Comment

Draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document - June 2019

Representation ID: 168332

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

Representation Summary:

6.2 INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN

Discussions ongoing in relation to s106 requirements CP's outline planning application. Draft SPD generally consistent. CP has following comments on specific numbered items:

Transport Infrastructure
Items 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 & 16 - CP are content with these.
4. Trigger is pre-occupation. Not specified which bus stops.
13. This is correct and CP have no issue with this.

Waste, Water, Energy and Telecoms
No comments except for item No. 27. Potential feasibility and viability issues with the deployment of CHP. Recommend this paragraph is updated to amend reference to CHP to state, 'which could include a heat network where feasible and viable'.

Affordable Housing
CP are content with this.

Community Facilities
31 Does not refer to any potential dual use at school sites (same comment applies to indoor sports section on page 59)
36 School site areas are on high side of BB103 Guidance. Suggest flexibility is added e.g. c.3ha and c.4ha. Need flexibility over need for a 4FE school - site should allow for it, but SPD should allow for possibility it may not be needed, in accordance with comments received from County Council during the planning application process.
36 'Provider/partner' - be clearer that it is CCC and/or approved academy operator.
40 Inflexible language, especially given rate of change in how nursery sector operates.
41 'Description' and 'provider' - include more caveats e.g. Subject to NHS/CCG agreement etc.
42 Include caveats relating to market conditions/viability.
44 Refer to existing employment and language should be more flexible.
45 Correct measure to use when applying it to number of dwellings is "per dwelling" figure, not per household - correct figure to use is 2.7 not 2.8.
45 Developer should not be required to make contribution toward artificial pitch if they are already being provided on-site in-kind.
48 Should this reference a community trust as a potential 'partner/provider'?