2. Site Context

Site access has not taken in to account the serious consequences of having only 2 access and egress routes. My main concern is the Childerley roundabout which will become the main route for traffic as well as commercial vehicle serving the industrial development. The A428 has been reduced to a single lane at Girton which creates a bottleneck and long quest can already be noted on most mornings heading towards Cambridge. A further 3500 homes will mean possibly 7000 cars and a large proportion will contribute to further congestion. The old A428 up to the roundabout was never intended to serve this number of vehicles and any traffic issues heading toward Cambridge will mean local villages become rat runs for traffic.

1. There will be around 8,000 dwellings in this area when BAD and all parts of Cambourne are complete -- To have no Park & Ride facility within or immediately adjacent to this number of people is disgraceful and talk of putting such a facility up at Scotland farm -- about 2 miles or more east of the need is completely mad -- a site has been offered right next to the main roundabout into Cambourne - why on earth is it not being preferred to that miles away to which people will not travel and then get out of their own transport.
2. SCDC's own "Overview Committee" on 21st May 2019 had severe reservations about the proposed access/exit from BAD at the west and asked that this be looked into in much greater detail.
-- Mr S Kelly's reasons for not considering this further [National Policy (exactly what policies?) -- GCP proposals for public transport (how will they ease/stop the use of cars to and from the west of this site?) -- SCDC's aspirations for a low carbon future!! All very gebneral and not specific to a very real issue/oproblem likely to greatly affect the village of Bourn.
-- I attended the consultation session in Bourn Community Hall and was told by Mr Stuart Morris that there is no detail available to show to anyone relating to this access/exit point. Why not if it is a matter that the SCDC Councillors have said should be looked into -- presumably in DETAIL; not just in a general way as Mr Kelly has done?
I have seen a reason quoted why this is not possible "as grade separated junctions are very expensive"
-- First what has expense got to do with potentially great danger to life if the access proposed is permitted when Countryside will be making Millions of pounds out of this scheme and the village will benefit not at all only be hugely detrimented by it.
-- Second - there is an huge amount of land on the frontage to the new A.428 -- so plenty of room to have both an "in" from the east and an "out" to the west with VERY long runs parallel to the A.428 -- this will enable people wanting to go east from this development either going out at Childerley Gate or going a short way west to turn at the main Cambourne roundabout?
-- Third three Inspectors have in the past said that NO TRAFFIC SHOULD BE ALLOWED FROM THESE DEVELOPMENTS ONTO THE BROADWAY we have attained that end (except for recent most unwelcome and unsafe builders' traffic) -- PLEASE do not go against those words now.

I am very pleased to see that sustainability, ecology, respect for the existing natural environment, and access to green spaces have been given prominence in the document. Whilst I applaud the aim to encourage the move towards net zero carbon lifestyles, I believe it will require significant incentives from central government to make this happen, and people will still be using their petrol-fuelled cars once the new homes are occupied. It will be too long before families no longer average two cars per house and/or switch to electric vehicles for all travel.

Also, the plans for the proposed new public transport links between Cambourne and Cambridge have a very long way to go before anything is settled, let alone constructed and ready for use, so it is no use relying on these for a long time. Even when thery are in use, past experience locally, including what happened when the bus route between Cambourne and Cambridge lost its initial subsidy, and when parking charges were added, then removed, at the Cambridge Park & Ride sites, indicates to me that only very cheap, if not free public transport will get enough private cars off the road to avoid serious problems with travel delays, polluted air and risks to cyclists and pedestrians om our minor roads.

I consider it essential that the inhabitants of the new village be given direct access to the A428 road as the best way of minimising these problems. My understanding is that plans were drawn up using traffic data gathered prior to the expansion of Cambourne and St Neots, both of which extensions have pushed more traffic onto the already over-loaded roads that run between St Neots and Cambridge, including the local sideroads. Much of the major employment opportunities in this area lie in an arc from north, through west and to the south of the city of Cambridge. In my own experience, commuting to Granta Park from Hardwick, a 25 minutes journey took longer and longer, as traffic got heavier at peak periods, so by the time I retired some three years ago, it was taking the best part of an hour, and I was using the minor local roads to skirt around the bottlenecks, whichb is exactly what other drivers do now, and will continue to do in future. Now, I have to plan appointments and activities such that I avoid having to be on the roads before 10am and during the evening peak period. This is inconvenient enough as it is, and the proposed plans will just make it worse.

Anyone who lives in Hardwick will tell you about the difficulties of getting out of the village to the north, to the junction between Cambridge Road and St Neots Road, which is the route taken by most drivers in and out. I have experienced so many dangerous moments as we have to play "horizontal leapfrog" to work our way along the road past the village shop, with parked cars scattered along the side of the road, and very little visibility to see what is coming. Additional drivers, pushed onto this road by a desire to avoid the hold-ups at the choke points (near Girton, where the A428 traffic is sqeezed into a single lane to join the A14, and on Madingley Road towards the M11 junction 13) can only make this worse.

Bourn Airfield development needs a connection to A428 directly. The present plan, to operate via the Caldecote roundabout is not sufficient and will result in queues at peak times.

Although our parish is outside your district, development of this site would have a profound effect on us, and so thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment.

We are fifteen miles from Cambridge but many residents of Waresley look to Cambridge for work, schools, shopping and leisure. However over the last twenty years, access to Cambridge has become increasingly difficult. We have watched the development of Cambourne and in consequence the unsustainable increase in traffic on the A428, as well as the complete destruction of our own public transport system to Cambridge, in favour of this new development, which was imposed upon us.

Now a further 3500 homes on this route is proposed, in addition to the 10,000 or so already at Cambourne.

My parish councillors all agree that this is untenable without a fast and reliable public transport system between Cambourne and Cambridge. We absolutely oppose any development of Bourn Airfield until such a transport system is up and running. Clearly a simple bus, however frequent, would not suffice, as that would just join the existing line of traffic. This situation will not be resolved until the A428 can connect directly with the M11.

An unforeseen consequence of the Cambourne development was that residents would also be travelling in the opposite direction along the A428 to get to London via the train station at St Neots. This has led to rush hour queues in the westerly direction on the A428 and to a swamping of the St Neots station car park, such that it becomes full at the crack of dawn.

It should be recognised that in this proposed development, some residents will be joining this
westerly stream.

Consequently no development should be permitted until the A428 upgrade is complete. This will not happen until 2025-6 at the earliest.

With regard to the SPD plan, we note in paragraph 1.3.3 "The development of Bourn Airfield should not result in the coalescence of settlements. In particular there should not appear to be a continuous ribbon of development along the A428." We absolutely agree with this laudable sentiment. However, any development of Bourn Airfield will result in precisely this ribbon development on the A428, bordered as it is by Highfields-Caldecote to the east and Cambourne to the West. As Cambourne is planned to extend to the Caxton Gibbet, this will give continuous development along the A428 from the Gibbet to Caldecote -exactly what you say you are trying to avoid.

Development of Bourn Airfield could have been considered as a practical use of a brown field site, but that was before the adjacent green field site of Cambourne was sacrificed to housing development. While the retention of the airstrips at Bourn is to be applauded as some recognition of the original character of the place, this is simply paying lip service to conservation issues - the bottom line is continuous housing along the A428 with continued and increasing traffic congestion.

We oppose this development in the short term until better transport infrastructure both with public transport and the road access system are in place.

I attended the planning consultation in Bourn this week regarding the proposed new town of 3500 houses on the airfield.
This it now seems is going ahead despite overwhelming opposition from residents in the local area and the coalition of Parish Councils who also opposed it.
Firstly, what is the point of these consultations? A paper exercise it seems?

Para 87 of the inspector's report states ;

'We are mindful of the significant levels of opposition to the Bourn Airfield proposal expressed by the local community and others, including fears of coalescence and traffic implications, including local traffic management issues relating to the Broadway. There is a degree of scepticism(you bet!) from the local community about whether their concerns can be adequately addressed. But there is nothing to indicate that these concerns cannot be satisfactorily addressed through the development management process and further guidance provided by SPD'

Really?????

At the consultation I asked why there was no proposed link to the new A428 dual carriageway from the new settlement. I was told that this would create too many junctions on what was going to be a busy route. This is quite frankly insane. So the plan is to send cars from 3500 homes directly onto the Broadway(and a T junction IF they turn right) when there is a recently built dual carriageway on the doorstep?
The environmental cost of traffic moving slowly on minor roads is far worse than that on a fast moving carriageway....how is this justifiable? Not to mention the backlogs that are bound to occur at the junctions coming out of the new town and onto the old St Neots Road.
There are numerous examples of other dual carriageways with junctions at similar frequencies to that which would be created here.
I am sure the cost of such a measure/the space it would take up(less for houses) are far more likely to be the real culprits here, in terms of doing what is obviously the correct thing!

My second major concern is the junction on to the Broadway. No one at the consultation had a clue what this was going to look like or how it was going to operate. You may well be able to prevent cars turning right out of the settlement but how are you going to prevent them from driving through Bourn on the way home and turning right into the new town? Will that T junction onto the St Neots Road remain as a T junction when the volume of cars is realised? Not a chance.... there will need to be a roundabout and cars will go round it and down the Broadway to our beleaguered village.

WE NEED A FULL AND VIGOROUS EXAMINATION INTO THE VIABILITY OF A DIRECT ACCESS FROM BOURN AIRFIELD ON TO THE A428.
In addition we need detailed plans and reassurances about how the Airfield/Broadway junction is going to operate to avoid rat running though our village.

3 Healthy, Active and Resilient Providing for the wellbeing of residents as an integral aspect of the village's fabric. Encouraging walking and cycling as a part of daily life, offering opportunities for physical recreation and social interaction for all, and supporting access to fresh and healthy food choices. Designing spaces that encourage social interaction for all and supporting the residents to
connect and form their own community.

Access to the countryside for all users should be included in this section. It is not included in any of the other Strategic Objectives.

The development must have direct access to the A428 and it's own healthcare facilities.
Without these, the development will have unacceptable negative impact on the surrounding villages and its future residents.

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.

Archaeology
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.

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.

Archaeology
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.

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.

Archaeology
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.

Traffic along St Neots road where I live will be drastically increased.
If the busway also goes ahead the line of mature trees will be removed. These trees are at least 60 years old. This is environmental vandalism, and will destroy our environment here. Trees absorb noise and pollution. Any replanting will have little or no effect for decades.
WE WILL FIGHT YOU ON THIS
DO NOT DESTROY OUR TREES.

A direct link from A428 - M11 is an obvious necessity as part of this scheme.

I feel that the developers have not got a realistic estimate of the vehicles leaving the site it was stated at an open meeting in Hardwick that of the thousand vehicles expected at the BP roundabout and the first Hardwick roundabout only an estimated 7 extra vehicles would be using St Neots Road, I feel that this is a ludicrous under estimate and far more vehicles will use this route into Cambridge causing considerable congestion on St Neots Road and all local roads.This means that it is essential for the development to have its own access onto the A428.
As regards the provision of healthcare, a dedicated centre for the development is needed as the facilities in Cambourne will be at full capacity with the proposed increase of the number of dwellings at the West of Cambourne.
It is also apparent that it is proposed to site the new school is very close to the A428 would this not be a potential problem with particulate pollution from the dual carriageway (the Oxford to Cambridge highway)

At a village meeting at Hardwick, re Bourn airfield, I feel that the developers have given an unrealistic estimate of the number of cars which will be using the site. The minimum number of cars with one per household would be 3,500. The majority of households have two cars giving a total of 7,000 cars onto St Neots Road. This would cause considerable congestion on St Neots Road and all local roads. I feel with this number of cars it is essential for the development to have its own access to the A428 providing a link to the A428 (the Cambridge to Oxford highway) and with the A14, A1, M11 and Cambridge.
I would also like to say that I feel that there is a need for the Girton interchange to be expanded to include a link to the M11. At present to access the M11 south, cars have to go down Madingley Hill which can lead to a delay of over one hour.
Regarding healthcare facilities which are full to capacity in the area the site would require its own to cater for 7,000 people minimum.
Regarding the location of schools on the site I feel they are too near the existing A428 and would be in a high pollution area.
I also feel that the area for local businesses is too small in relation to the number of houses. A lot of people would have to travel from the site each day.

As a resident of nearby Hardwick village I feel very let down by the planning process as regards the impact on our village. Roads into Hardwick will be hugely busy as a result of this development and allowance has not been made for this. A link road to the A428 needs to be included in order to combat this traffic increase. Noise pollution, air pollution, destruction of existing hedgerows that combat these things are planned. Whilst we want to welcome newcomers to the area the result will be simply resentment due to such a huge change in our daily commute.

This new development should have its own medical centre. I have located one short paragraph stating that Monkfield Medical Practice in Cambourne would need to be expanded. For 9,000 new patients!!! Children and young parents need medical attention as well as older residents and proper provision must be provided for them on the new site. You cannot provide thousands of new houses around Cambridgeshire without providing proper infrastructure and medical provision is absolutely essential.

This Context section is the ONLY place where provision of medical facilities for this very large development is mentioned. The implication of the text is that existing facilities in surrounding villages, with some upgrading of the Monkfield practice, will suffice. Given the growing shortage of medical staff to supply existing practices in the coming years, the ongoing financial problems with Addenbrookes, the slow responses of the county ambulance services it seems naive to think that a new community of the proposed size could be adequately served by tweaks to one of the local practices. The development needs its own Practice.