Waterbeach New Town Supplementary Planning Document

Object

Representation ID: 167405

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

1. INTRODUCTION
SPD lacks measure to achieve comprehensive and collaborative approach.

There is suitable emphasis in the SPD on a comprehensive and collaborative approach including a framework that "transcends land ownership boundaries" and to "equalising and apportioning costs between landowners". However, the SPD lacks clear measures to achieve this.

The emphasis on comprehensive development is firmly established in the parent local Plan Policy (SS/6). It is the role of the SPD to define how it is to be achieved. It is a crucial test of the efficacy of the SPD that it provides the means to co-ordinate the two separate applications by RLW Estates and U&C that are currently before the Council for joint consideration.

SPD must go further than this consultation draft in specifying binding and enforceable provisions to ensure co-ordinated and comprehensive development is achieved.

Given the importance of the policy requirement for comprehensive development, the SPD cannot ignore the threat of ransom.

Object

Representation ID: 167406

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND FOREWORD
It is a fundamental concern of RLW that a proposal to establish delivery and review groups will not be sufficient to deliver this local plan allocation as "a single unified development".


Delivery and Review groups can provide a forum for discussion on how binding conditions and legal principles for comprehensive development are to be complied with. Such groups are not a substitute for the clear specification of such conditions and principles within this SPD that would provide the necessary discipline and commitment for the working groups to succeed.

The output from the delivery and review groups will not be binding on the parties involved without mechanisms to ensure this. It is also very difficult to see how delivery and review groups can work in the necessary spirit of constructive discussion and co-operation if one party is attempting to ransom the other.

Object

Representation ID: 167407

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

1.3 KEY ISSUES
The SPD should set out the basis for a binding legal framework and planning conditions that will guarantee comprehensive and integrated development. This is a necessary foundation and pre-condition for successful engagement, collaboration and co-ordination between site promoters.

Object

Representation ID: 167408

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

1.2 PURPOSE & SCOPE
The definition of 'fix' should be adjusted to allow for refinement (within the general principles of the fix) through detail and technical design.

We endorse the principle of the SPD defining "fixes", "principles" and "mechanisms" to guide the development and the way in which these are defined in Section 1.2. However, the definition of a 'fix' should be consistent and clear in stating that it is the broad locations and interrelationship of the spatial elements that is important at this stage with detail to be tested through planning applications. The 'spatial framework' and 'fixes' are described differently with the former referring to 'indicative' and 'broad locations' and the latter being more absolute. The definition should be the same across the document for the 'spatial framework' and the 'fixes' (pages 5 and 35).

Object

Representation ID: 167409

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

1.2 PURPOSE & SCOPE
SPD needs to be much clearer on what information will be expected and when.

Section 4 "Towards a Spatial Framework" and, within this, Table 8 "Summary of Structuring Elements (fixes)" begins to set out the mechanisms and documents required in relation to each "fix". The SPD needs to be much clearer on what information will be expected and when. For instance, there is reference to Design Codes without clearly stating what they need to cover and when they are expected. Commonality in the approach of the two promoters to strategic elements of infrastructure is essential if the aspirations of the Council are to be achieved in respect of place-making, quality and delivery of a "single integrated new town".

Object

Representation ID: 167410

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

2.3 ACCESS, MOVEMENT & CONNECTIVITY
Plan should record Bannold Drove as an existing vehicle access point. An access point also exists at the north end of Bannold Drove at Cross Drove. Bannold Drove is a Byway Open to All Traffic. The SPD is inconsistent in how this route is referred to (on pages 16, 17 and 20) e.g. as both a public right of way and bridleway.

Object

Representation ID: 167411

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

3.2 STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
We largely endorse the vision for the site as stated in the draft SPD. Objective 2 on Sustainable Movement should refer more specifically to achieving a modal shift. This should be expressed in non-technical terms by reference to achieving "a significant and measurable shift to walking, cycling and public transport modes in preference to the use of private vehicles."

Object

Representation ID: 167412

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
We agree with the titles and subject matter of the eleven fixes summarised at the beginning of this section as the "key structuring elements" of the SPD. However, we have a number of comments on the detailed definition of these elements and the associated requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 167413

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
Ransom issues could impact on delivery of fixes.

Key structuring elements or fixes 3, 4, 7 and 9 are consequently all subject to potential ransom positions and this is a significant constraint on the delivery of the core requirements in each case. There is considerable doubt as to whether any of these "fixes" can be delivered unless and until the SPD acts specifically and directly to neutralise all potential ransom positions applying to movement across land ownership boundaries.

Primary Movement corridor defined in the SPD crosses the landownership boundary and is central to the requirement for an integrated comprehensive development. both the east and west landholdings that make up the Waterbeach allocation will be dependent upon the principle of the primary street crossing the landownership boundary and neither party can legitimately seek to extract a value for access rights.

On page 46 it states that "Development proposals should safeguard land to improve or create new footpaths /cycleways between the New Town and Waterbeach village". It is important to recognise that pedestrian and cycle links across land ownership boundaries are fundamental to a comprehensive movement strategy

A mass transit route may not be necessary in the light of the considerable modal shift potential of the re-located station as well as the provision to be made for cycling and pedestrian links. The principle of the mass transit route therefore requires further consideration and, for this reason, we consider that it should not be specified as a "key structuring element" or "fix" within the SPD.

Object

Representation ID: 167414

Received: 26/10/2018

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

4.2 KEY STRUCTURING ELEMENTS (FIXES)
PRIMARY MOVEMENT AND ACCESS
The second paragraph on page 46 under the heading "Primary Movement" seems contradictory. It states that the high street will need to limit vehicle access but this is also the Primary Route. Some clarification is required here as to how these two priorities are to be reconciled given that primary movement is one of the "fixes".