, which improves catchment but will result in management issues and reduced changing/parking facilities.
17. Pedestrian cycle link through Aitchison employment area lies outside applicant's control.
18. DOS7 green corridor was located along existing ditch and part of drainage strategy. SFP alignment arbitrary.
19. Formal sports provision split within four sites which improves catchment but will result in management issues and reduced changing/parking facilities.
20. Additional primary road link.
21. Primary road alignment along woodland edge would impact adversely on Wildlife site.
22. Larger primary school site is shown providing an additional form of entry.
23. Significant additional Country Park Area shown.

Comment

Representation ID: 168209

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK - NORTH EAST CORNER

Spatial Framework Diagram excludes any indicative development within the MDS in north-east gateway into site. MDS as defined on the Local Plan Policies Map Inset I allocates development in this area. Local Plan process tested this proposal and it was found sound. No reasons are given in SPD to justify why no development is shown. SPD should be in conformity with adopted Local Plan and as such should be amended to reflect the MDS.

Particularly important to create a sense of arrival into new village by a combination of built form within an appropriate landscape-led setting. Appropriate forms of development in this gateway will create critical mass to enhance viability for HQPT. It should also be shown for mixed use to allow for hotel or retail/café to come forward to support HQPT halt. For design flexibility, diagram should be revised to accord with the extent of MDS as shown on Adopted Policies Map. Our design document shows how this could be achieved whilst supporting the aim for that space to remain open.

Comment

Representation ID: 168210

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK - WESTERN ACCESS

SPD has considered the alignment of western access from the Broadway into Bourn Airfield. Spatial Framework Diagram indicates a road that curves beyond land under CP control and SPD boundary. Reason for this is explained by Fix A (1) (page 38). CP considers SPD Diagram and words should be revised to provide greater flexibility for delivery - in particular remove words "(subject to availability of third party land)" as they add confusion by stating that other land may be available, which is not certain.

CP planning application includes detailed proposals to conform with Policy SS/7, which can be delivered within land under its control or the Highway Authority. Although it may be possible in future to provide another design option that involves land owned by another party, there is uncertainty as to when and if additional land can be made available. Without certainty as to whether other land or design options are deliverable, the words above should be deleted. Any potential to consider an alternative design option should be a matter for consideration of planning application and s106 agreement, which could secure an alternative option if land becomes available. SPD should set out principles not detailed prescription.

Notwithstanding, the design appendix provides further explanation as to how Countryside have sought to review the access proposals in this location in light of the SPD to seek to achieve the aspirations of the SPD but within land under its control.

Comment

Representation ID: 168211

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK - VILLAGE CENTRE

Village centre appears to be located slightly south of CP proposed centre, as shown on the Illustrative Masterplan and Parameter Plans. Understood this is in response to stakeholders' feedback during drafting the SPD, advocating a more centrally located village centre. Key issue is that the centre needs to relate to route and western stop of the High Quality Public Transport corridor and location of secondary school.

The centre should not only be located in most convenient and accessible location to all new residents, but in a position where sufficient economies of scale can be created to optimize its viability and opportunities for community interaction and cohesion. In this latter regard, CP propose a revision to show mixed use in north-western corner of site.

Support principles of co-location of village centre with runway bus halt and secondary school as set out in SPD. Important for village centre to be delivered west of a central location in order to provide for: early delivery, thus removing the need for transitional and temporary uses, encourage community cohesion with a hub clustered around activity rather than arbitrarily in centre, and enhance commercial viability. Bus halt is a fix, following consultation under a separate process from both SPD and planning application, and location on the Spatial Framework Diagram appears to have moved.

CP are broadly content with slightly revised indicative location in Framework Diagram, subject to minor amendments proposed in appended design document.

Comment

Representation ID: 168212

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK - OUTDOOR SPORTS

CP understand merits in distribution of outdoor sport across site in respect of phasing of delivery, sustainability, accessibility to facilities across site and for variety of uses to be provided. Sound reasons not to distribute the outdoor sports - benefits of clustering in respect of future maintenance, deliver a better quality of pavilion facilities to serve them which enhances potential use for non-sports activities, more efficient land use for residential development. Propose an alternative design solution:

* Expansion of Broadway Fields for efficiency and improved village edge;
* Expansion of northern formal sports pitch provision to form central focus and utilise enhanced facilities;
* Eastern edge of development set back from Highfields Caldecote, in a more linear form, to create an increased length with a greater set back between two settlements;
* Informal kickabout areas in North East gateway to enhance integration of two communities whilst maintaining separation;
* Country Park increased in size with expansion of existing Highfields Caldecote recreation ground.

Planning application was designed on basis of Education Authority being supportive of dual use, as had been previously agreed through extensive pre-application process. Continuing discussions. Pending agreement on dual use at secondary school, suggest this be shown hatched to denote that they are an 'either/or' provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 168213

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK - COUNTRY PARK

SPD shows areas beyond Countryside's control and outside of the landownership of the Taylor family who currently own and farm the land. This includes land at the south of the site which is shown to be strategic landscape/country park within the SPD Framework Diagram. Given landownership constraints it is not possible for the full area shown in the SPD, and Local Plan, to be delivered by CP. However, CP do propose amendments to extend the Country Park to provide generous lateral connections, within forthcoming revisions to the outline planning application. This will enhance connections to the adjoining settlements and the existing PRoW network. Further detail is set out in the appended design - related document.

Comment

Representation ID: 168311

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK - NORTH WEST CORNER

CP is concerned that the Spatial Framework Diagram proposes solely residential use in the NW corner of the site adjacent to the expressway and Village Centre. CP considers that the Diagram should be revised to include this area as mixed use and the document to include a list of the potential uses that would be acceptable, e.g. A1, A2, A3, A4, B1 (a)(b), C1, C2, C3, D1, D2. Such uses will be complementary to the Village Centre and provide variety, flexibility and opportunities for community cohesion/interaction.

Comment

Representation ID: 168312

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4. SPATIAL FRAMEWORK

CP generally support the overall content, weight and balance of Executive Summary on pages i-iii. This includes the six strategic objectives and the main purpose of the document as effectively set out in the statement on page ii : "The Spatial Framework which is set out in a plan establishes the broad structure for development of the new village along with the indicative positions of key land uses, primary movement, and green and blue infrastructure. The Framework is supported by a series of guiding principles and spatial fixes, which are key to the delivery of a successful place."

CP support that SPD should establish the broad structure and indicative positions of key components of Spatial Framework. However CP object to the word "plan", which should be replaced by "diagram". Inconsistency within the document as in 4.1, final paragraph refers to
"Spatial Framework Diagram".

This is fully supported, yet heading to Section 4.2 is entitled 'Spatial Framework Plan'.
Additionally, a footnote on page 30 states that framework plan is illustrative and should not be used for measuring areas.

Waterbeach SPD consistently describes Spatial Framework as a diagram. Therefore, for consistency and clarity Bourn Airfield should use same terminology. 'Spatial Framework Diagram', which is a more accurate description of its form of presentation, should be used throughout SPD instead of 'plan' which has a wider range of interpretations.

Comment

Representation ID: 168313

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

1.3 KEY ISSUES - 2 GREEN TO THE CORE

CP agree with the six stated key issues. However, there is concern with how the wording under 2. 'Green to the core' could be interpreted at the determination of future planning applications. Whilst SCDC aspires to create a cleaner, greener and zero carbon future for all its communities, the latter term should not be regarded as a mandatory requirement. Policy SS/7 requires under 'Sustainability' heading at item 10 that:

"The new village will incorporate and deliver opportunities to exceed sustainable design and
construction standards established by the Local Plan. These measures could include
combined heat and power."

SPD should be consistent with policy guidance and not require even higher standards. Outline planning application contains a package of measures to satisfy this policy which have been discussed and agreed in principle with officers.

Comment

Representation ID: 168314

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

1.3 KEY ISSUES - 5 RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EMPLOYMENT SITE

This sub-title should be amended to 'Relationship with existing employment site'. In addition the language should be softened to encourage engagement and collaboration between the developer and the existing employer on the site but not make this a requirement of the successful delivery of the wider Bourn Airfield site.