5. Creating the Place - Section 3: Locally Distinctive

Medium and high density housing should remain away from the site perimeter. A large hotel at the mail entrance would be the same as Cambourne and so the sites would actually be very similar. This is something to be avoided if an independent identity is a 'real' consideration.
Screening of a hotel complex from Highfields is important so as not to detract from the existing village outlook.

3E needs more details of the general character of the country park and design approach. Large bland areas of open flat grass should be avoided. Instead the space should be broken up/punctuated with native trees, bushes and wildflower meadows in a way which complements the natural views. E.g. more like Wimpole Country Estate and not like Trumpington Meadows Country Park.

The Wildlife Trust supports Fix F Green Wedges & Corridors, as they provide an integrated green infrastructure network through and around the development site, that will provide a range of walking and recreational routes on-site that have the potential to meet much of the demand for recreational routes, without impacting other nearby more sensitive habitats and sites. This is however is likely to be contingent on delivery of a country park type space within the strategic landscape area to the south..

4B Access to natural environments
We support the references to bridleway creation in woodland settings set out in this
section although it appears to conflict with comments referred to in other sections.

Fix G Recreational walking, cycling and horse riding routes
We appreciate the creation and inclusion of equestrian routes in this section but do no understand the need for separate walking and cycling routes where there is a bridleway which is available to all users?

Fig. 47 | Recreational walking, cycling and horse riding
We support this proposed scheme although as previously stated, we would like to see the inclusion of a circular Restrict Byway open to carriage drivers. Whilst we appreciate that this might be of concern, it would be a bold and progressive step in much the same way that the hugely popular Cambourne peripheral bridleway was when it was first constructed.

6 Cohesive, well‐planned and well‐governed
Somewhere in the SPD there should be defined the responsibility and accountability for the maintenance of PROW's and a requirement for them to be maintained to be accessible all
year around.

5. Infrastructure Delivery Plan
Non Motorised User Infrastructure Fig 55
1 Improved walking and cycling network
Refers to riding in the text so horse riding should be included in the first column.
2 Cycleway Improvement
What provision is being made for equestrians on this route?
3 Rights of Way Network
Does not include access for carriage drivers.

6.5 DEVELOPMENT PHASING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY
No reference to the delivery of rights of way network other than cycle and pedestrian routes.

APPENDIX 1: BOURN AIRFIELD LOCAL PLAN POLICY 94 BOURN AIRFIELD NEW VILLAGE | A SPATIAL
FRAMEWORK & INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN | CONSULTATION DRAFT
Policy SS/7: New Village at Bourn Airfield
No reference to the Rights of Way network.

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.

The following comments are in regard to Fix E.

Problem: the diagram shows that the highest density of dwellings is clustered around the primary street. This choice appears to maximise the exposure of people to road danger, pollution and noise. We oppose this arrangement of primary street and dwellings.

Solution: the primary street should be routed to the north, away from where people are living, and the areas of highest density should be served by quiet streets with few cars that are pleasant for walking and cycling. Any car parking facilities (apart from blue badge spaces) should be kept near the relocated primary street, away from dwellings, in order to avoid excessive motor traffic on residential streets where children are playing.

Creating the Place; Fix F, Green Edges and Corridors; 5, Employment Site Edge:

The provision of new or enhanced hedgerow planting buffer between the existing employment site and proposed surrounding development is supported.

The edge to the employment site should also ensure that the proposed surrounding development is sufficiently offset from the existing employment uses to avoid any adverse impacts. The operations and processes which take place on site include the following:
* Sand grading - filtering sand to provide different levels of fineness;
* Production of additives used in concrete mixes - blending of powders from silo storage;
* Warehousing - receipt and dispatch of goods either manufactured or purchased off site for resale.

These uses, in combination, amount to a B2 General Industrial use. The blending and grading process undertaken on site generates external noise, particularly in respect of the extraction system used to reduce material spillage and particles in the air. The site is also serviced by an average of 2 incoming and 3 outgoing HGV movements a day.

It is therefore essential that the employment site edge which comes forward as part of the 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 and the provision of acoustic barriers along this edge as deemed necessary (to be provided at the developer's expense) following detailed assessment in accordance with the PPG.

Creating the Place; Fix F, Green Edges and Corridors; Employment Site Link:

The draft SPD states: "A formal green landscape which creates a legible and direct route through the employment site, providing a link between the eastern HQPT stop/mixed use area and the residential area to the south".

Fig.43, Green Edges and Corridors, illustrates this employment site link. As a result of the scale and detail of this figure the exact route of this corridor is unclear.

In light of the existing industrial operations which take place within this employment area, particularly those of DB Group, it will be essential to ensure that a safe route can be created which ensures that pedestrians and cyclists are separated from vehicular traffic. This is considered to be of particular importance as a result of the HGV movements which are associated with DB Group's existing operations (currently an average of 5 HGV vehicles coming in and out each day - and this will increase with the company's expansion plans). Another consideration is that the precise activities of most companies do change over time as product/markets change and changes in technology dictate that processes need to change to remain competitive and deliver what the customer wants. It is important that DB Group retains flexibility for unfettered access to its site to enable its existing operations, short term future expansion plans and the company's continued long term growth.

The attached note sets out the County Council officer comments on the Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document in response to a consultation by South Cambridgeshire District Council. Whilst local County Members have been made aware of the consultation, this response does not include their comments or considerations or those of the Economy and Environment Committee which will endorse this response at its meeting on 19th September.

This response includes the comments of the following Council services and functions:
- Transport Assessment
- Education
- County Planning Minerals and Waste
- Historic Environment
- Local Lead Flood Authority
- Public Health