Figure 16: Existing building heights

Object

Representation ID: 31068

Received: 19/07/2016

Respondent: Historic England

Figure 16 Why is the library shown as four storey when, according to paragraph 2.2.20 and also the photograph at figure 6, it should be shown as tall single storey?

Support

Representation ID: 31097

Received: 22/07/2016

Respondent: Ms Vera Schuster Beesley

No taller development please than 2-3 storeys and 3-4 storeys.

Object

Representation ID: 31199

Received: 22/07/2016

Respondent: Cambridge GRT Solidarity Network

The draft SPD's assessment of context is flawed, and so wrong in very significant respects that it invalidates the whole draft SPD in its present form:

Building heights (fig 16 and 2.2.20-21): the assessment is completely wrong and completely misrepresentative:

(i) The text fails to mention that almost all buildings in the area are of traditional form with pitched roof construction. What is key to the character of the area is not just total building height (i.e. to the ridge), but the height to the eaves. In the street scene, attic storeys (dormers and gables) within traditional pitched roofs are subsidiary to eaves heights (as is demonstrated by the photos in fig 21). Yet the text in 2.2.20-21 overlooks this.
(ii) Fig 16 compounds this problem by falsely claiming that the context includes a significant number of 3 and 4 storey buildings.