Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Comment

Representation ID: 168315

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

1.5 PLANNING CONSENT FOR DEVELOPMENT

CP acknowledge that SCDC will not determine its outline planning application until SPD has been adopted. CP have worked collaboratively with Council during Local Plan process, outline planning application process, and in preparation of draft SPD. CP's extensive evidence base has been updated and shared with SCDC. Agreement in principle on most matters. Comments highlight where there are differences of approach or views and wherever possible CP proposes to revise its plans where considered justified.

There are areas where CP consider their proposals have greater overall merit in design terms. Identified in document appended. SPD should provide flexibility to allow a range of design options to be explored, considered and determined through planning application process. CP has sought to demonstrate that its proposals do demonstrate a comprehensive approach to development. Of total of area of MDS at 172.6 hectares, CP control 160.9 hectares (93%). CP has liaised with Council and landowners/promoters of employment sites and owners of land to south to demonstrate the overall allocation and policy objectives, as well as third party interests will not be prejudiced by proposals.

Clearly demonstrated that planning application adopts a fully comprehensive approach. Delete the sentence: "Applications that fail to demonstrate a comprehensive approach to development, as set out in this document, will be refused planning permission". Planning system sets out that SPDs are material considerations and cannot set planning policy in this way.

Comment

Representation ID: 168316

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

3 VISION AND OBJECTIVES - VISION

The vision for the development states 'facilitating a move towards net zero carbon lifestyles through an innovative approach to planting, design and construction'. While CP supports the need to reduce carbon emissions we are concerned that this may introduce a target for development which is not currently supported by adopted local policy. To ensure this policy is sound CP believe this text should re-worded to make reference to a 'low carbon lifestyle' to be consistent with the adopted Local Plan policy. Stating the development is moving towards net zero sets an expectation which is beyond the requirements of the Local Plan and principles of development set out in the Draft SPD.

Comment

Representation ID: 168317

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

3 VISION AND OBJECTIVES - STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

Strategic Objective 5, Responsive and Sustainable sets out a number of objectives, including the following statement -

'Incorporating low or net zero carbon buildings, renewable energy and low emissions travel, aiming to exceed existing Local Plan standards'

While Countryside is fully supportive of delivering development which exceeds the Local Plan standards this must be within what is feasible, viable and sound. The delivery of net
zero buildings goes well beyond the Local Plan requirements and has significant feasibility and viability issues. It is recommended that Strategic Objective 5 be amended to:
'Incorporating low carbon buildings, renewable energy and low emissions travel, aiming to exceed existing Local Plan standards where technically feasible and viable'

Comment

Representation ID: 168318

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

5 CREATING THE PLACE

CP agree the broad principles of setting a series of overarching guiding principles and key spatial fixes which are required to deliver on site. First sentence "which explain how the strategic objectives should be delivered" is considered too prescriptive, rigid and inflexible. Purpose of SPD is to provide guidance in the form of a framework to guide preparation or determination of planning applications. 'Spatial Fixes' identified to reinforce 'Guiding Principles' are currently very specific and prescriptive.

Clear when comparing with equivalent parts of Waterbeach SPD, i.e. Section 4 'Towards a Spatial Framework' - sets out separately key Structuring Elements or 'Fixes' and Guiding principles. In contrast Bourn Airfield SPD sets out Guiding Principles and Spatial 'Fixes' which are mixed up throughout Section 5. Style of language, which is less prescriptive and inflexible in Waterbeach SPD to be more effective and ask SCDC to revise document accordingly.

Unclear within SPD as drafted whether diagrams are intended to be treated as Guiding Principles or Spatial Fixes. It is assumed that they are Guiding Principles as these are more detailed than an SPD should rightly determine, but SPD places diagrams under Spatial Fix sections of text. It is requested that page layouts are reordered to avoid any confusion.

Comment

Representation ID: 168319

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

1A - A STREET NETWORK THAT INTEGRATES MOVEMENT AND PLACE - NORTH WESTERN ACCESS

CP are fully aware of key importance of junction onto the Broadway both as an entrance to new village but also in light of its interaction with the existing community at Bourn. Junction has been a key area of focus during both preapplication discussions and during application process itself with key stakeholders and the local community.

Following publication of SPD, CP have revisited proposals for the Broadway access as shown in design appendix to seek to respond to aspirations but within land which is currently available - and which is shown within Local Plan allocation. Whilst through application process, and in particular the meeting on 10th May 2019, CP advised that they were prepared to consider a contingency arrangement this was only on basis that it was fully accepted by SCDC that there were no constraints in delivery of access as shown in application, pursuant to responses received from CCC. Contingency arrangement explained by Mayer Brown related to an obligation to submit a revision to access at an agreed date in 2020, if formal confirmation was provided by CCC that transfer of land required to form part of public highway was complete. At this stage there is no further certainty that land will be transferred and as such it is considered the spatial framework should be based on land included within Local Plan allocation.

In relation to enhancement to the existing junction of St Neots Road and the Broadway, CP note that the capacity assessments are not showing that any improvements are required at this junction.

Comment

Representation ID: 168320

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

1D MANAGING PRIVATE AND SERVICE VEHICLES

CP are content with this section. 2nd bullet point relating to reducing amount of car parking availability at local facilities may be a commercial point for consideration. However, it does not specify what this is. CP also note that not having a direct access to A428 is reinforced here, consistent with meeting on 10th May 2019.

Third paragraph states development 'should include provision for electric vehicle charging at all car parking locations, including provision of charging points or sockets within private dwellings and on residential streets'. CP fully supports implementation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure as set out in the Sustainability Statement with planning application.

However, there are practical considerations and constraints which must be considered with respect to installation of EV charging infrastructure, particularly installation of points on residential streets given that such infrastructure will not be responsibility of Countryside to install or manage. Furthermore, whilst there is clear and growing demand for electric vehicles, the relative percentage of EVs compared to existing vehicles is still small and therefore demand for widespread infrastructure is not present. Recommend this policy is updated to remove reference to residential streets as follows; 'should include appropriate provision for electric vehicle charging at all car parking locations, including provision of charging points, infrastructure or sockets within private dwellings.'

Comment

Representation ID: 168321

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

2 - VIBRANT, PROSPEROUS AND INCLUSIVE

CP generally are content with this section but there should be flexibility in terms of providing an average density of 40 dwellings per hectare in order to reflect potential changing circumstances. These changes could include varying market and economic conditions, the ability to have a dual use of secondary school sports pitches and resulting impact on total net development area and the quantum of non-residential uses which come forward as the development is built out.

Comment

Representation ID: 168322

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

FIX D - VILLAGE CENTRE AND NEIGHBOURHOOD HUB

CP are generally content with Fix D but consider that there is the opportunity to broaden the range of uses to allow a more flexible mix, including other employment-generating uses (B Use Class) and to create a balanced centre.

Similarly, the range of uses in the Neighbourhood Hub could be broadened to accommodate other uses as well as 'modest retail and food and drink premises', provided the range and scale does not undermine the viability of the primary centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 168323

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

3 LOCALLY DISTINCTIVE

CP are content with this section, except under 3F Integrating inherited assets. In the first sentence the words 'where possible' should be added, i.e. 'the site has a number of existing features which should where possible be preserved and/or incorporated into the development in order to protect existing character and contribute to the distinctiveness of the new village'.

Comment

Representation ID: 168324

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4D OUTDOOR AND INDOOR SPORTS PROVISION

Final bullet should be more positively encouraging of shared use, because by clustering outdoor sports pitches it allows for economies of scale and more efficient use of land, better quality facilities in terms of size of pavilion, changing and other related facilities and efficiencies in terms of maintenance. It may allow efficiencies to reduce total space needed. Final sentence on demonstrating agreement is overly prescriptive, particularly given approach has already been agreed elsewhere in District. CP set out its outdoor sports proposals on basis that Education Authority were supportive of principle at pre- application stage. Discussions ongoing. If dual use is not agreed there is a significant loss of development land, which raises density of development or reduces overall capacity.

CP recognise benefits of locating sports pitches adjacent to eastern boundary. Provide multiple benefits - additional buffer between communities, access to sports pitches being more evenly spread throughout, and increased open space in important ecological corridor. Proposed amendments, including potential for hatched areas to provide certainty in both eventualities, are set out in full in design appendix.