FOI Ref 5331 Response sent 29 August ‘Internal and external … · FOI Ref 5331 Response sent 29 August ‘Internal and external correspondence and documentation relating to a proposed

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]

mailto:[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




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.


http://stjamescambridge.org.uk/

http://www.qeccambridge.org.uk/

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.

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?Act=later&CId=190&D=201906261000&MD=ielistmeetings

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?Act=later&CId=190&D=201906261000&MD=ielistmeetings

Page 1 of 51

Issue Comments

A. 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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


• Open spaces & structural landscaping


• A comprehensive masterplan for both sites (preferably)


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).”


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.


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.


Page 10 of 51


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.


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


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.


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.


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

http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/southern-fringe-community-forum


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:





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.


Page 14 of 51

Table 1: Issues Log

Issue Comments Status

A. 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


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


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.


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


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


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


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:





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




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


• Open spaces & structural landscaping


• 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.


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 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 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.




Design Principles


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).


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.


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

[email protected] .

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.


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.


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

([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


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



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:





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