2. Site Context

Object

Representation ID: 168085

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Alan Everitt

2.4 ACCESS, MOVEMENT & CONNECTIVITY

SPD does not explore direct grade access to A428 from new village as no strategic case for this requirement has been made. Obvious requirement. Is this an invitation that such a case should be made?
Direct connection to A428 is essential. Rural minor roads providing access to east and west are not built to take traffic from development of 3500 dwellings. Comparisons can be drawn with Cambourne, an identical development; could not function without direct connection to A428 and has escape route to south and A1198. No southern access from Bourn Airfield - all traffic onto St Neots Road. SPD states "marginal room" to do so. Countryside have stated they would pay if Highways England dropped their principles. Multiple locations where Highways England principle not been applied including J13 and J14 of M11.
Expected to see statement in SPD that ensures realistic traffic calculations with evidence put forward and risks examined. This should be embedded in Transport Statements and Travel Plans. Countryside calculations expect only 14 vehicles from development to St Neots Road, Hardwick, which we currently measure 3500 to 4000 vehicles a day. Alternative is implication that traffic estimates might be stated to "reverse into" decision to avoid direct connection to A428 which must be dismissed with evidence of course.

Comment

Representation ID: 168107

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: DB Group (Holdings) LTD

Agent: Carter Jonas

2.2 OWNERSHIP

DB Group confirms their intention to continue operating from their existing site at Bourn Airfield. The proposed development of Bourn Airfield New Village must therefore ensure that full account is taken of the existing operations at the site and that future development will not hamper their expansion plans.

Comment

Representation ID: 168109

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: DB Group (Holdings) LTD

Agent: Carter Jonas

2.3 SITE FEATURES AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT

The description of the established employment area at section 2.3 should be expanded upon to include a full description of DB Group's operations. Given their industrial nature, this is essential to ensure the future development that comes forward surrounding the site is appropriate.

Support

Representation ID: 168110

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: DB Group (Holdings) LTD

Agent: Carter Jonas

2.9 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS - FIGURE 21 KEY CONSTRAINTS

It is essential that the proposed Bourn Airfield New Village takes full account of DB Group's existing operations and will not hamper future expansion plans. This will require particular consideration being given to adequate distance separation from noise sources, site and building layout / orientation, provision of acoustic barriers as deemed necessary (to be provided at the developer's expense) as a result of detailed assessments in accordance with the PPG.

Object

Representation ID: 168123

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Paul Beskeen

FIX A MAIN POINTS OF ACCESS AND PRIMARY STREET/ 2.4 ACCESS, MOVEMENT AND CONNECTIVITY

The settlement needs direct access to the A428 and should NOT have direct access to the Broadway.

Object

Representation ID: 168132

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Mrs Ann Griffiths

2.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

What is the provision for health services? There does not appear to be anything about this in the leaflet. When Bourn Airfield was proposed a GP surgery and provision for the elderly were highlighted. A GP surgery is essential given the pressure on current provision, already struggling, in the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 168135

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Cambourne Town Council

2.3 SITE FEATURES AND SURROUNDING CONTEXT - FIGURE 7, PAGE 13

Number 3 on Figure 7 should be Cambourne Town Village Centre and Supermarket.

Comment

Representation ID: 168136

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Cambourne Town Council

2.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

PAGE 21, FIGURE 19 SURROUNDING FACILITIES AND SERVICES

Figure 19 misses Upper Cambourne Co-Op from under other retail.

Comment

Representation ID: 168137

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Cambourne Town Council

2.1 THE SITE AND ITS LOCATION - PAGE 11

On Page 11, Cambourne is not a settlement, it is a town, and is the first Town in South Cambridgeshire.

Comment

Representation ID: 168138

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Cambourne Town Council

2.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES - PAGE 20

In the education section, check the measurements. In the Draft SPD Cambourne Village College is stated as less than 4.8km from the site - it is more like 2.5 km or 3km by footpath.

Comment

Representation ID: 168139

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Cambourne Town Council

2.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

There is a concern that the Monkfield Medical Practice cannot be extended to take the Bourn Airfield development as it is already being extended to take the 2350 extra dwellings in West Cambourne. Taking the Catchment in Cambourne to 6,874 dwellings and approximately 19,000 population, with Bourn Airfield this could rise to 9,800 dwellings and a population of approximately 28, 800.

Comment

Representation ID: 168140

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Cambourne Town Council

2.8 COMMUNNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

In the Sports and Leisure Facilities paragraph on Page 20, the SPD mentions Cambourne Sports and Social Club. This is a business that has ceased to trade and the building is called Cambourne Sports Pavilion.

Comment

Representation ID: 168141

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Cambourne Town Council

2.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

The Town Council are pleased to see reference in the vision statement on Page 20 to "a range of facilities and services to complement, not compete with, existing local provision". This is an important recognition of the need for the new village not to compete with existing provision in Cambourne. The Town Council considers that this statement does not go far enough and should give reference to Bourn Airfield forming a distinct village within the wider town of Cambourne.

Support

Representation ID: 168142

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Cambourne Town Council

2.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

We indicate our strong support for the statement "the new settlement should provide complementary facilities to serve its residents rather than competing and should help to support the wider existing offer"

Object

Representation ID: 168157

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Mrs Pauline Joslin

2.4 ACCESS, MOVEMENT AND CONNECTIVITY/ 1D MANAGING PRIVATE AND SERVICE VEHICLES

A428 provides the main route into Cambridge - there needs to be an independent access from Bourn Airfield onto the A428 to alleviate excessive traffic movements along the St Neots Road and through neighbouring villages. A new connection for the A428 to the M11 at Girton is essential feeding traffic both South and North to main places of employment. Only one third of the traffic heading east on the Madingley Road travels into Cambridge for work, the remaining two thirds use their cars to go South. Has a traffic count been carried out at junction13 (M11). Bourn Airfield residents will use their cars to shop, transport their families, the elderly and disabled, which means the very low anticipated traffic movements are wrong. We expect excessive traffic movements on St Neots Road, Hardwick meaning more noise and increased carbon emissions.

There is a contradictory statement on page 37 (no Access onto A428) and page 15 (maybe access available), which needs clarification. More traffic will be generated by the new P & R, environmental issues noise, 24hrs illumination, light pollution.

How can it be environmentally acceptable the removal of our green belt of trees next to the A428 to provide an express new busway, buses travelling in excess of 55mph. In the SPD it stipulates that the busway should have a 50M-100M barrier to be maintained to reduce noise and improve air quality. Hardwick is village with 2400 residents, the St Neots Road is a village road not a motorway.

Support

Representation ID: 168158

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Natural England

2.5 LANDSCAPE, ECOLOGY AND WATER

We welcome amendments in section 2.5 of the SPD to address our previous advice. This includes acknowledgement of the presence of a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) within 5 km of the site boundary and a requirement to consider impacts to designated sites beyond the site boundary.

Comment

Representation ID: 168166

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Aitchison Developments Ltd. on behalf of Savills Investment Management

Agent: Neame Sutton Ltd

Whilst the existing employment site is identified within the overall site context, the SPD is silent on the fact that the site benefits from an extant permission (S/1020/13/FL), which was granted in December 2013 for the demolition and replacement buildings to provide B1, B2 and B8 uses. This permission granted a total of 17,723 sqm (190,768sqft) floorspace, comprising 16,850 sqm of B2 general industrial floorspace and 873sqm of ancillary B1 Offices. This should be acknowledged within the Site Context section of the SPD.

Comment

Representation ID: 168191

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Dr Tumi Hawkins

2.4 ACCESS, MOVEMENT AND CONNECTIVITY

One of the main reasons for the sustained objections to the allocation of Bourn Airfield was the projected impact of traffic on local roads.

Q1 Who is responsible for making the case for the direct grade access to the A428? Q2 Why was the case not made?
Q3 If an attempt was made to make the case, what data was used and what was the outcome?

Furthermore the SPD states:
'In addition, in line with current design standards, Highways England have outlined there is marginal room for a new junction and junctions which are spaces too closely to create unnecessary weaving with traffic changing lanes raising greater safety risks and increased congestion'

No doubt Highways England would say that as it absolves them of the responsibility to fund a new junction. There is room, though marginal, therefore the possibility exists and must not be ruled out. Furthermore, there are numerous examples of junctions that have been built with the sort of distances being discussed here.

Recommendations:
The Council should investigate the option of direct access to A428 further with its strategic partners especially with the data that has already been made available by the Coalition of Parish Councils and StopBAD on traffic calculations.

The modelling done by County Highways MUST also be properly investigated and debated.

Object

Representation ID: 168216

Received: 28/07/2019

Respondent: Hardwick Parish Council

2.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

The other main topic discussed was the lack of a medical centre on the settlement and the possible reliance on Cambourne to provide the facilities; this makes no sense as it would mean car owners would have to drive there, and residents without transport would have to walk to the north side of the site to get public transport to Cambourne.

We thought the idea was to get people out of their cars, but this would just increase traffic movements throughout the day.

Although some residents objected to the use of traffic calming because of possible queues, and more pollution, and difficulty getting in and out of drives and onto junctions, it is part of the developers plan to mitigate problems if they arise.

This particularly concerns rat runs through the surrounding villages and these will be monitored and traffic calming considered.

If there is no agreement on a junction on to the A428, then there should be a traffic management/ restriction on the A1303 from Bourn Broadway to the Madingley Mulch roundabout.
The developers need to make sure traffic is monitored, and a base line established before development so comparisons can be accurately made.

Object

Representation ID: 168218

Received: 26/07/2019

Respondent: Ms Elaine Miles

2.4 ACCESS, MOVEMENT AND CONNECTIVITY

- Failure by planners to have egress and exit from village to A428. This will force commuters to use local B roads increasing congestion, pollution, noise to surrounding villages and negatively impacting on health and quality of life of residents.
- Planners aware of this increase in traffic locally as planning for future road calming measures - must be forced to do proper planning of future congestion problems, now, by building connections to A428.
- Planners put forward comments from Highways regarding proximity of egress and exits to Cambourne and Hardwick. This is not a consideration in other developments, e.g. on A14 Dry Drayton/Bar Hill/Lolworth, A1 Buckden/Stirtloe.

Comment

Representation ID: 168222

Received: 26/07/2019

Respondent: Highways England

2.4 ACCESS, MOVEMENT & CONNECTIVITY

1. For A1307, read A1303

2. In line with the Government's Road Investment Strategy, Highways England are developing plans to dual the section of A428 between Black Cat and Caxton Gibbet. Because of its size, it is categorised as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and accordingly the scheme will be submitted for planning consent to the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport. Before a Development Consent Order is submitted, the local community and other stakeholders must be formally consulted on the proposals for the scheme and the likely significant environmental. This consultation is taking place in summer 2019.

3. 'The SPD does not explore a direct, grade access to the A428 from the new village as no strategic case for this requirement has been made'

Highways England supports this position. The case for providing a direct access onto the Strategic Road Network is based on policy, need and deliverability. Policy is set out in DfT Circular 02/2013 The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development.

The policy states proposals for the creation of new junctions or direct means of access may be identified and developed at the plan-making stage in circumstances where it can be established that such new infrastructure is essential for the delivery of strategic planned growth.

Policy also requires consideration of the standard of road. For motorways and routes of near motorway standard development access is limited to the use of existing junctions with all-purpose roads. Modifications to existing junctions will be agreed where these do not have an adverse impact on traffic flows and safety. In line with the standards contained in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, for safety and operational reasons, direct connections to slip roads and/or connector roads will not be permitted. For other roads there is a graduated approach.

The A428 is part of the Cambridge to Oxford expressway which has a high status, and therefore in line with policy there is a presumption against a new junction at this location. This position needs to be balanced with strategic need, and whilst within the context of the local plan, Bourn Airfield New Village can be considered as a strategic site, its wider strategic importance is more limited. Consequently, the case for a new junction is not made.

In parallel to the development of the SPD, developers have submitted an outline planning application for residential and associated development for the site. Highways England as reviewed the transport modelling submitted in support of the development proposals and is broadly content with its findings which indicate that from a capacity perspective, subject to some modification, the local road network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the forecast impact from the development. Given that the local road connects with the A428 both east and west of the site, the evidence shows on capacity grounds there is no need for direct access with the A428.

On a final consideration, in line with current design standards, Highways England considers it is marginal that there is sufficient room for a new junction between the existing A428 junctions. Even if it were feasible, where junctions are spaced too closely it creates unnecessary weaving with traffic changing lanes raising greater safety risks and increased congestion, which reduces overall capacity.

In conclusion, the case for a new junction is not made, and so Highways England supports the position set out in the SPD.

4. Highways England welcomes the emphasis placed in the SPD to provide a well connected community with policies to encourage modal shift and take up of public transport. Highlighting the opportunities for strategic walking and cycling connections and connections with the proposed Cambourne to Cambridge High Quality public corridor will help to contribute to ensuring that the Strategic Road Network has sufficient capacity to provide for longer distance movements and connectivity from this and other communities along the corridor.

Comment

Representation ID: 168224

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: British Horse Society

2.4 ACCESS, MOVEMENT & CONNECTIVITY

Active Travel (Cycling and Walking)

Active Travel includes horse riding therefore 'horse riding' should also be included in the heading. This will help to ensure that equestrianism is included throughout the section on Access. Equestrians should not be excluded from the long distance routes proposed by the GCP.

The bridleways noted on this diagram should be clearly marked as being for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. This development provides the opportunity to create a Restricted Byway network rather than simply a bridleway network, creating access for carriage drivers. There is a lack of access for carriage drivers not only in Cambridgeshire but throughout the UK.

Object

Representation ID: 168229

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: David Price

2.4 ACCESS, MOVEMENT AND CONNECTIVITY

The scale of the proposed development will result in rat-run traffic blighting nearby villages. Knapwell already suffers more traffic at peak times than it can cope with, and there have been several serious recent accidents. The obvious solution to this is to insist that Bourn Airfield has its own access directly to the A428.

Comment

Representation ID: 168243

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

2.4 ACCESS, MOVEMENT & CONNECTIVITY

Access, Movement and Connectivity - Cycle connection improvements need to link to Cambourne, Caldecote and Bourn village properly not just to the Broadway and Highfields Road as there is not suitable cycle infrastructure connecting these villages currently.

Figure 8 - Three existing vehicular accesses to the site are shown on the western edge in Figure 8. It should be made very clear in the SPD that only the most northerly access will access the whole site. The other two are just for the existing employment sites and will remain this way in perpetuity and at no point will be opened up as another access onto the Broadway for all vehicles as a through route or to access the rest of the development site.

Figure 8 - This also needs to show cycle links to Bourn and Caldecote as well as Cambourne.

Comment

Representation ID: 168248

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

2.4 ACCESS, MOVEMENT & CONNECTIVITY

The SPD states that no access is required directly onto the A428. The County Council queried this with the developer and the developer made subsequent enquires with Highways England. Our understanding is that Highways England do not require this and have stated that a new access would not be desirable in policy or engineering terms.

Comment

Representation ID: 168249

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

2.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES - EDUCATION

The proposals for the provision of education facilities within the new village, i.e. 2 primary schools up to 7 forms of entry and a secondary school (6 forms of entry), meets the County Council's requirements and is therefore supported.

Comment

Representation ID: 168250

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

2.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES - SPORTS AND LEISURE FACILITIES

The County Council has historically supported integration of education facilities into the communities that they serve. In that respect there is support, in principle, for the shared and dual use of sports facilities however it is recognised in the SPD that this will be subject to the developer securing the necessary agreements to deliver the school facilities to the community.

It should be noted however that whilst the Council supports the principle, actual delivery will largely be dependent on securing agreement with the school operator. Whilst the Council can seek to influence this it is ultimately out of its control. Therefore until an operator is selected and there is certainty that shared use can be delivered it is advised that the LPA maintains a fall-back position to ensure that its sport and playing field standards are met.

Comment

Representation ID: 168254

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

2.9 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

The SPD's Fig 21 Key Constraints maps the WRC and the Safeguarding Area which extends 400 metres around the works. It would helpful for the SPD to note that any proposed development in this Safeguarding Area would be subject to Policy CS31 referred to above (or any successor policy as the new Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Local Plan is due to be adopted at the end of 2020, and has a comparable policy emerging).

Comment

Representation ID: 168262

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

2.4 ACCESS, MOVEMENT AND CONNECTIVITY

The commitment to explore the opportunities to create stronger linkages with Cambourne via the PROW network is welcomed, but there needs to be greater detail on which routes are suitable, which routes will need to be upgraded and any proposals to reclassify the designation of a PROW e.g. BOAT, Bridleway, Cycleway, Foot path etc. in order to ensure current provision is not adversely affected.

Comment

Representation ID: 168263

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

2.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

The Statements on Page 21 regarding the current provision of Health Facilities, whilst correct may be too specific for the SPD. I.e. it is likely that an offsite facility for "health services" is required, and is likely to be at the Monkfield Practice, and should be mitigated by the development, the precise location of such a facility is not known at this stage and further guidance should be sought from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group.