Policy 14: Social, community and cultural Infrastructure

Showing comments and forms 1 to 16 of 16

Object

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 53276

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)

Representation Summary:

The inclusion of Health provision (pending further engagement with health providers) as part of the required on-site social and community infrastructure provision is welcomed. The size of the health facility required will be determined in due course once the vision for healthcare provision has been finalised. However, the developer will be required to gift the land and provide a 'turnkey' solution for this health facility / building to the NHS Cambridge and Peterborough CCG as part of any planning obligation. A period of rent-free tenure for NHS Cambridge and Peterborough CCG should also be negotiated. The NHS Cambridge and Peterborough CCG would welcome the opportunity to engage further with the Greater Cambridge Partnership to discuss the level of need and the timing / phasing of delivery as part of the Plan making and application process.

Full text:

The inclusion of Health provision (pending further engagement with health providers) as part of the required on-site social and community infrastructure provision is welcomed. The size of the health facility required will be determined in due course once the vision for healthcare provision has been finalised. However, the developer will be required to gift the land and provide a 'turnkey' solution for this health facility / building to the NHS Cambridge and Peterborough CCG as part of any planning obligation. A period of rent-free tenure for NHS Cambridge and Peterborough CCG should also be negotiated. The NHS Cambridge and Peterborough CCG would welcome the opportunity to engage further with the Greater Cambridge Partnership to discuss the level of need and the timing / phasing of delivery as part of the Plan making and application process.

Comment

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 53291

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: Old Chesterton Residents' Association

Representation Summary:

The facilities appear to be adequate for indoor activities

Full text:

The facilities appear to be adequate for indoor activities

Object

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 53431

Received: 03/10/2020

Respondent: Fen Ditton Village Society

Representation Summary:

Cowley Road centre appears to have highest density and highest buildings but served by fewer facilities
Where is the secondary school – children grow up?
Little detail on what the “services” are at the Science Park centre – do “services” imply those for vehicular travel? Currently Milton Road jammed with cars.
What guarantees are there that the developments will not become crime-ridden, sterile areas like that at Cambridge Station which was designed to be a similar wonderful mix?

Full text:

Cowley Road centre appears to have highest density and highest buildings but served by fewer facilities
Where is the secondary school – children grow up?
Little detail on what the “services” are at the Science Park centre – do “services” imply those for vehicular travel? Currently Milton Road jammed with cars.
What guarantees are there that the developments will not become crime-ridden, sterile areas like that at Cambridge Station which was designed to be a similar wonderful mix?

Comment

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 53582

Received: 03/10/2020

Respondent: Ms Ann Mitchell

Representation Summary:

Provision for older people is mentioned - there needs to be provision in the form of a care home and sheltered housing close by shops and medical centre. If possible near the local school - interaction between the very young and the very old is beneficial to both and helps build community.

Full text:

Provision for older people is mentioned - there needs to be provision in the form of a care home and sheltered housing close by shops and medical centre. If possible near the local school - interaction between the very young and the very old is beneficial to both and helps build community.

Comment

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 54518

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Cambridge Cycling Campaign

Representation Summary:

As many social, community, cultural and leisure facilities should be located on-site as possible to support the vision for a place where the majority of destinations are within a short walk or cycle ride of residents’ homes. All facilities should include spacious, secure cycle parking for a variety of types of cycle and should be connected to the walking and cycling network by routes which are safe and suitably-lit at night in order to ensure people feel safe using them at all hours.

Full text:

As many social, community, cultural and leisure facilities should be located on-site as possible to support the vision for a place where the majority of destinations are within a short walk or cycle ride of residents’ homes. All facilities should include spacious, secure cycle parking for a variety of types of cycle and should be connected to the walking and cycling network by routes which are safe and suitably-lit at night in order to ensure people feel safe using them at all hours.

Object

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 54543

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Arbury Road Baptist Church

Representation Summary:

“Policy 14 - Required on-site social and community infrastructure provision”

The list of provisions does not include places of worship. They are essential to community life, yet no mention has been made in the documentation. In places in Cambridge faith groups successfully shared other community buildings and this should be assumed, at a minimum, in the new development. Use of facilities by faith groups should be included in calculations of capacity and provision. It should also be noted that faith groups are key to bringing people together in a community through shared activities. By making space for them, the new community will be able to grow and flourish more quickly.

Research has been carried out and support this. For example in East Wichel, Swindon in Wiltshire, a church leader (ChL) both lived and worked within the community. A community space (The Stoweaway) was owned by Churches Together in Swindon but managed as a community space for all faiths and none. It was paid for with a grant from the council out of Section 106 funds. This placement enabled the Church leader to engage with the community as a resident and community builder, and work in partnership with stakeholders to allow an understanding of the community’s needs from a range of perspectives.

A conclusion from a study of this initiative was that:
“Social outcomes such as whether or not people enjoy living in the neighbourhood, are also linked to the community building intervention through analysis of trust and reciprocity, and perceptions of trust: those who visit the Stoweaway regularly are more likely to know and trust more neighbours, and believe that people look out for each other, and those who heard about activities from the ChL are also more likely to think that people look out for each other.”

[quote from: Dissertation submitted for the MA Applied Social Research (Built Environment) at the University of the West of England, Bristol, November 2012, Angela Parfitt. Divine intervention? Church leadership and community development in the Urban Village, A case study of East Wichel, Swindon in Wiltshire.]

Full text:

“Policy 14 - Required on-site social and community infrastructure provision”

The list of provisions does not include places of worship. They are essential to community life, yet no mention has been made in the documentation. In places in Cambridge faith groups successfully shared other community buildings and this should be assumed, at a minimum, in the new development. Use of facilities by faith groups should be included in calculations of capacity and provision. It should also be noted that faith groups are key to bringing people together in a community through shared activities. By making space for them, the new community will be able to grow and flourish more quickly.

Research has been carried out and support this. For example in East Wichel, Swindon in Wiltshire, a church leader (ChL) both lived and worked within the community. A community space (The Stoweaway) was owned by Churches Together in Swindon but managed as a community space for all faiths and none. It was paid for with a grant from the council out of Section 106 funds. This placement enabled the Church leader to engage with the community as a resident and community builder, and work in partnership with stakeholders to allow an understanding of the community’s needs from a range of perspectives.

A conclusion from a study of this initiative was that:
“Social outcomes such as whether or not people enjoy living in the neighbourhood, are also linked to the community building intervention through analysis of trust and reciprocity, and perceptions of trust: those who visit the Stoweaway regularly are more likely to know and trust more neighbours, and believe that people look out for each other, and those who heard about activities from the ChL are also more likely to think that people look out for each other.”

[quote from: Dissertation submitted for the MA Applied Social Research (Built Environment) at the University of the West of England, Bristol, November 2012, Angela Parfitt. Divine intervention? Church leadership and community development in the Urban Village, A case study of East Wichel, Swindon in Wiltshire.]

Support

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 55688

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

Representation Summary:

The acknowledgement that “Ancillary uses for sports or leisure facilities provided within an employment development will be supported, subject to any relevant amenity issues being addressed….” is welcome. The requirement to explore the opportunity to offer these spaces to other users within and outside of normal working hours, rather than any requirement that they be offered, is also welcomed.

Attachments:

Object

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 55741

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

The proposed on-site education provision has been informed by an Education
Topic Paper prepared by the education authority for the area. The Topic Paper
indicates that presently, development at North East Cambridge is not projected to
generate sufficient numbers of pupils to warrant the need for a secondary school
on-site. Nevertheless, for the proper and long term planning of the area, the
Councils consider a cautious approach should be taken and have safeguarded land
for a secondary school if it is needed. This is located within Cowley Road
Neighbourhood Centre alongside a primary school. Local secondary school
provision is to be kept under review throughout the Plan period to determine
whether a secondary school at North East Cambridge is required and when it will
need to be delivered. Based on the housing trajectory for the Area Action Plan, it is
anticipated that if it is required, then it is likely to be delivered towards the end of
the Plan period.
Land at Cambridge North is proposing to include for a Specialist Maths School. The
Government has committed to having a 16-19 maths school in every region, 11 in
total. The Department for Education (DfE), through the Learning Alliance, has
identified the Cambridge North site as an ideal location for this, due to regional
accessibility and wider economy and skills concentration.
~



□ □ ~
Policy 14 as currently drafted only provides policy support where there is
recognised ‘local needs’. This is overly restrictive and does not align with the
objectives of the NPPF which is to take a proactive, positive and collaborative
approach to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet
the needs of communities and that LPAs should give great weight to the need to
create, expand or alter schools to widen choice in education (paragraph 94).
It is therefore requested that Policy 14 includes the following wording;
“State funded education infrastructure which is capable of meeting wider regional
needs will also be supported where this is deliverable and sustainable.”

Attachments:

Comment

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 55848

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Veolia and Turnstone Estates

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

The inclusion of additional social, community and cultural facilities within the North East
Cambridge area is supported.

Attachments:

Support

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 55906

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: GCR Camprop Nine Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

The inclusion of additional social, community and cultural facilities within the North East
Cambridge area is supported.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 55928

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Ridgeons Timber & Builders Merchants and Turnstone Estates

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

The inclusion of additional social, community and cultural facilities within the North East
Cambridge area is supported provided it does not impact adversely on Ridgeon’s operations.

Attachments:

Support

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 55976

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Hawkswren Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

The inclusion of additional social, community and cultural facilities within the North East
Cambridge area is supported.

Attachments:

Object

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 55998

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

The inclusion of additional social, community and cultural facilities within the North East
Cambridge area is supported.

Attachments:

Object

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 56021

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Endurance Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

Representation Summary:

Draft Policy 14 requires the on-site provision of a range of social and community infrastructure, including three primary schools and safeguarded land for a secondary school.

The Education Topic Paper (2020) provides a range of scenario modelling in terms of child yield and the corresponding land take for schools. Scenario Options 1-5 identify that the quantum of residential development proposed at NEC would generate between 2,200 and 3,675 primary age children (10.5-17.5 forms of entry). The corresponding secondary school children generated are within a range of 1,375-2,297 students (9.2-15.3 forms of entry).

Reflecting on the proposed approach the Topic Paper states (page 16):

“At present, the masterplan shows the location of two primary schools and one co-located with a secondary school. At this stage, the Council considers the location of these schools to be appropriate. The provision of 3 sites would cater for the lower end of the range of provision required based on scenarios 1-5 above. A maximum of 5 sites may be required.”

Scenario Option 6 has been followed by the Councils in the proposed approach to school provision; this is predicated on a dwelling mix that includes a high proportion of 1 and 2 bedroom homes, therefore reducing the number of school children generated to 1,348 primary (6.4 forms of entry) and 608 secondary (4.1 forms of entry). The corresponding land take is calculated to be 7.6 ha for primary and “N/A” for secondary. We note, additionally, that Scenario 6 includes the generation of 1,655 early years aged children (of which 927 would be eligible for funded provision). Whilst this is stated as being “factored into Primary School” (tables on page 18), the supporting text states that provision within the primary schools (calculated at 7.6ha) will not provide for the 927 early years children and therefore “complimentary private provision will also be required”.

Whilst the preferred option is for off-site provision of secondary school provision, the Topic Paper identifies a number of key uncertainties regarding this approach. The opening of Cambridge City Free School and Darwin Green as off-site options are both dependent upon funding agreements. In addition, there is strong community support to include a secondary school within NEC. We note that secondary schools of between 7 and 10-form entry require a land take of between 7.7-10.6ha. We have not found any evidence regarding the size of the safeguarded site at NEC. We have concerns that the size of site safeguarded at NEC is inadequate to allow for a secondary school to be developed in the future to meet the County Council’s standards, should on-site provision be required. Alongside the clear requirement for all school sports pitches to be provided on-site, we are of the view that all of the required and safeguarded school sites at NEC should be sized to the County Council’s expected standards. We cannot find any evidence of County Council support for reduced site sizes or multi-storey school buildings.

Whilst there may be examples of the successful co-location of primary and secondary schools in other neighbourhoods (e.g. Northstowe and Chatteris), there is no clear strategy set out for NEC regarding what the safeguarded site will be used for if it is not needed for school use.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 56061

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Department for Education

Representation Summary:

Social and Community Infrastructure – Policy 14
Question 5 - Are we are planning for the right community facilities?
16. We welcome the reference to new social infrastructure (including schools) to be
required to meet the needs of existing and new communities.
17. However, as drafted, it is not considered that this policy is wholly compliant with
the NPPF, as it provides policy support only where there is recognised ‘local
needs’. The NPPF, as set out above, gives weight to widening choice in education,
which would include through the provision of specialist educational facilities.
18. We would therefore propose that the policy be extended as follows (additional
wording in italics underlined):
1https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2
2 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/opening-a-free-school
3 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/establishing-a-new-school-free-school-presumption
and https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/delivering-schools-to-support-housing-growth
4
Development proposals for new community, cultural and leisure facilities will be
supported where it meets identified local needs. State funded education infrastructure
which is capable of meeting wider regional needs will also be supported where this is
deliverable and sustainable.
19. This will ensure that the policy is compliant with the NPPF and is positively
prepared.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 56151

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Representation Summary:

Welcome broad range of community infrastructure proposed, particularly visual & performing arts hub (though the
evidence base is perhaps a little weak) and community garden. Also the co-location of facilities and services which would
help to provide additional gravity to the Cowley Road centre.
However, some of this (eg swimming facilities) could be costly and burden shouldn’t fall disproportionately on the Core
Site.
Question whether all schools should be located on Core Site and the health facilities. Insufficient evidence requiring
safeguarding of land for secondary school. Cultural placemaking strategy is useful.

Attachments: