Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168035

Received: 23/07/2019

Respondent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

Relatively little is mentioned in the SPD on archaeology. Greater reference should be made to this.

Full text:

SEA Screening Opinion for Bourn Airfield SPD
In terms of our area of interest, given the nature of the SPD and on the basis of the
information provided in this consultation, we would concur with your assessment that the document is unlikely to result in any significant environmental effects and will simply provide additional guidance on existing Policies contained within a Adopted Development Plan Document which has already been subject to a Sustainability Appraisal/SEA. Although there are designated heritage assets both within and around the site, these are listed at grade II, rather than in the case of Waterbeach where Denny Abbey is listed at Grade I and is a scheduled monument, where the proposed development was substantially larger and where the connection between the heritage asset and the landscape subject to the SPD was arguably greater. As a result, we would advise that it is not necessary to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment of this particular SPD.
The views of the other three statutory consultation bodies should be taken into account before the overall decision on the need for an SEA is made.

Comments on Draft SPD
We broadly welcome the preparation of the SPD. This is an important bridge
document between the high level policy in the Local Plan and any future planning
application. We made a number of comments on an initial draft in May 2019. Thank
you for making some amendments to the document in response to our comments.
We make the following comments:

Page 12, Paragraph 2.3
There are a number of designated and non-designated heritage assets within and
around the site. Page 12, para 2.3 mentions The grade II listed barns to the north of
the Grange lie within the red line boundary of the site, albeit to the south of the
southern limit of major development as defined by policy SS/7. The paragraph also
refers to the grade II listed Great Common Farmhouse which lies immediately to the
west of the site. The paragraph should be amended to include reference to the Bourn Conservation Area which lies to the south of the site and the three Registered Parks and Gardens nearby.

Page 17
We welcome reference to the Registered Parks and Gardens on p 17 We welcome the commitment to assessment of visual impact. Of course, setting issues for heritage assets extend beyond purely visual impact. These wider setting issues (noise, light, etc.) will need to be considered for these and other heritage assets in and near the site. This requirement should be included on page 17.

Page 18
We welcome reference to Bourn church, Bourn windmill and other landmarks as well
as to Great Common Farmhouse. Maintaining sight lines and key views of such
landmark buildings off site can be an important way to enhance the legibility of the site. We suggest that this should be referenced in the SPD at the end of the eighth
paragraph on page 18. No reference is made in this section (with the exception of the yellow star on one of the diagrams and the photograph on page 19) to the listed barn north of the Grange. This should be included. Reference should also be made to the need to preserve and enhance the listed buildings and their settings. This may be through an appropriate buffer of open space, landscaping etc.

Page 27 and 47,48
We welcome the reference to locally distinctive development. Part of this includes the need for building materials to reflect the local traditional vernacular and palette of materials to enhance the sense of place and provide character and identity to the new community. We suggest that Objective 4 on page 27 and page 47should include
greater reference to local character, identity and materials within the SPD.
We welcome the reference on p47 to responding to context including listed buildings
and WWII heritage. We welcome proposals to reflect the former airfield through a
linear park. Other tools such as street naming etc. can be used to reflect this former
use and provide local identity and connection with the past. This should be mentioned on page 47.

Pages 49 and 53
Care should be taken with regard to the location of taller buildings and ensuring they
do not compete with or dominate listed buildings of other landmark buildings offsite.
This requirement should be included on page 49 and/or 53.

Relatively little is mentioned in the SPD with regard to archaeology. We suggest that
greater reference be made to this in the SPD and encourage you to discuss the matter further with Cambridgeshire County Council.
Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its informal consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.