4. Spatial Framework

Object

Representation ID: 167783

Received: 09/07/2019

Respondent: Mr Marc Zwierzanski

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN
Movement of the bus stop from close to the Childerley roundabout and towards Cambourne will be a huge blow to Highfields residents. Access to the existing bus stop is already dangerous, without any increased traffic accessing the airfield site, however the bus stop is close enough to allow Highfields residents to benefit from bus services.
Moving the bus stop away from Highfields will essentially force many Highfields residents to use cars even more often which is opposite to any current trends to move away from this trend.

Comment

Representation ID: 167914

Received: 21/07/2019

Respondent: Mr Mark Stewart

Maps, e.g. Fig 20 & Fig 22, should be updated to be consistent with Caldecote Village SPD. In particular locations of connecting pathways and valued views.

Support

Representation ID: 167990

Received: 24/07/2019

Respondent: Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire & Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN

The Wildlife Trust supports the overall spatial framework for the Bourn Airfield development as set out in the SPD. The strategic landscape areas to the south identified as a country park will be essential to delivering biodiversity net gain and providing an accessible and strategic natural greenspace for the new residents.

Object

Representation ID: 168019

Received: 25/07/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Ashton

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.

Object

Representation ID: 168060

Received: 28/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridge Cycling Campaign

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN

(a) one of HQPT stops is peripheral and far away from homes; route needs to be more central with stops closer to houses.

(b) primary road runs through most densely populated parts, guaranteeing maximum number of people will suffer from exposure to pollution and road danger caused by cars and village centre will be car dominated because primary road runs through it; swap road alignment with HQPT so village centre and houses are only served by secondary non-through routes.

(c) cycling network is too peripheral and doesn't appear to be well-connected to the interior of site; dense grid of closely spaced routes should criss cross site to be pervasive, direct and convenient.

Comment

Representation ID: 168111

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: DB Group (Holdings) LTD

Agent: Carter Jonas

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN - FIG 22

As this Spatial Framework Plan will guide development coming forward within Bourn Airfield New Village it is essential that the Spatial Framework Plan 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 in accordance with the PPG.

Comment

Representation ID: 168144

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Cambourne Town Council

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN

Cambourne Town Council is still concerned regarding the route of the HQPT. The stops are a long way from a lot of the houses and it means that the village centre is pushed towards Cambourne and will not be central to the new community.

Comment

Representation ID: 168145

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Cambourne Town Council

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN

The landscape buffer to Broadway is minimal. This is okay to the northwest where Cambourne is also close to the Broadway, but southwestern parcel shown close to the road should be moved back. Page 52 states that 'consideration of the existing country lane character of Broadway, and the potential value of retaining this' is needed, however, the current buffer doesn't look to achieve this.

Support

Representation ID: 168159

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Natural England

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN

As previously indicate, we welcome that the Spatial Framework Plan proposes a network of multifunctional green and blue spaces, with Strategic Landscape Areas including possible country park to the south, to improve local links and delivery of biodiversity and hydrological benefits. We are also supportive of requirements for cycle and footpath links to Cambourne, Highfields, Caldecote and Bourn.

Support

Representation ID: 168177

Received: 29/07/2019

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

Agent: Neame Sutton Ltd

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN

We support the identification of the existing employment site as providing future employment within the Spatial Framework, and in particular the need for the new village to maintain a direct access to the strategic highway network to/from the employment site.

However, it is noted under Section 5: Creating the Place that there are a number of spatial fixes, one of which, Fix A, is to provide a "primary street" linking the main access points. This primary street must "serve the village centre and provide direct vehicle access to the existing employment site." (page 38).

This is supported and is of vital importance to the success of the employment redevelopment proposal. However, the Spatial Framework (Fig. 22 on page 31) has in error annotated the access to the existing employment site as a secondary street and not a primary street.

This should be amended to reflect Fix A and show the existing employment site being served by the primary street.

Comment

Representation ID: 168208

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK

Comparison of SPD Spatial Framework and Countryside's application - areas of difference:

1. HQPT alignment (moved eastwards). Secondary school building will not end vista from Runway Park.
2. Broadway access located within land outside applicant's control.
3. HQPT stop located in proximity to primary network junction, which would be difficult to achieve.
4. Local Centre located away from HQPT stop and would not benefit from footfall.
5. Formal sports provision split within four sites which improves catchment but will result in management issues and reduced changing/parking facilities.
6. Primary road network different alignment.
7. Green corridor follows different alignment. More direct pedestrian/cycle routes along it would be beneficial.
8. Additional green link shown.
9. Consistent runway corridor width.
10. Significant additional Country Park Area shown.
11. Country Park area outside applicant's control.
12. Primary school does not create an important event and focal element along primary route.
13. HQPT alignment discounts options running through St Neots roundabout.
14. HQPT stop moved westwards in front of existing DB Group cement manufacturing facility which would create poor gateway experience.
15. Mixed uses such as hotel might benefit from being closer to St. Neots roundabout. Primary road alignment slightly different.
16. Larger formal sports provision more appropriate along A120 corridor. Formal sports provision split within four sites, which improves catchment but will result in management issues and reduced changing/parking facilities.
17. Pedestrian cycle link through Aitchison employment area lies outside applicant's control.
18. DOS7 green corridor was located along existing ditch and part of drainage strategy. SFP alignment arbitrary.
19. Formal sports provision split within four sites which improves catchment but will result in management issues and reduced changing/parking facilities.
20. Additional primary road link.
21. Primary road alignment along woodland edge would impact adversely on Wildlife site.
22. Larger primary school site is shown providing an additional form of entry.
23. Significant additional Country Park Area shown.

Comment

Representation ID: 168209

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK - NORTH EAST CORNER

Spatial Framework Diagram excludes any indicative development within the MDS in north-east gateway into site. MDS as defined on the Local Plan Policies Map Inset I allocates development in this area. Local Plan process tested this proposal and it was found sound. No reasons are given in SPD to justify why no development is shown. SPD should be in conformity with adopted Local Plan and as such should be amended to reflect the MDS.

Particularly important to create a sense of arrival into new village by a combination of built form within an appropriate landscape-led setting. Appropriate forms of development in this gateway will create critical mass to enhance viability for HQPT. It should also be shown for mixed use to allow for hotel or retail/café to come forward to support HQPT halt. For design flexibility, diagram should be revised to accord with the extent of MDS as shown on Adopted Policies Map. Our design document shows how this could be achieved whilst supporting the aim for that space to remain open.

Comment

Representation ID: 168210

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK - WESTERN ACCESS

SPD has considered the alignment of western access from the Broadway into Bourn Airfield. Spatial Framework Diagram indicates a road that curves beyond land under CP control and SPD boundary. Reason for this is explained by Fix A (1) (page 38). CP considers SPD Diagram and words should be revised to provide greater flexibility for delivery - in particular remove words "(subject to availability of third party land)" as they add confusion by stating that other land may be available, which is not certain.

CP planning application includes detailed proposals to conform with Policy SS/7, which can be delivered within land under its control or the Highway Authority. Although it may be possible in future to provide another design option that involves land owned by another party, there is uncertainty as to when and if additional land can be made available. Without certainty as to whether other land or design options are deliverable, the words above should be deleted. Any potential to consider an alternative design option should be a matter for consideration of planning application and s106 agreement, which could secure an alternative option if land becomes available. SPD should set out principles not detailed prescription.

Notwithstanding, the design appendix provides further explanation as to how Countryside have sought to review the access proposals in this location in light of the SPD to seek to achieve the aspirations of the SPD but within land under its control.

Comment

Representation ID: 168211

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK - VILLAGE CENTRE

Village centre appears to be located slightly south of CP proposed centre, as shown on the Illustrative Masterplan and Parameter Plans. Understood this is in response to stakeholders' feedback during drafting the SPD, advocating a more centrally located village centre. Key issue is that the centre needs to relate to route and western stop of the High Quality Public Transport corridor and location of secondary school.

The centre should not only be located in most convenient and accessible location to all new residents, but in a position where sufficient economies of scale can be created to optimize its viability and opportunities for community interaction and cohesion. In this latter regard, CP propose a revision to show mixed use in north-western corner of site.

Support principles of co-location of village centre with runway bus halt and secondary school as set out in SPD. Important for village centre to be delivered west of a central location in order to provide for: early delivery, thus removing the need for transitional and temporary uses, encourage community cohesion with a hub clustered around activity rather than arbitrarily in centre, and enhance commercial viability. Bus halt is a fix, following consultation under a separate process from both SPD and planning application, and location on the Spatial Framework Diagram appears to have moved.

CP are broadly content with slightly revised indicative location in Framework Diagram, subject to minor amendments proposed in appended design document.

Comment

Representation ID: 168212

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK - OUTDOOR SPORTS

CP understand merits in distribution of outdoor sport across site in respect of phasing of delivery, sustainability, accessibility to facilities across site and for variety of uses to be provided. Sound reasons not to distribute the outdoor sports - benefits of clustering in respect of future maintenance, deliver a better quality of pavilion facilities to serve them which enhances potential use for non-sports activities, more efficient land use for residential development. Propose an alternative design solution:

* Expansion of Broadway Fields for efficiency and improved village edge;
* Expansion of northern formal sports pitch provision to form central focus and utilise enhanced facilities;
* Eastern edge of development set back from Highfields Caldecote, in a more linear form, to create an increased length with a greater set back between two settlements;
* Informal kickabout areas in North East gateway to enhance integration of two communities whilst maintaining separation;
* Country Park increased in size with expansion of existing Highfields Caldecote recreation ground.

Planning application was designed on basis of Education Authority being supportive of dual use, as had been previously agreed through extensive pre-application process. Continuing discussions. Pending agreement on dual use at secondary school, suggest this be shown hatched to denote that they are an 'either/or' provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 168213

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK - COUNTRY PARK

SPD shows areas beyond Countryside's control and outside of the landownership of the Taylor family who currently own and farm the land. This includes land at the south of the site which is shown to be strategic landscape/country park within the SPD Framework Diagram. Given landownership constraints it is not possible for the full area shown in the SPD, and Local Plan, to be delivered by CP. However, CP do propose amendments to extend the Country Park to provide generous lateral connections, within forthcoming revisions to the outline planning application. This will enhance connections to the adjoining settlements and the existing PRoW network. Further detail is set out in the appended design - related document.

Comment

Representation ID: 168251

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN

At the earlier stages of the SPD preparation the County Council responded from an education perspective to the three spatial options for Bourn Airfield SPD. Whilst Option A was ultimately adopted by the draft SPD, the County Council's preference in terms of education was Option B which brought the spine road further into the site with the effect of re-locating the secondary school and primary school south of the spine road. The Council's response stated "This option (B) seems to provide a good balance between accessible links within the site for pupils and external links for staff. The A428 is further away and therefore the noise and air quality impacts would be much less severe than Option A. This option responds better to the issues raised by the Council's earlier submission to the planning application consultation".

In respect to Option A, the Council's concerns relating to noise and air quality impacts from the adjacent A428 dual carriageway remain and therefore is not the optimum location for schools within the development. Option A could only be considered acceptable if the environmental concerns could be adequately addressed.

It is acknowledged that Option A is the preferred option for the SPD and the reason for this is set out in the Consultation Statement. This states "area there will be significant landscaping which may be bunded to reduce the visual, noise and air quality impacts of the A428. Advice from air quality and noise experts within the Council have suggested the impacts of the road could be mitigated by the detailed orientation and design of the buildings, in addition to the delivery of a significant landscape belt".

Comment

Representation ID: 168255

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN

Section 4.2 sets out the Spatial Framework and indicative uses. The uses in the Safeguarding Area which surrounds the Bourn Water Recycling Centre (WRC) includes strategic landscape which is acceptable. However, there also seems to be an area that is not defined in the key (pale green horizontal hatching), it would be helpful if this was identified so that a view can be taken as to whether this is compatible with the WRC.

Comment

Representation ID: 168259

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN

In the Spatial Framework Plan (4.2 of the SPD) it suggests the north-south runway as a focus for the green corridor. The north-east to south-west runway is of greater significance to the military use of the site as this would have been the main runway under prevailing weather conditions. We suggest that consideration should be given to this feature in terms of the site's heritage.

Object

Representation ID: 168276

Received: 25/07/2019

Respondent: Mrs Helen Strutt

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN

Locating the village 'centre' in the North West corner of the airfield provides an inherent Broadway-biased emphasis, which will naturally bias traffic movement to this area of the development, and therefore the Broadway itself. Already highlighted as a traffic concern. Village centre should as a minimum be relocated to the centre of the Airfield, or more preferably to the East side to reflect the stated intent of the plan to 'minimise rat-running through villages' immediately south (Bourn) and North (Knapwell), and bias traffic movements to Highfields exit.

Comment

Representation ID: 168281

Received: 01/08/2019

Respondent: Greater Cambridge Partnership

We are supportive in principle of the proposed route alignment as shown within the SPD, which is consistent with discussions we have had to date with SCDC and Countryside. In addition, we note the provision as shown in the SPD for a segregated route for the C2C route that avoids the Bourn roundabout at the entrance to the development. The detail of this is consistent with one of the three options for C2C which are currently being progressed, and can be further developed as part of discussions between the parties.

Object

Representation ID: 168289

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Ben Strutt

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN

Locating the village 'centre' in the North West corner of the airfield provides an inherent Broadway-biased emphasis, which will naturally bias traffic movement to this area of the development, and therefore the Broadway itself. Already highlighted as a traffic concern. Village centre should as a minimum be relocated to the centre of the Airfield, or more preferably to the East side to reflect the stated intent of the plan to 'minimise rat-running through villages' immediately south (Bourn) and North (Knapwell), and bias traffic movements to Highfields exit.

Object

Representation ID: 168296

Received: 25/07/2019

Respondent: Knapwell Parish Meeting

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK PLAN

Locating the village 'centre' in the North West corner of the airfield provides an inherent Broadway-biased emphasis, which will naturally bias traffic movement to this area of the development, and therefore the Broadway itself. Already highlighted as a traffic concern. Village centre should as a minimum be relocated to the centre of the Airfield, or more preferably to the East side to reflect the stated intent of the plan to 'minimise rat-running through villages' immediately south (Bourn) and North (Knapwell), and bias traffic movements to Highfields exit.

Comment

Representation ID: 168311

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4.2 SPATIAL FRAMEWORK - NORTH WEST CORNER

CP is concerned that the Spatial Framework Diagram proposes solely residential use in the NW corner of the site adjacent to the expressway and Village Centre. CP considers that the Diagram should be revised to include this area as mixed use and the document to include a list of the potential uses that would be acceptable, e.g. A1, A2, A3, A4, B1 (a)(b), C1, C2, C3, D1, D2. Such uses will be complementary to the Village Centre and provide variety, flexibility and opportunities for community cohesion/interaction.

Comment

Representation ID: 168312

Received: 29/07/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

4. SPATIAL FRAMEWORK

CP generally support the overall content, weight and balance of Executive Summary on pages i-iii. This includes the six strategic objectives and the main purpose of the document as effectively set out in the statement on page ii : "The Spatial Framework which is set out in a plan establishes the broad structure for development of the new village along with the indicative positions of key land uses, primary movement, and green and blue infrastructure. The Framework is supported by a series of guiding principles and spatial fixes, which are key to the delivery of a successful place."

CP support that SPD should establish the broad structure and indicative positions of key components of Spatial Framework. However CP object to the word "plan", which should be replaced by "diagram". Inconsistency within the document as in 4.1, final paragraph refers to
"Spatial Framework Diagram".

This is fully supported, yet heading to Section 4.2 is entitled 'Spatial Framework Plan'.
Additionally, a footnote on page 30 states that framework plan is illustrative and should not be used for measuring areas.

Waterbeach SPD consistently describes Spatial Framework as a diagram. Therefore, for consistency and clarity Bourn Airfield should use same terminology. 'Spatial Framework Diagram', which is a more accurate description of its form of presentation, should be used throughout SPD instead of 'plan' which has a wider range of interpretations.