Draft Greater Cambridge Local Plan for consultation

Support the principles

The Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) support draft allocation S/C/HTR for land at 137-143 Histon Road.

As the Council are aware, CIP controls the majority of the draft allocation area, the one exception being the northern parcel of land located along the site frontage that was formally the ATS garage site (referred to below as the “ATS site”). The ATS site is controlled by others and therefore CIP is unable to comment upon the development aspirations for that land.

Planning permission has already been granted for the residential redevelopment of the CIP land, see application 24/01354/FUL. The planning permission, which gives approval for the erection of 70 new homes, is under construction and will be built out in accordance with the approved details. For completeness however we provide the following observations on the draft allocation:

• The stated capacity of 100 homes for the allocation is supported. This reflects the details of the planning permission on the CIP land (70 homes) as well as giving what appears to be suitable capacity for the remaining ATS site.

• The comments made about building heights and impact are noted. The design and scale of the development on the CIP land was agreed through the approval of the planning permission.

• Part b of the draft allocations calls for proposals to deliver comprehensive development of the land. As noted above, it has not proved possible to bring the allocation forward in a single planning application given the ATS land has not been released for redevelopment.

The design and layout of the now approved CIP development allows for the ATS land to come forward in a coordinated manner, albeit in a separate planning application. The ability to bring forward a separate, residential led, application on the ATS land has not therefore been prejudiced by the approved CIP planning permission.

Given the ATS land has not yet come forward for redevelopment, part b of the policy may benefit from the following text amendment to reflect the actual delivery of the allocation:

“To optimise the development potential of the site, proposals should allow for and facilitate comprehensive redevelopment, whilst ensuring adequate provision of open space within the site and around the trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order”

The remaining comments made in part b of the allocation in respect of providing open space and protecting trees are noted and supported. The CIP planning approval carefully considered its relationship with mature trees on and around the site, provided new areas of open space and secured enhancements to nearby areas of open space. It is assumed that any future development of the ATS site would do likewise.

Requested Change

To reword part (b) of the allocation to read as follows:

“To optimise the development potential of the site, proposals should allow for and facilitate comprehensive redevelopment, whilst ensuring adequate provision of open space within the site and around the trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order”

The Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) support draft allocation S/C/ER for land at 1-99 Ekin Road and 1-8 Ekin Walk.

As the Council are aware, CIP controls the majority of the draft allocation area, the one exception being the highway verge on the western side of the site, along Wadloes Road which is adopted highway.

As the Council is aware, CIP has been preparing a planning application for the allocation area for several years. A Planning Application has recently been submitted and is currently under consideration, application 26/00039/FUL.

The draft allocation reflects the detailed proposals included within the planning application. For completeness, CIP has the following observations on the draft allocation text:

The capacity of the allocation (approximately 134 homes/26 additional homes) is supported. Inclusion of the word “approximately” provides sufficient flexibility.

The requirement of part (a) of the policy to protect and enhance the protected Open Space on the western boundary of the site is noted and supported. Given this verge is however highways land, not controlled by CIP, we would suggest that the policy wording refers to the open space being protected and/or enhanced rather than protected and enhanced to ensure.

While the aspiration of part (b) to deliver future buildings of appropriate height is also supported, the reference to future development not exceeding prevailing building heights should in our view be redrafted. Modern forms of construction mean that homes do have greater floor to ceiling heights and, as a result, are taller.

To ensure the development capacity of the land set out within the allocation can be achieved, some increases in height, over and above the prevailing building heights (which is arguably two storey) may/will be required. Indeed, parts of the existing estate are already taller than this prevailing height. The key policy test should however be that if an increase in buildings heights is to occur, the impact of that increase is properly assessed to ensure unacceptable levels of harm do not arise.

CIP consider that the policy wording that appears in other allocations, namely S/C/HTR for land at 137-143 Histon Road, provides a clearer and more effective policy framework. We would therefore suggest that part b of the allocation be worded as follows:

“Buildings should, in regard to building heights, massing and materials, be designed to ensure no unacceptable adverse impacts on the local or wider skyline, the setting of Fen Ditton Conservation Area and Dynamic View M (Stourbridge Common).”

Requested Change
To reword part (a) of the allocation to read as follows:
“The protection and/or enhancement of the Protected Open Space on the western boundary of the site”
To reword part (b) of the allocation to read as follows:
“Buildings should, in regard to building heights, massing and materials, be designed to ensure no unacceptable adverse impacts on the local or wider skyline, the setting of Fen Ditton Conservation Area and Dynamic View M (Stourbridge Common).”

Comment

The Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) support draft allocation S/C/DR for land at 2-28 Davy Road and Garage Blocks.

Development proposals are being developed for this site and CIP are currently in the process of preparing a planning application. To date, pre application meetings have been held with a number of different stakeholders and public consultation on early proposals carried out. While the detailed proposals for the allocation area are therefore still being developed, CIP has the following observations on the draft allocation wording:

• CIP supports the aspiration to increase the number of homes on the land. The scheme that has recently been consulted upon was for 68 new homes, an increase of 36 new properties.

Given the development proposals are still being refined, CIP does not object to the draft allocation referring to a greater quantum of development.

CIP intends to submit a planning application in the coming months. The number of new homes to be applied for will be informed by the detailed pre-application engagement that is being undertaken, as well as the careful assessment of the site’s opportunities and constraints.

The draft allocation refers to the capacity of the land as an approximate number of new homes and therefore provides suitable flexibility.

• Part (a) requires mature trees to be retained. CIP supports the aspiration to retain mature trees worthy of retention. There are however instances where some mature trees do need to be removed to facilitate redevelopment. Such proposals need to be considered on their own merits. We would therefore suggest that part (a) be worded as follows:

“Mature trees on the site should be retained. Any tree removals shall be justified through the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment with appropriate replacement planting thereafter secured.”

• CIP has no further comments to make in respect of parts b, c or d of the draft policy.

Requested Change

Amend part (a) of the allocation to read as follows:

“Mature trees on the site should be retained. Any tree removals shall be justified through the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment with appropriate replacement planting thereafter secured.”

The Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) support draft allocation S/C/HPC for land at 1-78 Hanover Court and 1-49 Princess Court and garages at Newtown Garages.

As the Council is aware, CIP controls the allocation area and has already submitted a planning application for the land. The application, reference 25/04187/FUL, seeks approval for the erection of 165 new homes. The applications is still under consideration.

The draft allocation reflects most of the detailed proposals included within the planning application. For completeness, CIP has the following observations/comments:

• CIP supports the capacity of the allocation. The use of the word “approximately” provides suitable flexibility.
• The reference to design, height, materials and landscaping within part (a) of the draft policy is noted and supported. These are all design considerations that have been fully considered within the submitted planning application.
• Part (b) seeks the retention of existing mature trees. CIP supports the aspiration to retain mature trees that are worthy of retention. There are however instances where some mature trees do need to be removed to facilitate redevelopment. This applies on this site where the three London Plane trees in the centre of the site need to be removed to facilitate development. The many other mature trees around the perimeter can be retained.

Such proposals need to be considered on their own merits. We would therefore suggest that part (b) of the allocation be reworded as follows:

Mature trees on the site should be retained. Any tree removals must be justified through the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment with appropriate replacement planting thereafter secured.”

Part (c) requires development proposal to mitigate the impacts of the existing electricity substation on residential amenity and outlook. CIP is not aware of any existing amenity concerns arising from the substation. Notwithstanding this, CIP accepts the need to positively design for essential apparatus such as substations within the development. It is however not considered that this needs to be stipulated within the policy. This is a matter that should be picked up through the consideration of the planning application as will be the case for all other allocations in the plan. CIP would therefore suggest that part (c) of the policy be deleted.

Part (d) requires archaeological investigation. CIP supports this. It is however noted that other allocations, such as that at Davy Road (S/C/DR) make it clear that in the first instance this will require a desk based assessment. We would request that similar wording be applied here, especially given the difficulty of undertaking any form of intrusive investigations around existing buildings and trees. Part (d) should therefore read as follows:

“Archaeological investigation and potential mitigation will be required to identify the presence and significance of possible archaeological remains across the site. In the first instance archaeological investigation will be required via Desk Based Assessment.”

Requested Change

• Amend part (b) to read
o Mature trees on the site should be retained. Any tree removals shall be justified through the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment with appropriate replacement planting thereafter secured.”

• Delete part (c)

• Amend part (d) to read
o “Archaeological investigation and potential mitigation will be required to identify the presence and significance of possible archaeological remains across the site. In the first instance archaeological investigation will be required via Desk Based Assessment.”

The Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) support draft allocation S/C/GER at former Garage Block, East Road.

As the Council is aware, the site is controlled by CIP and following the urgent demolition of the former garage building due to storm damage, initial proposals for redevelopment have been considered. These proposals have not yet however progressed to a planning application.

CIP has the following observations/comments on the draft allocation.
• CIP support the identified capacity of the site. Inclusion of the word “approximately” provides suitable flexibility.

• Part (a) seeks to retain existing vegetation on and around the site. CIP supports the aspiration to retain landscape features that are worthy of retention. There are however instances where some features may need to be removed to facilitate redevelopment. Reference within the policy to “site positive” was also not clear and is suggested this text be deleted. CIP suggests that part (a) of the policy be reworded as follows:

“Existing vegetation surrounding the site should be protected and retained. Any tree removals must be justified through the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment with appropriate replacement planting thereafter secured. Development should include the creation of a vegetated streetscape to St Matthews Street, East Street and to existing built form”;

• CIP has no specific comments in relation to the other parts of the policy

• CIP does however suggest that as well as referencing the site’s context to the east and south, given the site also fronts onto East Road, any development proposals also should seek to respond to the current and emerging context of this primary frontage, including the emerging proposals on the western side of the road. We suggest the following is added

g. “As well as responding to the context of the wider estate to the south and conservation area beyond, development proposals which front onto East Road will be required to respond to the existing and emerging context of East Road”.

Requested Change
• Amend part (a) to read – “Existing vegetation surrounding the site should be protected and retained. Any tree removals must be justified through the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment with appropriate replacement planting thereafter secured. Development should include the creation of a vegetated streetscape to St Matthews Street, East Street and to existing built form”

• Add point (g) to read - g. “As well as responding to the context of the wider estate to the south and conservation area beyond, development proposals which front onto East Road will be required to respond to the existing and emerging context of East Road”.

The Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) support draft allocation S/C/SH at 1-33 Stanton House, Christchurch Street.

As the Council is aware, the existing buildings on the site are owned/controlled by CIP.

Development proposals are being developed for this site and CIP is currently in the process of preparing a planning application. To date, pre application meetings have been held with a number of different stakeholders and public consultation on early proposals carried out. While the detailed proposals for the allocation area are therefore still being developed, CIP has the following observations/comments on the draft wording provided:

• CIP supports the identified capacity of the site. Inclusion of the word “approximately” provides suitable flexibility.

The policy currently refers to all homes being provided as sheltered accommodation. The existing facility accommodated both residents who needed sheltered accommodation and also residents seeking general needs housing. Those flats that were provided as sheltered accommodation were very small and of poor quality.

The emerging plans for the site seek to provide new and enhanced sheltered accommodation across part of the development with general needs housing provided across the remainder. These plans are being prepared in collaboration with the County Council. We would therefore suggest that bullet 2 be worded as follows:

“Capacity for approximately 29 homes (gross) resulting in a net loss of 5 units from the existing 34 units onsite to include suitable replacement sheltered accommodation.”

• CIP supports parts (a) and (b) of the policy. CIP specifically supports the reference to context in part (a) as this site has a very varied context ranging from the modest terraces of Christchurch Street and Napier Street, the form and massing of the listed church and the scale and massing of the much larger Grafton Centre.

Requested Change

Amend the capacity of the site to read as follows:

“Capacity for approximately 29 homes (gross) resulting in a net loss of 5 units from the existing 34 units onsite to include suitable replacement sheltered accommodation.”

The Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) support draft allocation S/C/BRN for land at Barnwell Road and Newmarket Road 1.

As the Council is aware, CIP controls part of the draft allocation (land parcels either side of Barnwell Road) and has already submitted a planning application for the land, application 23/04687/FUL. The application has been approved the development is now being constructed. The approved development for these two land parcels includes 120 new homes and 495 sqm of commercial floorspace.

CIP intends to bring some of the remaining land included within the remainder of the allocation forward in future applications but detailed designs for these parcels have not yet been prepared.

Having regard to the existing planning permission, and CIP emerging plan for the parcel of land at the far east of the allocation, CIP has not comment in respect of the stated capacity of the allocation.

CIP’s comments on the remainder of the policy are as follows:
• Part (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) – no comment
• Part (b) - Seeks to retain mature trees on Newmarket Road and Peverel Road frontages. CIP supports the aspiration to retain landscape features that are worthy of retention. There are however instances where some features may need to be removed to facilitate redevelopment. CIP suggests the policy be reworded as follows:

“The mature street trees on Newmarket Road & Peverel Road frontages should be retained and incorporated into development proposals for the site. Any tree removals must be justified through the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment with appropriate replacement planting thereafter secured.”

Requested Change
Amend part (b) of the allocation to read as follows –

“The mature street trees on Newmarket Road & Peverel Road frontages should be retained and incorporated into development proposals for the site. Any tree removals must be justified through the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment with appropriate replacement planting thereafter secured.”

The Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) support draft allocation S/EOC/SWO for land at Newbury Farm.

As the Council is aware, CIP controls part of the draft allocation (Phase 3 - land on the western side) and has already secured reserved matters approval, reference 24/01531/REM.

The draft allocation accords with the details already approved.

We support the overall ambition of Policy CC/SD