Waterbeach New Town SPD

Object

Representation ID: 167424

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
EDGE TREATMENTS
Support the principles set out for the central land ownership boundary although some variations in character and appearance of built form must be acceptable across the site including at the landownership boundaries.
Not clear how the principles for the central ownership boundary are to be implemented.
Strongly support statement regarding comprehensive development
Would be helpful if the development boundary in the north east could be amended to match the open space plan (page 52)
Reference to the South Eastern Boundary It is unclear what is meant by the opportunity for creation of green ways in the south east corner.

Object

Representation ID: 167425

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
AMOUNT DENSITY AND HEIGHTS
Demonstrates potential for 11000 homes. However, it is unclear why the capacity work is in the 'fixed' section as it does not seem to draw definitive conclusions (what is fixed). It would be better for this section to be included within the "Guiding Principles" section.
Not necessary or appropriate to state that development at the Abbey Place interface should be
similar to existing dwellings.
Plan on page 69 needs to be amended to show potential for a limited number of taller buildings (up to 5 storeys) in all locations except at the more visually sensitive edges.
Height should not be limited and 'fixed' in the SPD unless it is tested further in more detail with a clear rationale.
Reference to the form and grain of the buildings in the 1st paragraph should not be in the 'fixed' section as this is 'guidance' which will be subject to further design and testing.
Large areas of the eastern part of the site are shown at the lowest density category. Most accessible to the station and should have densities at least as high as areas close to the A10 and town centre

Object

Representation ID: 167426

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
SPATIAL FRAMEWORK DIAGRAM
Primary road between the town centre and the station should not be shown down the centre of the strategic open space.
Bannold Drove should be prioritised as a non-motorised user route but needs to retain some flexibility on vehicle access during the phasing of the development.
Link between the station and the town centre, separate the road from the park in a phased way and make walking and cycling the most attractive option.

Object

Representation ID: 167427

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
TABLE OF STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (TABLE 8)
Not clear at what stage documents will be required or what their coverage will be.
A site wide Design Code would provide the opportunity to co-ordinate these elements of strategic infrastructure.
Add that Development proposals and supporting information must demonstrate:How access can be achieved and guaranteed across land ownership boundaries without ransom or market value positions.
Under "Relocated Railway Station" we support the text which states "Appropriate funding for the provision of a relocated rail station will be secured through s106 agreements".
Timing of railway station should not be left to transport assessment as early delivery required..
Under "land ownership central" the text under "mechanism" appears to be taken from the Mills and Reeve legal note that accompanies the U&C Outline Planning Application. This is inappropriate as we strongly dispute the content of this note.

Object

Representation ID: 167428

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

5. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
This section should be edited down to matters that address site constraints and opportunities or are otherwise site specific
Should be made clearer that employment space will be integrated with other uses rather than referring to 'employment land' as such.
Sustainable Drainage" and SUDS design, should refer to the need to balance drainage requirements with associated ecological needs and opportunities.

Object

Representation ID: 167429

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

6. DELIVERING THE PLACE
Document remains reliant on working groups to resolve all key issues and lacks any specific legal obligations framework or commitment to the use of planning conditions to achieve a comprehensive integrated development and a comprehensive movement strategy

Object

Representation ID: 167430

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

6.2 INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN
IDP is to be a working document. Must be clear that the IDP provisions within the SPD are not prescriptive at this point in time.
Reference to improved existing station facilities, access, safety and parking is not consistent with the Local Plan policy requirement to relocate the station.
Improved public transport link to Cambridge from Waterbeach" in the form of a "congestion free bus link" needs to be subject to review in the light of the potential of the relocated station and other sustainable transport measures to achieve the necessary modal shift.
Not clear why the Park and Ride at the A10 is to be funded by S106 and the rail based Park and Ride by direct funding.
Provision of foot/ cycle crossing from site to Cambridge Research Park (CRP)" it is not clear why RLW is listed within the "land holding" column.
Items that refer to A10 junction northern and southern access points should prioritise the provision of the southern A10 access.
New water recycling centre is the preferred solution of Anglia Water and should be specifically included in the IDP.
Specific triggers of numbers of homes specified for community facilities are too specific at this stage.
A more definite and binding framework must be established in this SPD to secure comprehensive development and comprehensive movement.

Object

Representation ID: 167431

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

6.4 DEVELOPMENT PHASING
SPD does not provide clear guidance on phasing.
Without clear guidance on phasing and a framework for appropriate legal obligations and conditions that relate to this, applications could be approved that only achieve a limited and isolated first phase development with no obligation or commitment to delivering the remainder of the allocation.
First phases should include development around station and town centre. Needs more balanced approach.

Object

Representation ID: 167432

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

6.5 MONITORING, REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION
Council can and should act to neutralise any ransom position which either U&C or RLW might seek to apply to the principle of movement across land ownership boundaries within the strategic site boundary. SPD should require that any ransom position be considered through the viability assessments of all planning applications submitted in pursuance of the Local Plan allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 167433

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (WNPSG)

Agent: Mr & Mrs Brian & Jane Williams

1.4 PROCESS AND PROGRAMME

There was little communication or inclusion of the WNPSG during the production of the SPD. It is disappointing that the emerging Waterbeach Neighbourhood Plan, which is very complex has not been a consideration in the preparation of the draft SPD.

We attach the WNP Heritage and Character Assessment . The group would like this to be considered in informing the Waterbeach draft SPD. We await a design principles package prepared by AECOM for the WNPSG which is imminent. This will also inform future decisions on planning matters that arise within the Waterbeach Parish.

The WNPSG fully support Waterbeach Parish Councils comments to the Waterbeach draft SPD.

Comment

Representation ID: 167434

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Ashworth

6.2 INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN
New development should be an opportunity to use section106 funding to prioritise and promote arts and culture. New town should have a venue.

SPD has only a passing reference to arts and cultural faciilites in the new town centre and contains no detail. A large community without any arts or cultural facilites is going not going to fulfil those who live in the new town or those existing villagers who have to put up with all the negative aspects of building such a large number of new homes.In Waterbeach there are several thriving arts organisations.

Comment

Representation ID: 167435

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Ashworth

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
If station has to move, delay till it is needed.

Majority want station remain in the same location but with an upgrade.There is an innevitability about the move - so why is there not going to be a direct footpath/cycle way alongside the railway linking the 2 sites? If it has to move why can't it be delayed until there are communites build close to it?

Object

Representation ID: 167436

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mr David Page-Croft

1. INTRODUCTION
I support Waterbeach Cycling Campaign's response to the SPD and their "People First" vision for the new town.

I have major concerns that the SPD will lead to a car centric development which prioitises space for cars over space for people. Main concerns are the primary roads being routed through the centre of the development, the proximity of schools to primary roads and development phasing. I have major concerns about the impact of the development on the village - the routing of traffic along Cody Road to the relocated train station and access to houses around the station. Waterbeach Cycling Campaign have presented an alternative vision for the new town - the "People First" vision

Object

Representation ID: 167437

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Dr Ray Gambell

1. INTRODUCTION
I support Waterbeach Cycling Campaign's response to the SPD and their "People First" vision for the new town.

I have major concerns that the SPD will lead to a car centric development which prioitises space for cars over space for people. Main concerns are the primary roads being routed through the centre of the development, the proximity of schools to primary roads and development phasing. I have major concerns about the impact of the development on the village - the routing of traffic along Cody Road to the relocated train station and access to houses around the station. Waterbeach Cycling Campaign have presented an alternative vision for the new town - the "People First" vision

Object

Representation ID: 167438

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mr Michael Richmond

1. INTRODUCTION

The SPD lacks vision.
Route motor traffic around the outside of the development, not through the middle.
Give cycle routes priority over motor routes.
Locate schools away from primary motor routes.
Require a cycle / foot path alongside the railway southwards to Cambridge.
Don't relocate the station until the new development is larger than the existing village.
Ban contruction traffic from the existing village.

Object

Representation ID: 167439

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mr Kieron McNab

1. INTRODUCTION
I support Waterbeach Cycling Campaign's response to the SPD and their "People First" vision for the new town.

I have major concerns that the SPD will lead to a car centric development which prioitises space for cars over space for people. Main concerns are the primary roads being routed through the centre of the development, the proximity of schools to primary roads and development phasing. I have major concerns about the impact of the development on the village - the routing of traffic along Cody Road to the relocated train station and access to houses around the station. Waterbeach Cycling Campaign have presented an alternative vision for the new town - the "People First" vision

Comment

Representation ID: 167440

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation and Urban & Civic

Agent: DAVID LOCK ASSOCIATES

1. INTRODUCTION
The Consultation Draft, Waterbeach New Town SPD, September 2018 (the Draft SPD) is very much welcomed, as is the considerable progress made in evolving the content over recent months, in parallel with on-going consideration of the outline planning applications for redevelopment of the allocated site and the emerging, legal framework for joint working between the landowners and promotors.
DIO/U&C endorse the approach to both the spatial framework and the approach to delivery set out in the SPD. Set out below are a number of suggested clarifications. These are offered within the context of broad support for the Draft SPD.

Comment

Representation ID: 167441

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation and Urban & Civic

Agent: DAVID LOCK ASSOCIATES

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
SPATIAL FRAMEWORK DIAGRAM
The Spatial Framework Diagram provides the critical 'skeleton' for a comprehensive and coherent development across the allocated site. Clarification that it provides the broad structure for development, but it is nevertheless indicative is particularly welcome.

Object

Representation ID: 167442

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation and Urban & Civic

Agent: DAVID LOCK ASSOCIATES

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
Hierarchy of Centres
Co-location of primary schools and local centres should be expressed as a principle that is desirable, subject to consideration of all other design matters and impacts.

This section includes definitive statements (also reflected in Figure 15) with respect to the co-location of primary schools and local centres. This is inconsistent with the SFD. Complexity of issues which impact upon the location of schools and local centres; co-location will not be optimal in all instances.

Object

Representation ID: 167443

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation and Urban & Civic

Agent: DAVID LOCK ASSOCIATES

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
Education
This section opens with a statement that is definitive in terms of what will 'be required' in terms of education provision. Does not reflect the approach, now agreed with the County Council, to maintain a degree of flexibility to deliver in response to actual need, managed through an Education Review Group
Table 1 - This summary is reflective of a more flexible position (for example indicating scope for one or two secondary schools) but also introduces different locational criteria (walking catchments) from those listed on the preceding page - the two should be consistent.

Object

Representation ID: 167444

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation and Urban & Civic

Agent: DAVID LOCK ASSOCIATES

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
PRIMARY MOVEMENT AND ACCESS
Movement Network
The plans and text relating to the hierarchy of routes and movement would benefit from further explanation of what is meant be primary and secondary routes, and how these relate to both mode and the needs of the anticipated, resident population. A number of issues are raised in the attached comments.

Object

Representation ID: 167445

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation and Urban & Civic

Agent: DAVID LOCK ASSOCIATES

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
AMOUNT DENSITY AND HEIGHTS
Figure 30 is clearly indicative but is difficult to interpret and potentially misleading. Both the low and medium 'density' areas are labelled 2-3 storeys as a 'height range' (with the exception of one area of 1-2 storeys and one area of 2-5 storeys). The diagram gives the overwhelming impression of a predominance of 2 to 3 storey buildings. Yet, medium density is not readily achieved at a uniform two storeys, without a degree of 'cramming'.
The B&A OPA has demonstrated that a large part of the site can accommodate buildings of up to four storeys and on significant parts of the site, buildings up to six storeys. Figure 30 gives no indication of the scope for a variety of building heights. Use of the word 'range' in the key implies minimum and maximum, and yet the range is no narrow and not indicative of what is possible.
There are three locations, not two, where tall buildings have been identified as acceptable; the town centre, the station and adjoining the lake.

Object

Representation ID: 167446

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation and Urban & Civic

Agent: DAVID LOCK ASSOCIATES

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
SUMMARY OF SPATIAL FIXES
STRATEGIC WALKING AND CYCLING CONNECTIONS
As advised previously, this refers to augmentation of Cycle Route 11 which is not deliverable due to the current landownership, and therefore contributions cannot be sought.

Object

Representation ID: 167447

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation and Urban & Civic

Agent: DAVID LOCK ASSOCIATES

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
SUMMARY OF STRUCTURING ELEMENTS
PAGE 78, TABLE 8 DENSITY AND HEIGHTS
It would help to switch paragraphs one and two in the 'mechanism' box so it is clear that the density and height plans referred to are those submitted with planning applications (otherwise it might be misinterpreted as the indicative plan in the SPD.)

Object

Representation ID: 167448

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation and Urban & Civic

Agent: DAVID LOCK ASSOCIATES

5.2 MOVEMENT AND PLACE
PAGE 85 ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC TRANSPORT
The ambition to have as many homes as possible within 400m of a bus-stop is supported, but it should not be stated as a requirement.
The text at the bottom of the first column sets out a 'requirement' for proximity to bus stops. This is in the section of the SPD on guiding principles, not fixes. Positioning every home within 400m of a bus stop is an extremely onerous 'requirement.' The Plan on Page 86 shows that many, but certainly not all homes will be within 400m of a bus stop. The SPD is directing bus priority onto key routes, which is necessary to sustain frequent services; on this basis it is not possible to also have stops within 400m of every home.

Object

Representation ID: 167449

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation and Urban & Civic

Agent: DAVID LOCK ASSOCIATES

5.7 PRODUCTIVE LANDSCAPE & PLANTING
Page 105 Table 14
This refers to a site wide planting scheme and landscape strategy. Strategies and schemes beyond the SPD will come forward only through outline planning applications so will not be site wide. Proposals can still be set within a site wide context.

Object

Representation ID: 167450

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Ms Anne-Marie Baxter

1. INTRODUCTION
I support Waterbeach Cycling Campaign's response to the SPD and their "People First" vision for the new town.

I have major concerns that the SPD will lead to a car centric development which prioitises space for cars over space for people. Main concerns are the primary roads being routed through the centre of the development, the proximity of schools to primary roads and development phasing. I have major concerns about the impact of the development on the village - the routing of traffic along Cody Road to the relocated train station and access to houses around the station. Waterbeach Cycling Campaign have presented an alternative vision for the new town - the "People First" vision

Object

Representation ID: 167451

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs Janet Richmond

5.4 HEALTH

I have concerns about the provision of only one new GP surgery. At the moment the present surgery is operating to capacity and so I would suggest that one surgery in the new town would be insufficient for the number of houses.

Comment

Representation ID: 167452

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs Tina Bryan

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
AMOUNT, DENSITY and HEIGHTS
Density of housing:
Too much for a Fen edge town. Developers should bring their numbers back down to 8,000 - 9,000.
Height of housing is not in keeping with fen edge location and should be reduced to 1-2 storey in most areas with some 2 -3 and a small amount of 3-4 in built up areas perhaps with a couple of 6 storey buildings. The number of dwellings proposed should be reduced to reflect this.
Reduce the number of dwellings in order to get housing density right and provide necessary buffer between new settlement and Denny Abbey. i.e. because the open space around Denny Abbey has been considered to count towards the statutory open space provision the remainder of the site is lacking in it's share of open space and should not be made to feel further overcrowded by increasing the housing density from that indicated in the local plan.
Housing style:
Height of housing and urban style not in keeping with fen edge location and neighbouring settlements. Would be very disappointed if house styles matched those seen in the proximity of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.
Retention of Village identity:
The existing Waterbeach Community is likely to integrate better with the new community if it feels it's own identity is not under threat. Please provide a clearer physical divide (in the form of green space) between the existing development and the new all he way along the southern boundary. This could be set in from the land boundary towards the south eastern side to allow for existing housing on the former barracks area. It will also strengthen the bounds circlular amenity route.
Independent identity for the New Town:
It will feel less like the new town is going to swallow up the village if you give it it's own name and stop calling it 'waterbeach new town'. The two should be able to function independently and sit happily side by side.

Object

Representation ID: 167453

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: Mrs Janet Richmond

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Against relocation of the train station as it would leave the existing village with little public transport as the bus service is inadequate and expensive.

If a new station was built for the new town this shouldn't be a) until a significant number of houses have been built and walking/cycling routes are in place and b) in addition to the existing station.