Upload
others
View
27
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FOI Ref 5331 Response sent 29 August ‘Internal and external correspondence and documentation relating to a proposed crossover point between two new developments on Wort's Causeway I am interested in seeing relevant documentation and correspondence relating to the crossover on Wort's Causeway, mentioned on page 100 (point k) of the new local plan, that will involve removal of a section of established double hedgerow that has been recognised as important habitat by the Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils as an important asset for wildlife and has been proven as habitat for two endangered species, the great partridge and corn bunting by CPERC. The site is on the boundary of what will become the new boundary of the city and green belt. It would be helpful if you could share internal communications, drawings, proposed plans, meeting notes and minutes, discussion documents and external correspondence including notes of phone calls, letters and emails between yourselves, Cambridge County and District Councils, Greater Cambridge Shared Planning, Cambridge County Council Highways, the developers of GB1 and GB2 and any other interested parties’. Please find the Council’s response attached. Please note that the pre-application documents submitted by the developers and referred to in the Council’s response have not been saved. A request to obtain this information should be directed to the relevant planning agents:
Further queries on this matter should be directed to [email protected]
GB1 and GB2 pre application documents
Contents Page
• Details of request
• GB1- 19/5069/PREAPP-
-Pre App Letter: 9th April 2019
- EIA screening opinion- 2nd July 2019
• GB2- 19/5045/PREAPP-
-Pre App Letter 1 : 26th February 2019
- Pre App Letter 2: 15th May 2019
Details of request
‘Internal and external correspondence and documentation relating to a proposed crossover point between two new developments on Wort's Causeway I am interested in seeing relevant documentation and correspondence relating to the crossover on Wort's Causeway, mentioned on page 100 (point k) of the new local plan, that will involve removal of a section of established double hedgerow that has been recognised as important habitat by the Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils as an important asset for wildlife and has been proven as habitat for two endangered species, the great partridge and corn bunting by CPERC. The site is on the boundary of what will become the new boundary of the city and green belt. It would be helpful if you could share internal communications, drawings, proposed plans, meeting notes and minutes, discussion documents and external correspondence including notes of phone calls, letters and emails between yourselves, Cambridge County and District Councils, Greater Cambridge Shared Planning, Cambridge County Council Highways, the developers of GB1 and GB2 and any other interested parties’.
Page 1 of 51
GB1- 19/5069/PREAPP- 9th April 2019
Ref: 19/5069/PREAPP
Total number of 18 pages in this document including this page
09 April 2019
Proposal: Outline permission for residential development at site GB1 (Netherhall
Gardens)
Thank you for attending a meeting at Cambridge City Council Offices and sending through the
relevant documents for me and my colleagues to review with respect to a new residential
development at GB1.
This letter is a summary of the main points from our meeting and the Council’s feedback on the
proposal.
INTRODUCTION
An initial pre-application meeting took place at the Guildhall on Wednesday 13th March 2019 (see
meeting sign in sheet as a separate attachment) at which City Council Officers were presented with
high level (no detailed designs) proposals for the residential development of the GB1. The meeting
held was primarily focused on high level of design and highway issues. Based on the information
provided, the comments are limited primarily to layout and highways issues with respect to a
submission for outline permission.
The table attached to this letter summarises the issues using a ‘traffic light’ format. Red issues are
matters of principle which if not resolved would lead to a refusal of the application; amber issues are
those where the principle is acceptable but work is still required. Green issues are those which are
acceptable. We will support the submission of an application when all the issues are agreed and
shown as green. As there was very little information made available for this meeting, the majority of
issues are indicated as red for this reason further submission of information on key topics will
address this.
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS & POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO GB1
• National Planning Policy Framework 2019
• Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
• Cambridge Local Plan, October 2018:
Policy 1: The presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy 2: Spatial strategy for the location of employment development Policy 3: Spatial strategy for the location of residential development
Page 2 of 51
Policy 4: The Cambridge Green Belt Policy 5: Strategic transport infrastructure Policy 17: Cambridge Biomedical Campus (including Addenbrooke’s Hospital) Area of Major
Change Policy 18: Southern Fringe Areas of Major Change Policy 19: West Cambridge Area of Major Change Policy 27: Site specific development opportunities Policy 28: Carbon reduction, community energy networks, sustainable design and
construction, and water use Policy 29: Renewable and low carbon energy generation Policy 31: Integrated water management and the water cycle Policy 32: Flood risk Policy 34: Light pollution control Policy 35: Protection of human health and quality of life from noise and vibration Policy 36: Air quality, odour and dust Policy 42: Connecting new developments to digital infrastructure Policy 45: Affordable housing and dwelling mix Policy 50: Residential space standards Policy 51: Accessible homes Policy 55: Responding to context Policy 56: Creating successful places Policy 57: Designing new buildings Policy 59: Designing landscape and the public realm Policy 61: Conservation and enhancement of Cambridge’s historic environment Policy 62: Local heritage assets Policy 65: Visual pollution Policy 67: Protection of open space Policy 68: Open space and recreation provision through new development Policy 69: Protection of sites of biodiversity and geodiversity importance Policy 70: Protection of priority species and habitats Policy 71: Trees Policy 73: Community, sports and leisure facilities Policy 74: Education facilities Policy 75: Healthcare facilities Policy 80: Supporting sustainable access to development Policy 81: Mitigating the transport impact of development Policy 82: Parking management Policy 85: Infrastructure delivery, planning obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy
• Cambridge City Council LDF Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) Affordable housing SPD, Adopted June 2014 Cambridgeshire flood and water SPD, Adopted December 2018 Planning Obligations Strategy SPD, Adopted June 2014 Public art SPD, January 2010 Sustainable design and construction SPD, Adopted June 2007.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
• PRE-APPLICATION DOCUMENTS, NETHERHALL GARDENS, MARCH 2019.
KEY ISSUES
The key substantive issues discussed at the meeting were;
• Principle of development
• Coordinated development
• Site development capacity
Page 3 of 51
• Green belt, landscape & open space
• Layout & density of development
• Netherhall Farm
• Highways and Access
• Community engagement
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
• Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) & Future Pre-application meetings
Additional Issues not addressed in the meeting but clarified in this letter:
• Ecological Impact
• Housing delivery
• Community facilities
• Council panels
• Documents to be submitted for Outline application
• Programme
Proposal
The proposal is to develop GB1 site for residential development. The newly adopted Cambridge
Local Plan (2018) identifies that the site’s potential capacity is 200 dwellings.
Principle of development
Policy 27 of the new Cambridge Local Plan 2018 releases both GB1 and GB2 sites from the
Cambridge Green Belt for residential development of up to 430 dwellings (combined). The principle
of residential development on GB1 is considered acceptable and will be supported by Officers. The
proposals will however need to satisfy all the other policy requirements of the development plan.
The current approximate split between the two sites is GB2: 230 dwellings and GB1: 200 dwellings.
Coordinated development
Development on both GB1 and GB2 will be expected to be carefully designed to reflect their
prominent location i.e. edge of the city and on the southern approach to the City and to ensure
development is integrated with existing and planned new neighbouring development. Specifically,
you will be expected to show how the proposal for the GB1 site engages with, and relates to
development on the GB2 site, particularly in terms of;
• Cycle/ pedestrian routes/ connection
• Vehicular access
• Sequence of open spaces, and landscape and ecological corridors
• Built form and planting along the development edges along the east (Green Belt) and Wort’s Causeway
• Delivery of community facilities
Ideally a comprehensive strategic masterplan for both sites would be prepared. If this cannot be
delivered, it is recommended that collaboration is undertaken with the owners of site GB2 to ensure
that the proposals are based on a common spatial framework. This framework should fix the critical
spatial elements as set out above. Ideally the schemes are brought forward as a joint outline
application.
The Council has organised joint technical meeting (GB1 + GB2) regarding the issue of
highways/access. A meeting has been organised for 17th April 2019 (City Council Offices) at 3pm.
An issue has been raised recently with a pre-app held with GB2 and given the sensitivities around
Page 4 of 51
highways / vehicular access on Worts’ Causeway; I would recommend contacting the owners of
GB2 to arrange a pre-meeting with their Highways team.
It is critical that community consultation events are well co-ordinated, and ideally are done jointly. A
design charrette between GB1 and GB2 architects / urban designers and stakeholders should also
be considered.
Site development capacity
The proposal would need to take into account the demands for open space; strategic landscaping
and sustainable drainage solutions and therefore the overall capacity may be less than 200 units.
Green Belt, landscape & open space
Landscape and Visual Impact
A key constraint will be the visual impact of development on this prominent site. The proposals
tabled at the meeting indicate that the proposal is to deliver a mix of houses and flats with no
indications of height. Your proposed heights must respect the character of the area in relation to its
context adjacent to the Green Belt, given that the site is rural in nature and any proposal should
embrace this concept. Officers would expect a design that considers a very soft approach for the
edge of the city in this location and therefore, Officers expect you to explore and test various options.
There are significant concerns about the potential visual impact of this form of development,
particularly in terms of the density for the development envisaged. To enable Officers to assess the
acceptability of such proposals a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) will need to be
provided in accordance with guidelines set out in the Landscape Institute’s publication, Guidelines
to Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; 3rd Edition. In the first instance, a plan identifying a
zone of visual influence should be provided and agreed with the LPA at the earliest opportunity for
potential viewpoints. Viewpoint locations and photographs of the potential views should be provided
and a selection, suitable to assess the impact, will need to be agreed with the Local Authority and
progressed to verified views. At this stage, modelling of the proposed development to level AVR 1
and/or AVR 2 will be acceptable to illustrate the potential layout, massing and height of the proposed
development.
I would like to bring your attention to Policy 4: The Cambridge Green Belt under section 2.56 in
Cambridge Local Plan clearly states that “…..and two sites required to provide small-scale housing
development (sites GB1 and GB2).”
Structural landscaping
Policy 27 requires the early establishment of a generous landscaped edge to the eastern side of the
site to help create an appropriate buffer and distinctive city edge between the site and the Green
Belt.
• The proposed varied edge line as shown in the Vision illustration is an acceptable type of
response to this Policy requirement. At minimum, the buffer should be approximately 20
metres wide and should be at least 2 large tree species deep together with understorey
planting.
• The design illustrates planting in large groupings on either side of a pedestrian path. Whilst
we are keen to integrate paths through natural areas, they need to have enough natural
Page 5 of 51
surveillance to ensure they are well used and feel safe. It may, therefore, need some
refinement.
• Nine Wells (Bell School) by Hill Residential provides a good precedent for an appropriate
edge interface.
• The other three site boundaries also require sensitive consideration with sufficient
landscaped setbacks to respect the rural edge location of the site.
Open space requirements
Policy 68 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 requires that all residential developments should
contribute to the provision of open space and recreation sites/ facilities in accordance with the
council’s Open Space and Recreation Standards, the Playing Pitch Strategy and the Indoor Sports
Facility Strategy. Open space requirements will be calculated by determining the net number of
residents of the new development, which will depend upon the eventual number, type and size of
dwellings proposed. Informal open space, separate from outdoor sports and play areas must be
considered to be suitable for use as truly useable open space. It should also take into consideration
sustainable urban drainage and should be managed close to its source and on the surface.
Incidental landscape and roadside verges for example are not suitable for counting as informal open
space.
Layout & density of development
Site development capacity
The proposal would need to take into account the demands for open space; strategic landscaping
and sustainable drainage solutions and therefore the overall capacity may be less than 200 units.
Design Principles
Netherhall Farm
• The proposals are to retain a green setting for Netherhall Farm. This is supported.
• The use and character of the green spaces around the farm building needs to be clarified.
• The space marked as “growing area” is a County Wildlife Site and cultivation of this space
will not be acceptable.
• The east edge of Netherhall Farm is a sparsely vegetated area which is the site of a small,
active badger sett and therefore maintaining connectivity to the wider landscape is required.
The use of two north-south streets accessing through the site is considered unnecessary
and we recommend the street against the Netherhall Farm edge is broken particularly at the
central green link. Equally this central green link should be wide and include suitable
medium and large tree cover and areas of vegetation to allow a link between the sett and
the wider landscape and avoid too much conflict with road and private gardens. This link
will also form a corridor for foraging bats and owls.
• The Vision drawing on P16 of the Pre-app document indicates a “diagonal” block to the
north-east of the farm. The relation of this block with the farm looks uncomfortable, both due
to the alignment and orientation of the block and its proximity to the northern farm building.
A “farmstead courtyard” typology that orientates buildings along the same axis as the farm
may be more appropriate in this location?
Pedestrian links
Page 6 of 51
• The introduction of several pedestrian / cycle connections to GB2 is supported. The exact
location of these routes needs to be confirmed following discussions with the developer of
GB2 to ensure that these routes are continuous and direct and result in viable development
parcels on both sites.
• The location and detailed design of the crossings of Wort’s Causeway need to be carefully
considered at an early stage to minimise the impact on the existing hedgerow.
• The Figure on Page 5 of the Pre-app document illustrates that the majority of local amenities
are located to the north of the site. Access to these amenities will involve considerable
detours. Opportunities to create direct pedestrian links northwards should be investigated
Wort’s Causeway
• The Council seeks to retain the rural character of the Causeway. Setback and building
heights will need to be carefully considered
• The existing hedgerow along the Wort’s Causeway boundary must be retained and
integrated into the site as per the Policy requirement to “retain the country lane appearance
and character of Wort’s Causeway, including its verges, hedgerows and bridleway” [Note:
the Bridleway, “rides” are features on the south side of Wort’s Causeway and associated
with GB2] Any breaks in the hedgerows for access or other requirements will need to be kept
to a minimum. How new building plots interface with the hedgerows will also need careful
consideration and the approach may need to vary along the length.
• Extending the 20mph speed limit on Wort’s Causeway to include the stretch through GB1
and GB2 would serve to make crossing safer and may help reduce requirements in relation
to visibility splays. This should be discussed with Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC)
Highways.
Vehicle entrance and gateways
• The proposal for a vehicular entrance on the south-west corner of the site doesn’t comply
with the policy guidance for the site and is unlikely to be acceptable to CCC Highways.
• An alternative proposal needs to be prepared that illustrates a vehicular access onto
Babraham Road via GB2. This crossing would need to be designed to align with the access
into GB2 and to prevent / discourage vehicles turning onto Wort’s Causeway and minimise
impact on the existing hedgerow and the rural character of road. Early studies and
discussions with relevant officers from highways as well as landscape / urban design on how
this may be achieved, and what the impacts on Wort’s Causeway are required.
• The outcomes of the above would impact on the location and design of site gateway(s).
Eastern boundary with the Green Belt
• This will become the new city edge and is its design is of strategic importance.
• As set out above, the council seeks a “soft” edge with the Green Belt. This may include a
varied building line (i.e. stepping back and forth, slight variety in orientation), varied building
heights and housing typology, gable-end orientation of units (rather than long run of linear
frontages) etc.
• The soft edge would also include structural planting as set out on page 4 of this letter.
• The Vision drawing indicates some of the planting and the public footpath would be delivered
outside of the planning boundary. This needs to be clarified further.
Page 7 of 51
Northern boundary with existing housing
• The northern site boundary is formed by the back gardens of existing housing. This boundary
needs sensitive handling, considering the privacy and security of existing residents, as well
as the quality and usability of any “buffer” that may be proposed.
• It was suggested it may be better to introduce new homes to back onto existing back
gardens. This would secure the private gardens and create a development frontage to
overlook any future street or open space. However, there are drainage issues on this part of
the site which may preclude development in this location. It is recommended that the cause
of the drainage issues is investigated so that the potential for mitigation and the introduction
of development may be assessed.
• Alternatively, a landscape buffer should be introduced along the site boundary. This should
be sufficiently wide to accommodate a generous planting belt to screen views and prevent
access into the back gardens of existing houses, but also to create a place that is well
overlooked and has a clearly defined purpose and identity. This would need to be
demonstrated through further design and illustrations, including cross-sections.
Green streets
• The Vision shows a series of “green streets” that link the central spine with the western edge
/ Green Belt.
Although the concept is supported, care is needed to ensure that the spaces can
accommodate sufficient planting (alongside all the other uses that a street needs to
accommodate such as SUDs, pedestrian and cyclists) to appear as a “green street”.
Character Areas
• The site is relatively small with four very distinctive and challenging edge conditions on the
site boundaries, with further new important edges introduced along the green streets and
open spaces.
• P23 proposes three “character areas” which appear to be defined by three different housing
/ block typologies (Farmstead Courtyards, Linear Gardens, Green Edge)
• Although there is no strong objection to the introduction of “character areas”, there are some
concerns / questions about the application of the three different block typologies as show on
P23:
o The north-western block is closest to the existing farm – this may work better as a
farm stead typology?
o The northern edge is very different from the western boundary and may require a
different house typology / arrangement of buildings?
o The Farmstead Typology shows groups of buildings clustered around a central
space. How will this relate to the perimeter block structure? Will the central space
form part of a strategic pedestrian route of be more private?
o How would backs and fronts of the Farmstead Courtyard typology relate / interface
with the “green streets”?
o The northerly green street would have a “Green Edge” to the north and a “Farmstead
Courtyard” to the south. Is this intentional? What would this look like?
Page 8 of 51
o The Linear Garden development form works best with a N-S orientation – this would
create a flank condition against Wort’s Causeway and the “green street” to the north.
This may not be appropriate? The arrangement of the Linear Gardens buildings is
supportable in landscape terms. Like the precedent images used of the Accordia
development, enough space between the block frontages must be provided to allow
for the wide and pleasant communal garden areas at the house fronts to evolve.
Green links should be accommodated between the inner parts of the development
and the hedgerows along Wort’s Causeway. Accordia mews house have private roof
terraces. Is it intended that this typology would do the same.
• It is recommended that in first instance an appropriate built form response to the various
edge conditions – both within the site and along its boundaries – if defined. This would
naturally create a varied character of the site which may make imposing the “character
areas” at this early stage unnecessary and resolve some of the issues / queries raised
above.
Three block typologies
• The three typologies illustrated in the pre-app document look appealing. However, each
have merits as well as challenges (integrating parking, solar orientation, treatment of flanks
of buildings, interface of back / sides of buildings with building frontages etc.). The
acceptability of these typologies for the site would depend on how they are applied and how
they would interface with the streets and spaces they enclose. Further work needs to be
done to clarify this.
The Proposals Schedule under Appendix B (page 255) within the Cambridge Local Plan 2018
mentions that pedestrian and cycle access to the local centre Wulfstan Way should be investigated.
Sustainable Drainage
It is expected that surface water is managed close to its source and on the surface. Details of the
sustainable drainage strategy are required sooner rather than later in order to ensure enough space
is allocated and to integrate it into the landscape scheme.
It is recommended that the doubling up of SUDS and Informal Open Space is kept to half or less of
the open spaces. This is to ensure that during times of flood, some spaces continue to be available
for amenity while the SUDS spaces are recovering and coming back into use.
Figure 3.12 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 highlights that the northern boundary of GB1 is a
likely area for drainage works, it may well be that north of the site may have drainage problems and
therefore you are requested to investigate this further and provide the necessary reports to the
Council’s Sustainable Drainage Engineer.
Netherhall Farm
Whilst design development is at an early stage, we should highlight the concerns about the likely
impact of development upon the character and appearance of existing nearby Netherhall Farm
which is a building of local interest. At this stage further and more detailed consideration is needed.
Ecology assessments need to be undertaken to understand the extents and requirements of the
wildlife in the area.
Highways and Access
Page 9 of 51
Wort’s Causeway / Access arrangements
Accessing the site from the private entrance of Netherhall Farm i.e. creation of a gateway would not
be accepted and alternative access solutions to be sought
The site is located in a very sensitive location and currently there are significant amounts of traffic
going through Babraham Road and this development will only increase traffic flow. There should be
no motor vehicular junction on Worts’s Causeway and there should be connections via the
neighbouring site GB2.
The current position of your access is unacceptable from the perspective of the Highways Authority;
it is recommended you push the traffic from the north side to the south side.
Vehicular access to both the GB1 and GB2 sites will only be permitted via Babraham Road. As
clarified in Policy 27 Wort’s Causeway will be used by buses only during peak periods with limited
car access at other times. Careful consideration will need to be given to the siting of traffic controls
on Wort’s Causeway. The new vehicular spine road will cross the GB2 site to a single point on Wort’s
Causeway and continue onto the GB1 site. The exact position of the new junction on Babraham
Road and alignment of the spine road is not yet fixed. You mentioned in the meeting the
development would create an extra 60 movements of motors vehicles per minute, the Council will
find this unacceptable and no additional motor vehicles should be during peak times.
It was mentioned in the meeting that the development would create an extra 60 movements of motor
vehicles one vehicle per minute within the peak period, the Local Highway Authority find this
unacceptable and no additional motor vehicles should be utilising Worts Causeway at peak periods.
GB1 and GB2 should be linked accessing onto Babraham Road and therefore not increasing motor
vehicular traffic onto Worts Causeway.
A Footway / cycleway along Worts Causeway may be required; this will be dependent on the
proposals being brought forward by the Greater Cambridge Partnership to relocate the bus route
from Babraham Road off line. The existing bus route uses Worts Causeway when Babraham Road
is heavily congested and if the use of Worts Causeway is no longer required it may be possible to
prevent motor vehicles from using this road to gain access to Cambridge from Cherry Hinton Road,
which may negate the requirement for a footway/cycleway along Worts Causeway, as the level of
motor vehicular traffic will be low.
If the bus route is not relocated from Babraham Road, then there will need to be some form of control
on Worts Causeway to prevent motor vehicles from either development using this road as an access
to Cambridge or Cherry Hinton Road
Ideally GB1 and GB2 should be linked and not to increase vehicular traffic on Worts Causeway and
access to Babraham Road.
Housing delivery
Affordable housing provision
Policy 45 of the new Cambridge Local Plan 2018 requires that development delivers a minimum of
40% affordable housing. You will be expected to demonstrate that the proposed mix of units will
deliver a balanced mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to meet projected future housing need
within Cambridge. The Council’s Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is
now out of date and so it is recommended that there are early discussions at the pre application
Page 10 of 51
stage with officers from the City Council’s Housing Department to discuss and agree the affordable
housing offer in terms of; the social housing provider, tenure split, mix, accessible homes, etc.
Housing mix
Paragraph 72(c) of the NPPF (2018) advises that a variety of homes to meet the needs of different
groups in the community should be provided. The housing mix for the private element of the housing
offer will be expected to mirror the mix for the affordable housing.
Community Facilities
It is recommended that there are early discussions at the pre application stage with officers from the
City Council’s Community Development team in order to explore the feasibility of providing some
form of community facilities provision on site as part of this development or off-site in conjunction
with other developments within the same area.
The Proposals Schedule under Appendix B (page 255) within the Cambridge Local Plan 2018
mentions that contributions should be made towards improved community facilities and services in
this part of the city.
Stakeholder Engagement
The Council would like to see a ‘Community Engagement Strategy (CES)’ due to the extensive level
of community interest in this development. It would be preferable a Communications Manager or
Head of Stakeholder Engagement is part of your team to provide the Council with a level of comfort
when dealing with future enquiries received from the surrounding community.
The Council would initially welcome a timeline as to when this report would be received. The Council
would like to see a robust CES 5 working days before the next pre-app meeting in which the
Council’s Community Engagement Officer (Sally Roden) will be present for feedback and
comments.
The strategy should outline the following:
- Which Stakeholders will be contacted i.e. local residents, councilors, amenity groups, etc.?
Please contact [email protected] for relevant resident/interest groups
- Dates for public consultation events
- Approach for contacting stakeholder i.e. public events, leaflet distribution, etc.
- Principles of engagement i.e. access to events, convenience for residents (date and timings
of events).
- Updating Community i.e. how, web-page, follow up meeting? How will you demonstrate
findings have altered thinking?
In the meeting you asked for potential venues for consultation events. Possible ones are within
Wulfstan Way Local Centre:
- St James Church of England has level access and plenty of parking – 01223 246419
http://stjamescambridge.org.uk
- Across the road is Queen Edith Chapel – 01223 245584
http://www.qeccambridge.org.uk
There are also two local primary schools - Queen Edith Primary School and Queen Emma Primary
School and Netherhall secondary school which may have suitable halls that could be used.
Page 11 of 51
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
It is advised that you ensure the development is in accordance with the The Town and Country
Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. The requirements for screening
for Environmental Impact Assessment for subsequent reserved matters applications are set out in
regulation 9 and regulation 10 of the 2017 Regulations. It was noted at the meeting you would like
to discuss the EIA at the next pre-app meeting which is welcomed.
Ecological Impacts
A preliminary ecological assessment (PEA) for the site, in line with CIEEM Guidelines (2013),
incorporating habitat and protected species surveys, will need to be provided to inform the EIA and
outline development proposals. Existing habitats should be measured and assessed for
distinctiveness to enable assessment of proposed habitat loss and gains using the DEFRA
Biodiversity Offsetting metric. The PEA should identify both constraints and opportunities and seek
an overall biodiversity net gain for the development. The sites ecological value should be assessed
as part of a wider landscape scale network and how it might help deliver the Cambridgeshire Green
Infrastructure Strategy (2011). The site is in close proximity to a number of designated sites including
Cherry Hinton Chalk Pits SSSI/LNR, The Beech Woods and Limekiln Hill SSSI. Protected species
potentially present include scarce breeding farmland birds (Corn Bunting, Grey Partridge), Bats
(Brown Long Eared, Barbastelle), Badger, Barn Owl.
There will be a need to protect Netherhall Farm Meadow County Wildlife Site which is within the
allocation boundary and that there are bat roosts at Netherhall Farm.
You are encouraged to consider adopting the recently launched voluntary Local Nature Partnership
(LNP) Developing with Nature Toolkit, offering guidance and accreditation for those developments
demonstrating best practice.
Useful links:
Local Nature Partnership (LNP) Developing with Nature Toolkit:
https://naturalcambridgeshire.org.uk/news/developing-with-nature-toolkit/
DEFRA metric for Biodiversity Net Gain:
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6020204538888192
Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) & Future Pre-application Meetings
At this stage Officers would be reluctant to enter in to a PPA and having further pre-application
meetings until you can provide a report on your ‘Community Engagement Strategy’ due to the
extensive level of community interest in this development. It would be preferable a Communications
Manager or Head of Stakeholder Engagement is part of your team to provide the Council with a
level of comfort when dealing with future enquiries received from the surrounding community.
Officers would initially welcome a timeline as to when this report would be received and thereafter
would be happy to agree another pre-application meeting and if required a PPA agreement.
Documents to be submitted for Outline Application
I can confirm the following documents would be required for the submission of an Outline application, some of these may be scoped out from the Environmental Statement (if required):
- Application Form and Certificates; - Site Location and Block Plan; - Parameter Plans with accompanying Key Development Principles - Illustrative Strategic Masterplan - Spatial Masterplan; - Design and Access Statement;
Page 12 of 51
- Landscape and Open Space Strategy; - Recreational Assessment; - Planning Statement (including consultation section); - Public Art Strategy; - Countryside Enhancement Strategy; - Low Emission Strategy; - Site Wide Management Strategy; - Utilities Strategy Infrastructure Report; - Agricultural Land Classification Report; - Health Impact Assessment; - Sustainability and Energy Statement; - Waste Management Strategy; - Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP); - Arboricultural Survey; - Arboricultural Impact Assessment; - Ecology Report; - Ground Conditions Report; - Transport Assessment and Travel Plan; - Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy; - Archaeological Desk Based Assessment and Written Scheme of Investigation; - Cultural Heritage Statement; - Noise Impact Assessment; - Air Quality Assessment; - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA); - Social and Economic Impact Assessment; and - Environmental Statement - Stakeholder Engagement Strategy Feedback Report
Council Panels
It is recommended the proposals are presented at the following panels to ensure all aspects of the
design are acceptable:
• Quality Panel
• Disability Panel
• Development Control Members Panel
Cambridgeshire County Council Quality Panel
The final design is presented to the Quality Panel before submitting a formal outline planning
application. Future dates (2019):
• 4th June
• 3rd July
• 15th July – pm available only
• 1st August
• 2nd September
• 2nd October
• 6th November
• 4th December
Cambridge City Council (shared planning services with SCDC) Disability Panel
Disability Panel is primarily to check internal access of units and is held at Cambridge City Council,
dates for 2019:
Page 13 of 51
• April 30th - Lucy Cavendish College (Wolfson Room)
• May 28th - Lucy Cavendish College (Wolfson Room)
• June 25th - Meadows Centre (Garden Wing)
• July 30th - Meadows Centre (Garden Wing)
• Aug 27th - Meadows Centre (Garden Wing)
• Sept 24th - Meadows Centre (Garden Wing)
• October 29th - Lucy Cavendish College (Wolfson Room)
• Nov 26th- Lucy Cavendish College (Wolfson Room)
Members Panel
The dates for Development Control Members panel are listed on the Council’s website, please see
link below:
https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?Act=later&CId=190&D=201906261000&
MD=ielistmeetings (you are welcome to email me so I can send you the link directly)
Programme and next steps
Your scheme needs to be worked up in further detail so that pre-application discussions can move
forward. We will require an up to date development programme from you setting out key project
milestones (including tentative dates for the Council Panels) with the report with an outline of your
strategy for Community Engagement.
Concluding comments
The next pre app meeting will take in April/May 2019 at Cambridge City Council offices. Any
information which you wish to be considered at the next pre-application meetings will need to be
provided at least 5 days before the meetings to allow Officers adequate time to review the material.
This letter provides informal officer views and it does not therefore bind the decision of Members
of the City Council’s Planning Committee when the application(s) is (are) formally determined in
due course. The information provided at the first meeting was highly conceptual and our comment
in this letter therefore reflects this. Officers will provide more feedback as your scheme develops
further.
Should you have any queries regarding any of the above please do not hesitate to contact me
directly.
Enc.
Next steps are summarised in Table 1 below.
Page 1 of 51
Issue Comments
A. Principle of Development
Principle of development
The principle of residential development on GB2 is considered acceptable and will be supported by Officers. The proposals will however need to satisfy all the other policy requirements of the development plan.
GREEN
Coordinated development
Development on both the GB1 and GB2 sites will be expected to be carefully designed to reflect their prominent location on the southern edge of the City and to ensure they are integrated with existing and planned new neighbouring development.
RED
Landscape, Open space and Trees.
Impact upon the Green Belt
To enable officers to assess the acceptability of such proposals a Landscape Visual Impact Appraisal (LVIA) will need to be provided including verified views.
RED
Character of Wort’s Causeway
The section of Wort’s Causeway which passes between GB1 and GB2 is rural in its character and appearance with mature hedgerow planting alongside both sides of the lane. The rural character and appearance of Wort’s Causeway including its verges, hedgerows and bridleway should be retained. Further work is required to see how this could be achieved. It should also be noted that Policy 27 requires that there should an assessment of the potential for biodiversity enhancement and the creation of an ecological corridor between the two sites.
RED
Structural landscaping
Policy 27 requires the early establishment of a generous landscaped edge to the eastern side of the site to help create an appropriate buffer and distinctive edge to the City. There should also be a landscaped buffer where the site adjoins Netherhall Farm.
RED
Open space provision
Policy 68 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 requires that all residential developments should contribute to the provision of open space and recreation sites/ facilities in accordance with the council’s Open Space and Recreation Standards, the Playing Pitch Strategy and the Indoor Sports Facility Strategy. GB1 will be expected to contribute towards the delivery of; • Outdoor sports facilities • Indoor sports facilities • Provision for children and teenagers • Informal open space • Allotments Because of the size of the development it is not anticipated that it will be practical to deliver either outdoor or indoor sports facilities on the site. It is, however, anticipated that the site will be able to make Provision for Children and Teenagers, Informal Open Space and Allotments on site. Where it is not possible to deliver on site it is likely that a commuted sum will be payable towards the cost of delivery of such facilities elsewhere in the City.
RED
Page 2 of 51
Open space requirements will be calculated by determining the net number of residents of the new development, which will depend upon the eventual number, type and size of dwellings proposed.
Sustainable Drainage
Further details of the sustainable drainage design is required as soon as possible in order to ensure enough space is allocated and to integrate it into the landscape scheme
RED
Density & Layout of Development
Site development capacity
The proposal would need to take into account the demands for open space; strategic landscaping and sustainable drainage solutions and therefore the overall capacity may be less than 200 units.
RED
Layout & / design principles
Detailed comments on emerging design principles are provided in the letter. These should be addressed as the design moves forward.
RED
B. Housing Delivery
Affordable housing provision
It is recommended that there are early discussions at the pre app stage with officers from the City Council’s Housing Department attends to discuss and agree on the affordable housing offer in terms of; the social housing provider, tenure split, mix, accessible homes, etc.
RED
Housing mix The housing mix for the private element of the housing offer will be expected to mirror the mix for the affordable housing.
RED
Residential space standards
It should be noted that all new residential units will be expected to meet the residential space standards set out in Policy 50 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018).
RED
C. Transport / Highways
Vehicular access from Babraham Road
Vehicular access to both the GB1 and GB2 sites will only be permitted from Babraham Road. As clarified in Policy 27 Wort’s Causeway will be used by buses only during peak periods with limited car access at other times. Careful consideration will need to be given to the siting of traffic controls on Wort’s Causeway. The new vehicular spine road will cross the GB2 site to a single point on Wort’s Causeway and continue onto the GB1 site. The exact position of the new junction on Babraham Road and alignment of the spine road is not yet fixed.
RED
Pedestrian & cycle linkages
Future development will be expected to provide adequate connections including pedestrian cycle routes to its surroundings, including to GB1. It should be noted that a major new cycle route will be delivered across Babraham Road from the GB2 site through the Bell School development to Addenbrookes / Cambridge Biomedical Campus and to the rest of the City.
RED
Page 3 of 51
Policy 27 requires the establishment of appropriate public footpaths linking the development with the surrounding chalk farmland and should include a footpath to the nearby Netherhall School.
Car & cycle parking
Policy 82 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) clarifies the developments will be expected to be compliant with parking standards. The site although located at the edge of the City is still a highly accessible location with excellent access to more sustainable modes of transport, notably cycle routes and regular bus services. Other transport improvements in the area including the Bell School cycle route and in the longer term the planned new train station at Cambridge Biomedical Campus will further improve the site accessibility. It is anticipated that the Transport Assessment, which will need to be provided with a planning application, is likely to help justify a substantially lower provision of car parking and higher provision of cycle parking within the development. Officers will expect resident parking to be on-plot.
RED
Transport mitigation
The transport assessment will be expected to identify wider transport mitigation measures including walking and cycling connections.
RED
D. Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental impacts
Under the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 as the project is listed in Schedule 2 and exceeds the relevant thresholds or criteria set out in the second column the proposal needs to be screened by Cambridge City Council to determine whether significant effects on the environment are likely and hence whether an Environmental Impact Assessment is required. A screening is required because the proposals exceed both the following criteria; • The development is more than 150 dwellings • Overall the site area exceeds 5 hectares The environmental issues officers will be concerned with include; visual impacts, air quality impacts, water quality, contaminated land/ gas, noise and artificial lighting.
RED
E. Ecological Impact
Ecology
A preliminary ecological assessment (PEA) for the site, in line with CIEEM Guidelines (2013), incorporating habitat and protected species surveys, will need to be provided to inform the EIA and outline development proposals. Existing habitats should be measured and assessed for distinctiveness to enable assessment of proposed habitat loss and gains using the DEFRA Biodiversity Offsetting metric. The PEA should identify both constraints and opportunities and seek an overall biodiversity net gain for the development. The sites ecological value should be assessed as part of a wider landscape scale network and how it might help deliver the Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy (2011). The site contains a protected County Wildlife Site. The
RED
Page 4 of 51
Table 1: Issues Log
END OF DOCUMENT
site is in close proximity to a number of designated sites including Cherry Hinton Chalk Pits SSSI/LNR, The Beech Woods and Limekiln Hill SSSI. Protected species potentially present include scarce breeding farmland birds (Corn Bunting, Grey Partridge), Bats (Brown Long Eared, Barbastelle), Badger, Barn Owl.
F. Community Facilities
Community Facilities
Policy 27 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 requires that contributions be made towards improved community facilities and services in this part of the City. As stipulated in Policy 73 of the new plan this community facility should be in the form of a new, dedicated community centre and where necessary, education and childcare facilities. With development also coming forward on the GB1 you should investigate the possibility of delivering a community facility which will serve the future residents of both developments as well as existing residents in the area.
RED
G. Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder Engagement
The Council requires a commitment to a programme of community engagement as the scheme moves forward and is developed further. Please provide a report outlining your strategy for community engagement strategy (CES) before the next pre-app can be arranged.
RED
Page 5 of 51
EIA Screening opinion- 2nd July 2019- 19/0770/SCRE Our ref: 19/0770/SCRE
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) (ENGLAND AND WALES) REGULATIONS 2017 (AS UPDATED) EIA SCREENING OPINION REQUEST – SITE TO THE NORTH OF WORTS’ CAUSEWAY, CAMBRIDGE (ALLOCATION GB1) PRPOSED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING UP TO 200 UNITS, COMMUNITY FACILITIES, OFFICE SPACE, CAR PARKING AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE Thank you for your EIA Screening Opinion request which was submitted to Cambridge City Council on 03 June 2019. Cambridge City Council has carefully considered the information provided on your correspondence dated 03 June 2019. I write to advise you that based on the information submitted to date, the development background, and the circumstances of the case, it is the opinion of the Council that an Environmental Statement is required for the proposals.
Site Description and Surroundings
The site, which covers an area of approximately 6.1 hectares, is located to the south east of Cambridge, adjacent to Netherall Farm and its associated grounds and paddocks. It extends east from the edge of an existing residential area, which forms the western and northern site boundaries. Worts’ Causeway forms the southern boundary of the site. Land to the east of the site and beyond Worts’ Causeway is characterised by agricultural farmland and open countryside. The site was allocated in the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 as site GB1, for up to 200 dwellings.
Consultation Whilst there is no statutory requirement to consult on screening requests under the relevant EIA legislation, the Local Planning Authority undertook consultation of key consultees. The full consultation responses can be accessed online via the website link below: https://idox.cambridge.gov.uk/onlineapplications/advancedSearchResults.do?action=firstPage
Page 6 of 51
Assessment The proposed development falls within Schedule 2, Class 10 (b) ‘Urban development projects’. The development exceeds the applicable thresholds and criteria of more than 150 dwellings and an overall development area of over 5 hectares. Consideration has also been given as to whether the development is likely to have significant effects on the environment as per Schedule 3 of the EIA Regulations, with specific reference to the development characteristics, location and nature of the impacts. In making this evaluation, regard has been had to relevant Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) which provides clarification on the factors to be taken into account to determine whether or not an EIA is required in support of a planning application. A copy of the Screening Matrix is attached as an Appendix to this letter. Characteristics of Development The characteristics of the development have been considered having regard in particular to the size of the development, physical land use changes, the production of waste, pollution and nuisances, and the cumulative impacts with other planned development in the vicinity of the site. Notwithstanding the scale of the development, the proposed development is considered to have the potential to lead to significant environmental effects on a range of issues taken together, including ecology and wildlife. Location of Development The location of the proposed development has been considered in the context of the environmental sensitivity of the geographical areas likely to be affected, having regard to existing land uses, and the absorption capacity of the natural environment. The environmental sensitivity of the location of the development is considered to be high. It is a greenfield site on the edge of Cambridge, within close proximity to existing residential properties and existing and planned services. The site is accessed by a classified ‘A’ road and the local highway network is already under pressure. The site is of potential importance to ecology and wildlife. Characteristics of Potential Impact The potential significant effects of the development have been considered, including the extent of the impact, duration, frequency and reversibility of the impact. The proposed development is likely to lead to significant environmental effects on a range of issues. There are potential impacts of significant complexity in relation to biodiversity, ecological impacts on a sensitive area, and surface water flooding, which require informed consideration through an Environmental Impact Assessment. On the basis of this evaluation, the Council has concluded that the proposed development requires the submission of an Environmental Statement to accompany a planning application for the proposed development. Yours sincerely,
Encl. – Screening Opinion dated 02 July 2019
Page 7 of 51
GB2 Pre App letter- 26th February 2019
Total number of 11 pages in this document including this page 29 August 2019 Reference: 19/5045/PREAPP
RE: Proposed residential development, GB2, Worts Causeway, Cambridge – Pre-
application meeting
I apologise for the delay in responding. Unfortunately the previous Case Officer Mark
Wadsworth has left the Council so I am now taking over this project.
INTRODUCTION
An initial pre-application meeting took place at the Guildhall on Friday 16th November
2017 at which City Council Officers were presented with initial proposals for the
residential development of the GB2 site at Wort’s Causeway, Cambridge.
The table attached to this letter summarises the issues using a ‘traffic light’ format.
Red issues are matters of principle which if not resolved would lead to a refusal of the
application; amber issues are those where the principle is acceptable but work is still
required. Green issues are those which are acceptable. We will support the
submission of an application when all the issues are agreed and shown as green
PROPOSALS
The proposal is to develop the 7.7 hectares GB2 site for residential development. The
newly adopted Cambridge Local Plan (2018) identifies that the site’s capacity is 230
dwellings delivered at a density of 34 dwelling/ hectare.
DOCUMENTS
• 18-146 GB2 Wort’s Causeway – Pre-application document 01 (November 2018)
KEY ISSUES
The key substantive issues discussed at the meeting were;
• Principle of development
• Coordinated development
• Green belt, landscape & open space
Page 8 of 51
• Layout & density of development
• Highways and Access
• Housing delivery
• Community facilities
• Community engagement
Additional Issues not addressed in the meeting but clarified in this letter:
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
• Ecological Impact
• Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) & Future Pre-application meetings
• Programme
Principle of development
Policy 27 of the new Cambridge Local Plan 2018 releases both GB1 and GB2 sites
from the Cambridge Green Belt for residential development of up to 430 dwellings
(combined). The principle of residential development on GB2 is considered
acceptable and will be supported by Officers. The proposals will however need to
satisfy all the other policy requirements of the development plan. The current split
between the two sites is GB2: 230 dwellings and GB1: 200 dwellings.
Coordinated development
Development on both GB1 and GB2 will be expected to be carefully designed to reflect
their prominent location i.e. edge of the city and on the southern approach to the City
and to ensure development is integrated with existing and planned new neighbouring
development. Specifically, you will be expected to show how the proposal for the GB2
site engages with, and relates to development on the GB1 site, particularly in terms
of;
• The design of the new junction on Babraham Road and alignment of the new spine
road which will need to cross over Worts’ Causeway and provide access into GB1
• Cycle/ pedestrian routes/ connection
• Open spaces & structural landscaping
• Delivery of community facilities
• A comprehensive masterplan for both sites (preferably)
Green Belt, landscape & open space
Visual impact
A key constraint will be the visual impact of development on this prominent site. The
proposals tabled at the meeting indicate that the proposal is to deliver a mix of houses
and flats with some of the flat blocks up to 5 storeys in height. The height seems to be
excessive in relation to its context adjacent to the Green Belt, given that the site is
rural in nature and any proposal should embrace this concept. Officers would expect
Page 9 of 51
a design that considers a very soft approach for the edge of the city in this location
and therefore and expect you to explore various options.
There are significant concerns about the potential visual impact of this form of
development, particularly in terms of the density and height of the development
envisaged. To enable officers to assess the acceptability of such proposals a
Landscape Visual Impact Appraisal (LVIA) will need to be provided. In the first
instance a marked-up plan should be provided and agreed with the LPA at the earliest
opportunity for potential viewpoints. Photographs of the potential views should be
provided and a selection of 5 will need to be re-photographed and progressed to
verified views. At this stage modelling of the proposed development to level AVR1-2
will be acceptable showing the, layout, massing and height of development.
I would like to bring your attention to Policy 4: The Cambridge Green Belt under
section 2.56 in Cambridge Local Plan clearly states that “…..and two sites required to
provide small-scale housing development (sites GB1 and GB2).”
Structural landscaping
Policy 27 requires the early establishment of a generous landscaped edge to the
eastern side of the site to help create an appropriate buffer and distinctive city edge
between the site and the Green Belt. A 20 metre wide tree belt is required along this
boundary of the site which should be at least 2 large tree species deep together with
understorey planting. The boundary planting is not required to fully hide the
development but should significantly soften the development edge and help create an
appropriate setting and approach to the City Nine Wells (Bell School) by Hill
Residential provides a good precedent for an appropriate edge interface.
There should also be a landscaped buffer where the site adjoins existing housing to
the west. This buffer will help mitigate the impact of the new development and should
be at least 10 metres wide with mature tree and hedgerow planting. The approach
should be carefully co-ordinated with a thorough understanding of the existing
boundary including proximity of existing dwellings adjacent to the site boundary.
The existing hedgerow and associated ‘ride’ along the Worts’ Causeway boundary will
need to be integrated into the site. As existing landscape structure the removal of the
hedgerows will not be acceptable and breaks will need to be kept to a minimum. How
new building plots interface with it will also need careful consideration and the
approach may need to vary along the length.
Open space requirements
Policy 68 of the Cajjmbridge Local Plan 2018 requires that all residential developments
should contribute to the provision of open space and recreation sites/ facilities in
accordance with the council’s Open Space and Recreation Standards, the Playing
Pitch Strategy and the Indoor Sports Facility Strategy. Open space requirements will
be calculated by determining the net number of residents of the new development,
which will depend upon the eventual number, type and size of dwellings proposed.
Layout & density of development
Page 10 of 51
Site development capacity
The proposal would need to take into account the demands for open space; strategic
landscaping and sustainable drainage solutions and therefore the overall capacity
may be less than 230 units.
Diversion of service corridors
There are two significant easements which impact upon the GB2 site that impact
significantly on the potential layout of the development. The financial viability of
diverting both pipes around the site should be explored, as the potential increase in
developable land / value resulting from the diversions of either or both pipes might
justify the costs of the diversion works and result in the more efficient development of
the site.
Layout & appearance
Whilst design development is at an early stage, we should highlight the concerns
about the likely impact of development upon the character and appearance of existing
nearby development on Babraham Road, Alwyne Road and Worts’ Causeway which
is characterised by large detached properties set on generous plots. At this stage
further and more detailed consideration is needed.
In response development on the GB2 site should, in terms of layout and appearance,
be in keeping with existing neighbouring development, particularly along the
Babraham Road frontage where large properties fronting onto Babraham Road will be
encouraged.
Sustainable Drainage
Further details of the approach to sustainable drainage design are required as soon
as possible in order to ensure enough space is allocated and to integrate it into the
landscape scheme.
Highways and Access
Babraham Road / Access arrangements
The creation of a new junction on to Babraham Road is needed to facilitate
development of the site. Access from Worts’ Causeway to serve motor vehicle
movements will be considered unacceptable. The width of the Babraham Road
junction should be minimised and at the meeting a reduction in the speed limit from
40mph to 30mph was suggested as a way of removing the need for the scale of
junction tabled and creates the potential of a similar arrangement as at Nine Wells
(Bell School). Interface with GCP projects (bus improvements and cycle/pedestrian
links) along Babraham Road need to be factored into the development proposals. The
suggestion/cross section of taking the pedestrian footpath to the other side of the
existing hedge was supported.
Housing delivery
Affordable housing provision
Page 11 of 51
Policy 45 of the new Cambridge Local Plan 2018 requires that development delivers
a minimum of 40% affordable housing. You will be expected to demonstrate that the
proposed mix of units will deliver a balanced mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures
to meet projected future housing need within Cambridge. The Council’s Affordable
Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is now out of date and so it is
recommended that there are early discussions at the pre application stage with
officers from the City Council’s Housing Department to discuss and agree the
affordable housing offer in terms of; the social housing provider, tenure split, mix,
accessible homes, etc.
Housing mix
Paragraph 72(c) of the NPPF (2018) advises that a variety of homes to meet the needs
of different groups in the community should be provided. The housing mix for the
private element of the housing offer will be expected to mirror the mix for the affordable
housing.
Community Facilities
It is recommended that there are early discussions at the pre application stage with
officers from the City Council’s Community Development team in order to explore the
feasibility of providing some form of community facilities provision on site as part of
this development or off-site in conjunction with other developments within the same
area.
Community Engagement
We advised at the meeting that there is likely to be significant interest from the local
community and local ward members regarding the redevelopment of the site. It will
therefore be important to commit to a programme of community engagement as the
scheme moves forward and is developed further. We would like to see a draft
‘Community Engagement Strategy’ documents at the next pre-application meeting.
We recommend that you attend a Southern Fringe Community Forum meeting.
Further details can be found on our website www.cambridge.gov.uk/southern-fringe-
community-forum
I will send through a list of recommended consultations that should be undertaken by
you in the form of written notification and invitation to Community/Stakeholder
Consultation events informing the surrounding community of your proposals.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
It is advised that you ensure the development is in accordance with the The Town and
Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and
subsequent applications would need to be submitted thereafter as the pre-application
process progresses and you are in a position to submit for an outline permission. Since
writing this letter the Council has received details for an EIA screening opinion request
on 25 February 2019.
Ecological Impacts
Page 12 of 51
A preliminary ecological assessment (PEA) for the site, in line with CIEEM Guidelines
(2013), incorporating habitat and protected species surveys, will need to be provided
to inform the EIA and outline development proposals. Existing habitats should be
measured and assessed for distinctiveness to enable assessment of proposed habitat
loss and gains using the DEFRA Biodiversity Offsetting metric. The PEA should
identify both constraints and opportunities and seek an overall biodiversity net gain for
the development. The sites ecological value should be assessed as part of a wider
landscape scale network and how it might help deliver the Cambridgeshire Green
Infrastructure Strategy (2011). The site is in close proximity to a number of designated
sites including Cherry Hinton Chalk Pits SSSI/LNR, The Beech Woods and Limekiln
Hill SSSI. Protected species potentially present include scarce breeding farmland birds
(Corn Bunting, Grey Partridge), Bats (Brown Long Eared, Barbastelle), Badger, Barn
Owl.
You are encouraged to consider adopting the recently launched voluntary Local Nature
Partnership (LNP) Developing with Nature Toolkit, offering guidance and accreditation
for those developments demonstrating best practice.
Useful links:
Local Nature Partnership (LNP) Developing with Nature Toolkit:
https://naturalcambridgeshire.org.uk/news/developing-with-nature-toolkit/
DEFRA metric for Biodiversity Net Gain:
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6020204538888192
Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) & Future Pre-application Meetings
At this stage the Council would be reluctant to enter in to a PPA and having further
pre-application meetings until you can provide a report on your ‘Community
Engagement Strategy’ due to the extensive level of community interest in this
development. It would be preferable a Communications Manager or Head of
Stakeholder Engagement is part of your team to provide the Council with a level of
comfort when dealing with future enquiries received from the surrounding community.
The Council would initially welcome a timeline as to when this report would be received
and thereafter would be happy to agree another pre-application meeting and if
required a PPA agreement.
Programme and next steps
Your scheme needs to be worked up in further detail so that pre-application
discussions can move forward. We will require an up to date development programme
from you setting out key project milestones with the report with an outline of your
strategy for Community Engagement.
Concluding comments
Any information which you wish to be considered at the next pre-application meetings
will need to be provided at least 5 days before the meetings to allow Officers adequate
time to review the material.
Page 13 of 51
This letter provides informal officer views and it does not therefore bind the decision
of Members of the City Council’s Planning Committee when the application(s) is (are)
formally determined in due course. The information provided at the first meeting was
highly conceptual and our comment in this letter therefore reflects this. Officers will
provide more feedback as your scheme develops further.
Should you have any queries regarding any of the above please do not hesitate to
contact me directly.
Yours Sincerely,
Enc.
Next steps are summarised in Table 1 below.
Page 14 of 51
Table 1: Issues Log
Issue Comments Status
A. Principle of Development
Principle of development
The principle of residential development on GB2 is considered acceptable and will be supported by Officers. The proposals will however need to satisfy all the other policy requirements of the development plan.
Amber
Coordinated development
Development on both the GB1 and GB2 sites will be expected to be carefully designed to reflect their prominent location on the southern edge of the City and to ensure they are integrated with existing and planned new neighbouring development.
Red
B. Green belt, landscape and open space
Impact upon the Green Belt
To enable officers to assess the acceptability of such proposals a Landscape Visual Impact Appraisal (LVIA) will need to be provided including verified views.
Red
Character of Wort’s Causeway
The section of Wort’s Causeway which passes between GB1 and GB2 is rural in its character and appearance with mature hedgerow planting alongside both sides of the lane. On the western side and parallel is you suggest a permissive bridleway with mature planting alongside both sides of the bridleway. To confirm the status of the bridleway you should contact James Stringer the Asset Information Definitive Map Officer at Cambridgeshire County Council ([email protected]). The rural character and appearance of Wort’s Causeway including its verges, hedgerows and bridleway should be retained. It should also be noted that Policy 27 requires that there should an assessment of the potential for biodiversity enhancement and the creation of an ecological corridor between the two sites.
Red
Structural landscaping
Policy 27 requires the early establishment of a generous landscaped edge to the eastern side of the site to help create an appropriate buffer and distinctive edge to the City. There should also be a landscaped buffer where the site adjoins existing housing to the west.
Red
Open space provision
Policy 68 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 requires that all residential developments should contribute to the provision of open space and recreation sites/ facilities in accordance with the
Red
Page 15 of 51
council’s Open Space and Recreation Standards, the Playing Pitch Strategy and the Indoor Sports Facility Strategy. GB2 will be expected to contribute towards the delivery of; • Outdoor sports facilities • Indoor sports facilities • Provision for children and teenagers • Informal open space • Allotments Because of the size of the development it is not anticipated that it will be practical to deliver either outdoor or indoor sports facilities on the site. It is, however, anticipated that the site will be able to make Provision for Children and Teenagers, Informal Open Space and Allotments on site. Where it is not possible to deliver on site it is likely that a commuted sum will be payable towards the cost of delivery of such facilities elsewhere in the City. Open space requirements will be calculated by determining the net number of residents of the new development, which will depend upon the eventual number, type and size of dwellings proposed.
Sustainable Drainage
Further details of the sustainable drainage design is required as soon as possible in order to ensure enough space is allocated and to integrate it into the landscape scheme
Red
C. Density & layout of development
Diversion of service corridors
There are two significant easements which impact upon the GB2 site. The first is the Cambridge Water 21” water main which travels from the western corner of the site from Babraham Road in a north eastern direction across Wort’s Causeway. This water main has a 10 metre wide easement. Secondly from approximately the same point on Babraham Road a high-pressure gas main traverses the site travelling in a more easterly direction. The high pressure gas main has a 15 metre wide easement. The early design work uses both these easement zones as structuring elements with no development taking place within the easements. Instead the easements have been incorporated into the scheme’s design with open spaces, landscaping, roads and footpaths incorporated into these spaces. It is strongly recommended that the financial viability of diverting both pipes around the site be explored, as the potential increase in developable land / value resulting from the diversions of either or both pipes might justify the costs of the diversion works and result in the more efficient development of the site.
Red
Page 16 of 51
Site development capacity
The proposal would need to take into account the demands for open space, strategic landscaping and sustainable drainage solutions and therefore the overall capacity may be less than 230 units.
Amber
Layout & appearance of development
Future development on the GB2 site should seek to harmonise with existing neighbouring development, particularly along the Babraham Road frontage where large properties fronting onto Babraham Road will be encouraged. Such properties could potentially be small apartment blocks.
Amber
D. Housing delivery
Affordable housing provision
It is recommended that there are early discussions at the pre app stage with officers from the City Council’s Housing Department attends to discuss and agree on the affordable housing offer in terms of; the social housing provider, tenure split, mix, accessible homes, etc.
Red Red
Housing mix The housing mix for the private element of the housing offer will be expected to mirror the mix for the affordable housing.
Red
Residential space standards
It should be noted that all new residential units will be expected to meet the residential space standards set out in Policy 50 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018).
Red
E. Transport
Vehicular access from Babraham Road
Vehicular access to both the GB1 and GB2 sites will only be permitted from Babraham Road. As clarified in Policy 27 Wort’s Causeway will be used by buses only during peak periods with limited car access at other times. Careful consideration will need to be given to the siting of traffic controls on Wort’s Causeway. The new vehicular spine road will cross the GB2 site to a single point on Wort’s Causeway and continue onto the GB1 site. The exact position of the new junction on Babraham Road and alignment of the spine road is not yet fixed.
Amber
Pedestrian & cycle linkages
Future development will be expected to provide adequate connections including pedestrian cycle routes to its surroundings, including to GB1. A key cycle route into the City runs on the footpath along the Babraham frontage of the site. The formation of a major new road junction along this frontage is likely to disrupt the journeys of cyclists who are likely to need to wait at a signalised crossing. You are advised to investigate other arrangements where potentially the cycle route could be diverted into the site away from the junction. It should be noted that a major new cycle route will be delivered across Babraham Road from the GB2 site through the Bell School development to Addenbrookes / Cambridge Biomedical Campus and to the rest of the City.
Amber
Page 17 of 51
Policy 27 requires the establishment of appropriate public footpaths linking the development with the surrounding chalk farmland and should include a footpath to the nearby Netherhall School. The permissive footpath along the site’s western boundary and the bridleway alongside Wort’s Causeway will need to be retained and incorporated into the scheme.
Car & cycle parking
Policy 82 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) clarifies the developments will be expected to be compliant with parking standards. The site although located at the edge of the City is still a highly accessible location with excellent access to more sustainable modes of transport, notably cycle routes and regular bus services. Other transport improvements in the area including the Bell School cycle route and in the longer term the planned new train station at Cambridge Biomedical Campus will further improve the site accessibility. It is anticipated that the Transport Assessment, which will need to be provided with a planning application, is likely to help justify a substantially lower provision of car parking and higher provision of cycle parking within the development. Officers will expect resident parking to be on-plot.
Red
Transport mitigation The transport assessment will be expected to identify wider transport mitigation measures including walking and cycling connections.
Red
F. Other
Community facilities
Policy 27 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 requires that contributions be made towards improved community facilities and services in this part of the City. As stipulated in Policy 73 of the new plan this community facility should be in the form of a new, dedicated community centre and where necessary, education and childcare facilities. With development also coming forward on the GB1 you should investigate the possibility of delivering a community facility which will serve the future residents of both developments as well as existing residents in the area. It is recommended that there are early discussions at the pre application stage with officers from the City Council’s Community Development team in order to explore the feasibility of providing some form of community facilities as part of this development or off-site in conjunction with other developments within the same area.
Red
Environmental impacts
Under the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 as the project is listed in Schedule 2 and exceeds the relevant thresholds or criteria set out in the second column the proposal needs to be screened by Cambridge City Council to determine whether significant effects on the environment are likely and hence whether an Environmental Impact Assessment is required. A screening is required because the proposals exceed both the following criteria;
Amber
Page 18 of 51
• The development is more than 150 dwellings
• Overall the site area exceeds 5 hectares
The environmental issues officers will be concerned with include; visual impacts, air quality impacts, water quality, contaminated land/ gas, noise and artificial lighting.
Ecology A preliminary ecological assessment (PEA) for the site, in line with CIEEM Guidelines (2013), incorporating habitat and protected species surveys, will need to be provided to inform the EIA and outline development proposals. Existing habitats should be measured and assessed for distinctiveness to enable assessment of proposed habitat loss and gains using the DEFRA Biodiversity Offsetting metric. The PEA should identify both constraints and opportunities and seek an overall biodiversity net gain for the development. The sites ecological value should be assessed as part of a wider landscape scale network and how it might help deliver the Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy (2011). The site is in close proximity to a number of designated sites including Cherry Hinton Chalk Pits SSSI/LNR, The Beech Woods and Limekiln Hill SSSI. Protected species potentially present include scarce breeding farmland birds (Corn Bunting, Grey Partridge), Bats (Brown Long Eared, Barbastelle), Badger, Barn Owl.
You are encouraged to consider adopting the recently launched voluntary Local Nature Partnership (LNP) Developing with Nature Toolkit, offering guidance and accreditation for those developments demonstrating best practice.
Useful links:
Local Nature Partnership (LNP) Developing with Nature Toolkit:
https://naturalcambridgeshire.org.uk/news/developing-with-nature-toolkit/
DEFRA metric for Biodiversity Net Gain:
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6020204538888192
Red
Stakeholder / Community Engagement Strategy report
The Council requires a commitment to a programme of community engagement as the scheme moves forward and is developed further. Please provide a report outlining your strategy for community engagement before the next pre-app can be arranged. The Council recommend that you attend a Southern Fringe Community Forum meeting. Further details can be found on our website www.cambridge.gov.uk/southern-fringe-community-forum
Red
Page 19 of 51
GB2 Pre App letter- 26th May 2019
Total number of 14 pages in this document including this page 29 August 2019 Reference: 19/5045/PREAPP
RE: Proposed residential development, GB2, Worts Causeway, Cambridge – Pre-
application meeting
INTRODUCTION
A second pre-application meeting took place at the Guildhall on 4th April 2019 at which
City Council Officers were presented with updated proposals for the residential
development of the GB2 site at Wort’s Causeway, Cambridge.
The table attached to this letter summarises the issues using a ‘traffic light’ format.
Red issues are matters of principle which if not resolved would lead to a refusal of the
application; amber issues are those where the principle is acceptable but work is still
required. Green issues are those which are acceptable. We will support the
submission of an application when all the issues are agreed and shown as green.
PROPOSALS
As per advice given in previous letter dated 27 February 2019
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
• BPTW, GB2 – Worts’ Causeway, Pre-application 02 Document
Principle of development
As per advice given in previous letter dated 27 February 2019
Coordinated development
It was agreed in the last meeting that collaboration with GB1 should be undertaken
and this was made clear in my previous letter dated 27 February 2019.
I re-iterate my advice given:
Development on both GB1 and GB2 will be expected to be carefully designed to reflect
their prominent location i.e. edge of the city and on the southern approach to the City
and to ensure development is integrated with existing and planned new neighbouring
Page 20 of 51
development. Specifically, you will be expected to show how the proposal for the GB2
site engages with, and relates to development on the GB1 site, particularly in terms
of;
• The design of the new junction on Babraham Road and alignment of the new spine
road which will need to cross over Worts’ Causeway and provide access into GB1
• Cycle/ pedestrian routes/ connection
• Open spaces & structural landscaping
• Delivery of community facilities
• A comprehensive masterplan for both sites (preferably)
During the meeting it was made clear that technical meetings would need to be held
as a priority before moving forward. Whilst it was agreed with you that these can be
arranged the first priority would be to have a joint highways meeting, which was
arranged for 17th April 2019 for both GB1 and GB2 to attend. I am disappointed to say
that every effort was made but this was met with resistance on both sides (GB1+GB2).
A second meeting has been organised on 3rd June 19. Jon Finney (Cambridgeshire
County Council Highways) must agree the access and highway arrangement for both
sites before proceeding with any design aspects of the master plan.
Green Belt, landscape & open space
Visual impact
A key constraint will be the visual impact of development on this prominent site which
will ultimately form a new city edge. The proposals tabled at the meeting indicate that
the intention is to deliver a mix of houses and flats up to three storeys in height. It is
unclear if the flatted blocks will have pitched roofs.
There are significant concerns about the potential visual impact of this form of
development. To enable officers to assess the acceptability of such proposals a
Landscape Visual Impact Appraisal (LVIA) will need to be provided. Representative
viewpoint proposals for the LVIA were presented by the Landscape Architect and it
was agreed to relocate one viewpoint (Viewpoint 4) further up Limekiln Road and this
was confirmed by email on 5th April but an updated plan confirming the viewpoints has
not yet been produced.
Structural landscaping
Structural landscape proposals are beginning to be formulated in the diagrams on
page 40-41 and on the proving layout/sketch masterplan of the pre-app pack. The
edge abutting the greenbelt, forming the new city edge is taking on the informal aspect
which is considered appropriate for a green edge to a city. Advice fed back following
Pre-App 1 requested that this buffer be at least 20m deep, include structural tree and
understory planting. In order to avoid the woodland edge becoming an undervalued
space it is recommend that some of the pedestrian trails/footpaths are brought into
and out of it in order to ensure that it is well used and populated. The areas where
green open spaces abut the buffer could be interesting but opportunities for access
seem limited due to the way the houses line the streets. In order to activate these
Page 21 of 51
spaces they need to be accessible and legible from other public areas like the streets
and footways.
The buffer beginning to develop along the western edge, against existing housing, is
considered to be much thinner than anticipated. Advice fed back following Pre-App 1
asked for this buffer to be a minimum of 10m wide and coordinated with building
locations and uses adjacent. The space appears more linear greater articulation in
the depth of this buffer is sought. The Council would seek to reduce the presence of
vehicular corridors from the edges to avoid areas such as that shown against the west
edge of the Sketch Masterplan.
It is not clear how the green space between the double-hedged bridleway and the
housing on the north edge will function. It is very narrow and long with few access
points. The side garden typology of the housing shown on this edge suggest it will
have an element of overlooking, however, it gives the impression of a left over space
rather than an integral part of the overall design.
The central open space seems more like an antiquated village green in the way it has
been illustrated. It is considered that to fully realise the concept of the heart of the
development, it needs to be multi-faceted – a mix of hard and soft landscape areas to
allow for a flexible array of uses. As shown, it is edged by back garden fences on one
side, a vehicular corridor (the spine road) on the second and side elevations and
parking areas on the third. There is opportunity to make much more of this space
and allow it to function more flexibly for the development.
It is critical that the highway access off Wort’s Causeway it located in conjunction with
the development being proposed for GB1 to the north of Wort’s Causeway in order to
not jeopardise the ability to achieve a reasonable perimeter block in GB1’s southeast
corner. Without this foresight, it may be prudent to move the main access further to
west.
Open space requirements
Open space requirements are outlined in Policy 68 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018.
With respect to Informal Open space, the Council would only count those areas with
a functional character. Narrow linkages and incidental landscapes will not be counted.
The diagrams shown on page 38 are beginning to establish these areas but they
appear different than the sketch Masterplan. Ensuring the areas are adjusted along
with the urban block and road layouts to achieve the requirements of Policy 68 will be
needed. It is considered that the development proposals can achieve the 1.2ha of
open space within the parameters of the brief; however, it is not yet clear how this will
be delivered as the diagrams on page 38 differ from the Sketch Masterplan.
Layout & density of development
Site development capacity
As per advice given in previous letter dated 27 February 2019
Design Principles
Diversion of service corridors
Page 22 of 51
This Land had previously been advised to review opportunities to divert the service
corridors (PreApp 01 letter dated 27 February 2019). It is unclear if this has been
done. However, the preference of This Land Ltd is to retain the service corridors as
existing and incorporate them in the masterplan as shown in PreApp Document 02.
Retention of the service corridors would be acceptable subject to the preparation of
an illustrative masterplan that demonstrates that this wouldn’t preclude:
• The creation of a legible and permeable urban block structure with clearly
defined “fronts” and “backs” (see also comments on current block structure
below);
• Introduction of high quality hard and soft landscaping of the corridors. The
impact of the existing pipe runs and associated easements on building
setbacks, hard landscaping (road / pavement surfacing), tree planting, SUDS
etc. needs to be clearly outlined and incorporated into the illustrative
masterplan.
Movement / Links to GB1
The Masterplan currently shows one vehicle and two cycle / pedestrian links to GB1.
• Principle of a “Spine Road” linking Babraham Road and GB1 is supported. The
“wiggle” in the alignment and location adjacent to the Village Green is also
supported.
• Direct (i.e. straight across) crossings of Wort Causeway are desirable to
maximise legibility and community cohesion. Location of connections need to
be coordinated with the owner of GB1 to ensure this results in a viable block
structure for both sites.
• One or two additional pedestrian links to GB1 would improve cohesion and
connectivity between the two neighbourhoods. The impact on the hedgerow
needs to be considered and this should be further explored with urban design,
landscape and ecology officers.
• The location and detailed design of the vehicle crossings of Wort Causeway
need to be carefully considered at an early stage to minimise the impact on
the existing hedgerow.
Character of the development / development edges
The site is situated in the Queen Edith’s ward which is characterised by a “loose”,
lower density housing on the edge of the Green Belt. Although it is anticipated that
GB2 will be denser than the established development, the proposals needs to respond
to local context to ensure GB2 feels like a part of its surroundings. The design of the
development edges is critical in achieving this and a strategy to consider for GB2 may
be to introduce lower density development around the edges and higher density
development in the centre and along the “spine road”.
Comments on the Masterplan proposals for each of the four edges has been set out
in further detail below.
Babraham Road (south) Section 3.7 of the PreApp 02 Document describes the
existing character of Babraham Road to include a “loose” urban form with
Page 23 of 51
predominantly large, detached dwelling set some 30m from the road. This is a typical
and appropriate transition from an urban area to open countryside.
The masterplan proposed a “gateway / community space” immediately adjoining the
western site boundary with apartments set back from the road. Further east, moving
away from the city, the proposals are for a series of small (2 bed) with limited setback
from the road. This approach is not supported.
The development edge along GB2 should match the established character of
Babraham Road and improve upon the transition into the open countryside by:
• Introducing generous set backs;
• Introduce a block form that becomes “looser” or more rural as it moves away
from the city. This could include large homes (or possible small apartments
blocks that have the proportion of a large villa) to the west potentially
transitioning to a more informal, looser “farmstead” typology towards the Green
Belt edge;
• The existing plots and houses along Babraham Rd are orientated to follow old
field patterns (see Section 2.7) are not at right angles to the road. Opportunities
to reflect this distinctive development pattern in GB2 should be considered.
Western edge
The western edge of the site is predominantly formed by the gardens of the
established residential development. The Masterplan proposes a setback to create
narrow green “buffer zone” that also accommodates a pedestrian path.
• There is a concern about the quality of this narrow green space and pedestrian
route. The Masterplan indicates it would be overlooked by proposed
development to the east, but this raises potential privacy issues with views
from upper floors into private garden of the existing properties. An alternative
solution was suggested which would be to back new development plots onto
the private gardens, with the pedestrian path (not a PRoW) diverted more
centrally into the site (or along the Green Belt edge).
• There is one house (Throgmorton House) that faces the development site. The
Masterplan should demonstrate how this frontage would be addressed.
Opportunities to retain a view from upper floors across the development site
should be explored.
Worts Causeway (north)
The development would be largely screened from view by the double hedgerow that
runs south of the road. The Masterplan proposed a 15m-20m (?) setback from the
hedgerow which would introduce a narrow green space between the new homes and
the established hedge. It’s unclear what the character and purpose of this space would
be.
Green Belt (east)
Page 24 of 51
The Green Belt edge shows a meandering building line with a varied-width (10-20m)
green buffer zone along the eastern boundary. This is supported. There is no road
proposed along the edge of the development. This is also strongly supported, but this
would require a housing / plot typology that is equally attractive when viewed from the
front and back.
Block Structure
The proposed Masterplan block structure is poor and will need to be substantially
revised:
• Section 3.8 identifies the opportunity to capitalise on the “fantastic views”
across the Green Belt. This is not delivered in the current Masterplan as
physical and visual links east-west across the site are very limited.
• There is a very high number of situations where the front of one house (plot)
adjoins and overlooks the back of an adjacent house (plot). This would require
housing types that look attractive from both the front and the back of the plot.
These units are more difficult to design and should only be used in key
locations, where front (road) access is undesirable (i.e. along the Green Belt
and other key open space edges).
• Related to the above, back access lanes are dominated by garages / parking
bays, while at the same time providing front door access to other properties.
This is unacceptable.
• Introduction of apartment blocks within the centre of an urban block
surrounded by back fences / parking bays is unacceptable.
The poor block structure appears to be partly due to the constraints imposed upon the
Masterplan by the two service corridors which bisect the site diagonally, creating
triangular development parcels which can be difficult to subdivide in convenient sized
(i.e. 55-60m) perimeter blocks. Partial diversion of utility corridors may have to be
considered to solve this issue.
Public open spaces
In addition to the easement zones / green corridors, the Masterplan proposes three
open space “community hubs”. This includes spaces in the south-west and north-east
corners of the site, as well as a “heart” space at its centre:
“Public Realm” (south-west corner): This space is located adjacent a busy road which
doesn’t lend itself as a “community hub” location in addition, the location of an open
space at this location is incongruous to the urban form and development pattern of
Babraham Road (see comment above).
“Village Green”: This is a good location for a community focused space that would suit
a range of activities. The urban form around the space would need to be carefully
considered to create continuous (and denser possibly?) built edges that would
overlook and activate the space.
“Community Centre” (north-west corner): This space feels “tucked away” in the corner
of the site. It would be situated behind the Wort’s Causeway hedgerow and would be
Page 25 of 51
largely invisible from this road (and GB1). There may be other places where an open
space would generate greater benefits for the community, for example by introducing
an east-west space which would create visual and physical links from the spine road
to the Green Belt.
Character Areas
The Masterplan indicates four character areas. This is partly supported:
Garden Edge: This is the edge along the Green Belt – see comments on edges above.
The diagram in Section 7.3 shows how this edge would wrap round to face Babraham
Road. There may be merit in this approach, but this would require a very different
development form along Babraham Road from what is currently illustrated. The
Garden Edge character is also shown along Wort’s Causeway. The context here is
different, with an established, dense hedge separating the development from the road.
A different built form and landscape design response would be required.
Spine Road: Agreed as a Character Area. Higher density development would be more
appropriate here?
Shared surface lane: The area between Spine Road and the Green Belt (Garden)
Edge is narrow (i.e. barely a block width). What is the purpose of designating this area
as a different character area? To the west, the key issue to solve is the interface with
established western site edge – a Character Area designation would follow after.
Farm House entrance: This is not felt to be appropriate in this location (see comments
on Babraham Road edge above).
Sustainable Drainage
No drainage information was presented during the meeting and this should be
provided and agreed with the Council as soon as possible before moving forward with
further designs. There is often significant overlap between SUDS and open space.
The Council can accept the this overlap in some of the open spaces but not all in order
to ensure that during times of flood, some amenity landscape is retained whilst other
areas recover. The Council seeks also, to deliver above ground SUDS as much as
possible before resorting to underground tanks and other less sustainable methods of
flood water storage wherever possible. It is critical to involve the skills of a drainage
engineer as early in the process as possible to guide the development of a SUDS
network and ensure enough land is available to achieve the best possible solution.
Please refer to Policy 32 of the 2018 Local Plan for more information on Sustainable
Drainage requirements.
Highways and Access
Babraham Road / Access arrangements
Early agreement between both applicants (GB1 + GB2) and the Highways Authority is
fundamental to the successful siting and design of the access/junction point of GB1
and GB2 onto Worts' Causeway. At present the proposed access to GB1 is too the
northwest of the bus gate. This approach is not acceptable to the Highways Authority.
In addition the access location of the GB2 access onto Worts' Causeway may be too
far to the east to set up a direct link to GB1 and still create a sensible block width to
Page 26 of 51
the southeast of the GB1 site. It is vital that agreement between both applicants and
the Highways Authority is secured.
From the Highway Authority’s perspective the use of Worts Causeway as a motor
vehicular route from either site is unacceptable, as has been made clear by Mrs
Victoria Keppey (Cambridgeshire County Council Highways). The very reason for the
bus gate is to prevent motor vehicular use of Worts Causeway in peak times, it is highly
probable that the level of motor vehicle traffic generated by some 200 units would go
a long way to replicate the very thing that the bus gate was installed to prevent.
It must be demonstrated that the proposed junction onto Babraham Road can be
shown to work by as a simple right turn or priority junction. It is essential that
confirmation of this arrangement is provided by Jon Finney, County Highways Officer.
Accommodating all the traffic generated by both sites and therefore there is no need
for motor vehicles to use Worts Causeway.
Clearly there is a strong interrelationship between urban design and highway design,
the former does strongly influence how the latter is read and reacted to by highway
users (all modes), without the resolution of the basic principle of how the two sites are
to relate to each other in the context of the built form and highway layout, neither site
will be able to progress very far.
A meeting, between all parties, to resolve the issue of how the sites will interact with
each other and Worts Causeway is vital. If this item is agreed then both sites can move
forward with their respective designs.
Parking: Further clarification on proposed parking standards is required. Currently the
courtyards associated with the apartment block look parking dominated. We would
seek to minimise the use of parking courts though we understand that apartment
blocks require parking courts to some extent. However, on plot typologies such as
undercroft or flat-over-garage (FOG) may help reduce the extent of parking courts.
Housing delivery - Affordable housing provision
A separate meeting will be arranged in due course with the Council’s Housing Officers;
[email protected]; 01223 457 617. The Council’s Affordable Housing
policies are as follows:
Amount
25% of homes on sites of 11-14 units should be affordable, with 40% on sites of 15
or more.
Tenure
Currently – 75% Affordable rent (LHA level) and 25% shared ownership
Unit mix
Size of property bed spaces proportion of need from the Home-Link Register (2017)
so could vary but would need to link to local need at the time of application.
- One bedroom Two person 64%
Page 27 of 51
- Two bedroom Four person 27%
- Three bedroom Five person 7%
- Four bedroom Six person 2%
Size of properties and internal rooms
To meet policy 50 for Residential Space Standards from the adopted Cambridge
Local Palm
Design and build
To be tenure blind with clusters of no more than 25 and no more than 12 units from a
single core/stair well.
Community Facilities
As per advice given in previous letter dated 27 February 2019, additionally a meeting
to be arranged with relevant Officers to ensure community facilities are considered as
part of the proposed master plan.
Community Engagement
The Council received the latest Community Engagement Strategy (CES) report in
which Sally Roden provided feedback during the meeting. Should you want to discuss
your CES further, please contact Sally Roden directly on
This Land Ltd has held two Community Engagement sessions on the 14th and 15th
May; this is a positive step towards engaging the immediate community and relevant
stakeholders.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
The proposal is an EIA development as confirmed by the Council’s screening opinion
dated 29 March 2019. An EIA scoping request was submitted on 26th April 2019. It is
anticipated that the Council’s screening response will be submitted by 31 May 2019.
Ecological Impacts
As per advice given in previous letter dated 27 February 2019, additionally you are
advised to contact the Council’s ecologist directly; [email protected]
01223 458 532.
Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) & Programme and next steps
The entering into a PPA could now be considered, given you have undertaken the
necessary advice from the Council regarding community engagement. It is important
that the proposed programme allows enough time between technical and pre-app
meetings in preparation for an Outline submission. The following table was
Page 28 of 51
communicated by email on 23/04/2019 to Andrew Mills; however I must mention these
dates are now out of sync due to the late agreement to hold a joint highways meeting
(arranged for 3rd June 2019 at CCC offices) which has delayed arranging technical
meetings and will delay the final programme further i.e. beyond September 2019.
In addition you have requested PPA in which we determine the application in 13 weeks as opposed to the required 16 weeks; this will not be possible given the sensitivities around this site.
Should you have any queries regarding any of the above please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Yours Sincerely,
Enc.
Next steps are summarised in Table 1 below.
Date (2019) - tentative Subject
4th April Second pre-app meeting held with CCC
April – May Technical meetings with follow-up meetings: - Highways/UD & LA - Parameter/Block plans - Drainage/Landscaping - Housing - Ecology/noise & landscaping - Sustainability. - Noise plus other Environmental health issues
May Preferably Joint (GB1 + GB2) Consultation Events
June Third pre-app meeting at CCC offices
July Further joint (GB1 + GB2) consultation events
25th June Disability Panel
3rd July Quality Panel
14 August Member Panel
September Submission of Outline Application
Page 10 of 51
Table 1: Issues Log
Issue Comments Status
C. Principle of Development
Principle of
development
The principle of residential development on GB2 is considered acceptable and will be supported by
Officers. The proposals will however need to satisfy all the other policy requirements of the
development plan.
AMBER
Coordinated
development
Development on both the GB1 and GB2 sites will be expected to be carefully designed to reflect
their prominent location on the southern edge of the City and to ensure they are integrated with
existing and planned new neighbouring development.
RED
D. Green belt, landscape and open space
Impact upon the
Green Belt
To enable officers to assess the acceptability of such proposals a Landscape Visual Impact
Appraisal (LVIA) will need to be provided including verified views.
RED
Character of Wort’s
Causeway
The section of Wort’s Causeway which passes between GB1 and GB2 is rural in its character and
appearance with mature hedgerow planting alongside both sides of the lane. On the western side
and parallel is you suggest a permissive bridleway with mature planting alongside both sides of
the bridleway. To confirm the status of the bridleway you should contact James Stringer the Asset
Information Definitive Map Officer at Cambridgeshire County Council
The rural character and appearance of Wort’s Causeway including its verges, hedgerows and
bridleway should be retained.
It should also be noted that Policy 27 requires that there should an assessment of the potential for
biodiversity enhancement and the creation of an ecological corridor between the two sites.
RED
Page 11 of 51
Structural
landscaping
Policy 27 requires the early establishment of a generous landscaped edge to the eastern side of
the site to help create an appropriate buffer and distinctive edge to the City. There should also be
a landscaped buffer where the site adjoins existing housing to the west.
RED
Open space
provision
Policy 68 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 requires that all residential developments should
contribute to the provision of open space and recreation sites/ facilities in accordance with the
council’s Open Space and Recreation Standards, the Playing Pitch Strategy and the Indoor Sports
Facility Strategy. GB2 will be expected to contribute towards the delivery of;
• Outdoor sports facilities
• Indoor sports facilities
• Provision for children and teenagers
• Informal open space
• Allotments
Because of the size of the development it is not anticipated that it will be practical to deliver either
outdoor or indoor sports facilities on the site. It is, however, anticipated that the site will be able to
make Provision for Children and Teenagers, Informal Open Space and Allotments on site. Where
it is not possible to deliver on site it is likely that a commuted sum will be payable towards the cost
of delivery of such facilities elsewhere in the City.
Open space requirements will be calculated by determining the net number of residents of the new
development, which will depend upon the eventual number, type and size of dwellings proposed.
RED
Sustainable
Drainage
Further details of the sustainable drainage design is required as soon as possible in order to
ensure enough space is allocated and to integrate it into the landscape scheme
RED
G. Density & layout of development
Diversion of
service corridors
Compatibility of retention of service corridors with a legible and viable urban block structure to be
demonstrated in illustrative masterplan;
RED
Page 12 of 51
Impact on hard and soft landscape design and SuDS of service corridors to be clarified. Concept
designs to be prepared to demonstrate this would not adversely impact on the quality of the open
spaces.
Site development
capacity
The proposal would need to take into account the demands for open space; strategic landscaping
and sustainable drainage solutions and therefore the overall capacity may be less than 230 units.
AMBER AMBER
Movement / links to
GB1
To be agreed with Highways, Landscape and Ecology officers and GB1
RED
Character of the
development /
development edges
Poor “fit” in the Queen Edith Ward, Explore opportunity for lower density edges and higher density
centre / spine road
Babraham Road development edge unacceptable
Development / space adjacent western boundary unacceptable
Green Belt edge agreed in principle, but further work on double frontage house typology required
Green space along Wort’s Causeway edge needs justification / revision
RED
Block and open
space structure
Proposed block structure leads to unacceptable levels of “front-to-back” interfaces.
Many streets and spaces are dominated by car parking.
Lack of continuous east-west links (visual and physical)
Apartment blocks in centre of urban blocks unacceptable.
RED
Open spaces
“Public Realm (south-east)” unacceptable
“Village Green” supported, but would benefit from higher density edges
“Community Centre”. Concerns about appropriateness of space here. Community Centre may be
better combined with Village Green?
Lack of east-west green links (visual and physical) to Green Belt edge
RED
Character areas
Partly supported, but needs to be revised / adjusted once an appropriate block / open space
structure has been agreed
RED
H. Housing delivery
Page 13 of 51
Affordable housing
provision
It is recommended that there are early discussions at the pre app stage with officers from the City
Council’s Housing Department attends to discuss and agree on the affordable housing offer in terms
of; the social housing provider, tenure split, mix, accessible homes, etc.
RED
Housing mix The housing mix for the private element of the housing offer will be expected to mirror the mix for
the affordable housing.
RED
Residential space
standards
It should be noted that all new residential units will be expected to meet the residential space
standards set out in Policy 50 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018).
RED
I. Transport
Vehicular access
from Babraham
Road
Vehicular access to both the GB1 and GB2 sites will only be permitted from Babraham Road. As
clarified in Policy 27 Wort’s Causeway will be used by buses only during peak periods with limited
car access at other times. Careful consideration will need to be given to the siting of traffic controls
on Wort’s Causeway. The new vehicular spine road will cross the GB2 site to a single point on
Wort’s Causeway and continue onto the GB1 site. The exact position of the new junction on
Babraham Road and alignment of the spine road is not yet fixed.
AMBER
Pedestrian & cycle
linkages
Future development will be expected to provide adequate connections including pedestrian cycle
routes to its surroundings, including to GB1.
A key cycle route into the City runs on the footpath along the Babraham frontage of the site. The
formation of a major new road junction along this frontage is likely to disrupt the journeys of cyclists
who are likely to need to wait at a signalised crossing. You are advised to investigate other
arrangements where potentially the cycle route could be diverted into the site away from the junction.
It should be noted that a major new cycle route will be delivered across Babraham Road from the
GB2 site through the Bell School development to Addenbrookes / Cambridge Biomedical Campus
and to the rest of the City.
AMBER
Page 14 of 51
Policy 27 requires the establishment of appropriate public footpaths linking the development with
the surrounding chalk farmland and should include a footpath to the nearby Netherhall School.
The permissive footpath along the site’s western boundary and the bridleway alongside Wort’s
Causeway will need to be retained in principle but can be relocated to achieve a better north-south
corridor design for the development and incorporated into the scheme.
Car & cycle
parking
Policy 82 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) clarifies the developments will be expected to be
compliant with parking standards. The site although located at the edge of the City is still a highly
accessible location with excellent access to more sustainable modes of transport, notably cycle
routes and regular bus services. Other transport improvements in the area including the Bell
School cycle route and in the longer term the planned new train station at Cambridge Biomedical
Campus will further improve the site accessibility.
It is unclear what parking standards are currently proposed. This needs to be clarified.
Parking appears to dominate the public realm along back access streets and within urban blocks.
This is not acceptable.
It is anticipated that the Transport Assessment, which will need to be provided with a planning
application, is likely to help justify a substantially lower provision of car parking and higher
provision of cycle parking within the development. Officers will expect resident parking to be on-
plot.
RED
Transport mitigation
The transport assessment will be expected to identify wider transport mitigation measures including
walking and cycling connections.
RED
J. Other
Community facilities Policy 27 of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 requires that contributions be made towards improved
community facilities and services in this part of the City. As stipulated in Policy 73 of the new plan
Page 15 of 51
this community facility should be in the form of a new, dedicated community centre and where
necessary, education and childcare facilities. With development also coming forward on the GB1
you should investigate the possibility of delivering a community facility which will serve the future
residents of both developments as well as existing residents in the area.
It is recommended that there are early discussions at the pre application stage with officers from the
City Council’s Community Development team in order to explore the feasibility of providing some
form of community facilities as part of this development or off-site in conjunction with other
developments within the same area.
RED
Environmental
impacts
Under the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
Regulations 2017 as the project is listed in Schedule 2 and exceeds the relevant thresholds or
criteria set out in the second column the proposal needs to be screened by Cambridge City Council
to determine whether significant effects on the environment are likely and hence whether an
Environmental Impact Assessment is required. A screening is required because the proposals
exceed both the following criteria;
• The development is more than 150 dwellings
• Overall the site area exceeds 5 hectares
The environmental issues officers will be concerned with include; visual impacts, air quality impacts,
water quality, contaminated land/ gas, noise and artificial lighting.
AMBER
Ecology A preliminary ecological assessment (PEA) for the site, in line with CIEEM Guidelines (2013),
incorporating habitat and protected species surveys, will need to be provided to inform the EIA and
outline development proposals. Existing habitats should be measured and assessed for
distinctiveness to enable assessment of proposed habitat loss and gains using the DEFRA
Biodiversity Offsetting metric. The PEA should identify both constraints and opportunities and seek
an overall biodiversity net gain for the development. The sites ecological value should be assessed
as part of a wider landscape scale network and how it might help deliver the Cambridgeshire Green
Infrastructure Strategy (2011). The site is in close proximity to a number of designated sites including
Cherry Hinton Chalk Pits SSSI/LNR, The Beech Woods and Limekiln Hill SSSI. Protected species
potentially present include scarce breeding farmland birds (Corn Bunting, Grey Partridge), Bats
(Brown Long Eared, Barbastelle), Badger, Barn Owl.
RED
Page 16 of 51
You are encouraged to consider adopting the recently launched voluntary Local Nature Partnership
(LNP) Developing with Nature Toolkit, offering guidance and accreditation for those developments
demonstrating best practice.
Useful links:
Local Nature Partnership (LNP) Developing with Nature Toolkit:
https://naturalcambridgeshire.org.uk/news/developing-with-nature-toolkit/
DEFRA metric for Biodiversity Net Gain:
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6020204538888192
Community
Engagement
Strategy (CES)
report
A CES report has been submitted and updates should be made as per Sally Roden’s
recommendations during the second pre-app meeting. RED
END OF DOCUMENT
Page 10 of 51