Object

Representation ID: 55673

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

The expectation in the policy that the overall approach to building densities, heights, scale and massing for all development proposals at North East Cambridge will create a well-articulated and varied skyline throughout the area is roundly supported. It is also agreed that the impact of new development on the historic and wider skyline and their relationships with the surrounding context, the setting of Cambridge and Fen Edge approaches should be carefully assessed and considered through appropriate landscape and visual impact assessment, heritage impact assessment and massing studies.

An approach where storey heights are generally greatest towards the centre of the area is sensible also, but landmark buildings in other key locations should not be discouraged (provided site specific assessments demonstrate that they can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site in terms of landscape and townscape effects). The LCVIA which seemingly informed the AAP did not consider some taller buildings within areas and also only considered 3 scenarios – the majority of buildings being up to 6 storeys/18 metres, 9 storeys/27 metres and 12 storeys/36 metres i.e. incremental increases of 3 storeys/9 metres each. None of the scenarios considered buildings above 6 storeys/18 metres towards the northern extent of the area. A more nuanced assessment would support some taller buildings on parts of the site. The LVA submitted as part of applications 20/03523/FUL (South Cambs) and 20/03524/FUL (Cambridge City) for example demonstrates that some buildings taller than the maximum heights in metres shown on the plan on pages 18 and 103 can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site in terms of landscape and townscape effects. It may be the intention that some taller buildings are appropriate where justified by the inclusion of “Localised increases in height should be located to help define key centres of activity within the area and help with wayfinding” in Policy 9, but reference to the maximum heights in the Policy makes this unclear.

In addition to its content, the presentation of Policy 9 should also be reviewed. This is an example of where plans are currently too prescriptive, and a ‘heatwave’ approach would be more appropriate. The supporting text also states that Figure 21 is based on an assumed floor to floor height for residential use of 3m. Commercial buildings in particular will often though have a storey height of more than 3m. As currently presented this gives rise to the potential for ambiguity. Referring back to applications 20/03523/FUL (South Cambs) and 20/03524/FUL (Cambridge City), one of the proposed buildings is 5-storeys and 23.3 metres high. This highlights an ambiguity with Figure 21 as currently presented in that it is not higher than the 4-5 storeys typical height – there is no reference to 3m storeys in the policy – but is higher than the 18 metres maximum height.