JOINT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE Report by: Head of Planning Services, Joint Planning Authority Date: 13 July 2011

Application Number

S/00506/11/CC Agenda Item

Date Received 21/04/2011 Officer David

Fletcher Target Date 21/07/2011 Parishes/Wards Haslingfield

Site Land to the west of Trumpington Park and Ride, Hauxton Road, Cambridge

Proposal Proposed two form entry primary school incorporating pre- school and community facilities with associated car and cycle parking, multi use games area, hard surface play areas, playing fields, landscaping, external lighting and means of enclosure

Applicant Cambridgeshire County Council Recommendation Approval Application Type Full Departure: No The above application(s) have been reported to the Planning Committee for determination by Members in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation for the Joint Development Control Committee for the Cambridge Fringes

INDEX Page Introduction Site Description/Area Context The Proposal Relevant Site History Publicity Relevant Planning Policies External and Internal Consultations Neighbouring Representations Assessment Principle of the Development Design Code Compliance with the Design Code and Design of School Building

Safer Routes to School Car Parking Cycle Parking Provision Sustainability Community Facilities and Sports Provision Landscaping and Ecology Public Art Secured by Design Drainage and Flood Risk Lighting Noise and Pollution Other Matters Conclusion APPENDIX A: Relevant Planning Policies B: Comments of Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Council

C: Comments of Internal County Council Departments D: Comments of Parish Councils and Community Groups

E: Comments of Other Statutory and Non- Statutory Consultees

F: Full Comments of Cambridgeshire Design Quality Panel

G: Site Edged Red Plan H: Key Plan Pack

0. INTRODUCTION 0.1 The proposed school forms part of land allocated for

development as part of the Trumpington Meadows growth area (former Monsanto site). Outline planning permission for the wider Trumpington Meadows site was granted in 2009 and will result in approximately 1200 homes and associated infrastructure being built in the coming years, as part of a phased development. In respect of the Trumpington Meadows development to date reserved matters approval has been given for infrastructure provision and the Country Park (which will be located to the west of the housing development). The phase 1 reserved matters applications for 353 new dwellings are also currently under consideration by Cambridge City Council on land located to the north and north- west of the primary school. The height of the proposed flats directly abutting the north boundary of the primary school will be 3/4 storey, although the eastern side of northern boundary of the primary school will front onto an area of open space.

0.2 In the future once reserved matters applications come

forward for Trumpington Meadows the primary school will be located adjacent to residential properties to its north, west and south boundaries. Trumpington Meadows village square will be located directly adjacent to the school at the northern part of its western boundary. The western elevation of the school will front the eastern side of the square. The detailed design of the proposed residential properties to the west and south and the village square are not known at this stage and will be the subject of detailed reserved matters applications in the future.

0.3 Other developments within the Cambridge Southern Fringe

include Glebe Farm and Clay Farm. Glebe Farm is located between Hauxton Road and Shelford Road, to the west of Trumpington Meadows. Full planning permission at Glebe Farm has been approved for 286 dwellings. Clay Farm is situated to the north of Shelford Road and to the south of Long Road and will deliver 2,300 dwellings, including a new secondary school, primary school and community centre. Links are provided from Clay Farm to Trumpington Meadows

via a foot and cycle link adjacent to Cambridge Guided Busway.

0.4 The plans for the development of a primary school in this

location have evolved over a number of years and date back to the submission of the 2006 outline application for the Trumpington Meadows site by the Trumpington Meadows Land Company. In 2007 to inform the section 106 negotiations a draft report by the Community Development Officer’s at South Cambridgeshire was prepared to establish the scale of community provision to be co- located with the school. This set out the broad parameters for the size and amount of community facilities, including the provision of the following: • 2 dedicated community spaces, one approximately 90-

100 square metres in size and the other 60 square metres

• A dual use main school hall to be 190-200 square metres in size to allow for greater flexibility of use.

• Floodlit multi use games area (MUGA) 40 x 30 0.5 In developing the community facilities for the school, the

parameters set out in the commissioned report were used by the applicants to inform the proposals (this is discussed in more detail in section 2 of the report). In addition the size and amount of space for the school use have followed the parameters contained within Building Bulletin 99, which is the national guidance issued by the Department of Education in delivering the framework for primary schools.

0.6 In support of the application the applicants have stated that

in addition to following the documents referenced above, the layout of the school has been developed by the schools temporary governing body, based upon the school proposals of the Fawcett Federation Group. This included undertaking consultation with local residents and other interested parties. The internal layout of the building reflects the wishes of the end uses, to create a type of learning environment that they consider supports their educational vision as well as supporting their vision for the integration between different users of the building.

0.7 After the initial educational and community parameters were established a number of meetings have been held with planning officers to discuss the proposals. The proposals have also been considered on three occasions by the Cambridgeshire Design Quality Panel. The scheme submitted forms the outcome of these discussions.

1. SITE DESCRIPTION/AREA CONTEXT 1.1 The site covers an area of approximately 2.3 hectares and is

situated directly to the west of Trumpington Park and Ride. The proposed school is located approximately 750 metres to the north of the M11 and approximately 340 metres to the south- west of Waitrose. Aside from the park and ride the closest existing built development to the site is the John Lewis Distribution Centre, which is situated directly to the north- east. Anstey Hall, which is grade I listed, is located approximately 450 metres to the north of the site.

1.2 The application site lies within South Cambridgeshire District

and the Parish of Haslingfield. The boundary for Cambridge City is approximately 70 metres to the north- east at its nearest point. The site is currently an open Greenfield site, although work has commenced on the spine road for Trumpington Meadows, to the north of the application site.

2. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The applicants (Cambridgeshire County Councils Education

Capital Department) are seeking permission for a proposed two form entry (420 pupils) single storey primary school, which will also incorporate pre- school and community facilities.

Full and Outline Permissions 2.2 This is an application for full planning permission and will act

as freestanding permission separate from the approved outline application. Notwithstanding this, the outline permission is still considered to be relevant as it sets the

parameters for the detailed applications within Trumpington Meadows. Of particular relevance is the design code, approved under condition 9 of the outline permission. The code is intended to be used to bridge the gap between the outline and detailed applications within Trumpington Meadows. Its aim is to achieve a balance between a high level of prescription to ensure high standard of design, and an appropriate degree of flexibility to allow designers freedom to bring forward innovative and imaginative proposals, to accommodate changing needs. Assessing the scheme against the code is an important material planning consideration and is discussed in more detail in section 8 of the report.

Documents Submitted with Application 2.3 The application has been accompanied by the following

documents and plans: Design and Access Statement Planning Statement Statement of Community Involvement Statement of Sustainability Additional Statement of Sustainability BREEAM Pre- Assessment Report Low Zero Carbon Report Summary of Planning Document Biodiversity Statement Ecology Report Arboricultural Report Landscape Management Plan Flood Risk Assessment Statement of Drainage Intent Ground Contamination Report Archaeology Report Multi Use Games Area Report Noise Assessment Transport Statement Travel Plan Statement of Public Art Strategy Site Waste Management Plan External Lighting Assessment External Lighting Scope of Works Application Form

Local Authority Development Letter Site Location Plan Proposed Site Plan Proposed Floor Plan Proposed Elevations Proposed Sections Proposed Landscape Plan Proposed Roof Plan Contractors Arrangement Plan Images of the Proposals

Copies of a couple of the key plans are contained within appendix H of the report. Full copies of the application documentation can be viewed on the County Councils website:

http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/environment/planning

Design Principles of the School 2.4 The built form of the school is located towards the north of

the application site and has a 63 metres frontage on the west elevation, adjacent to the proposed village square. The frontage on the west elevation terminates at the northern corner of the application site and the school has a frontage of approximately 13 metres along the northern boundary at this corner. The school has been designed around the concept of a ‘central street’, which extends in a south- easterly direction from the west boundary towards the east boundary.

Elevation Design and Materials 2.5 The western elevation of the school, which will act as the

front elevation fronting onto the ‘village square’ has been designed with a tower feature of 11.3 metres in height, which will project 5 metres above the built form of the west elevation. The tower feature is repeated on the east elevation to a lower height of 8.1 metres and creates a ‘bookend’ effect. Both towers have a flat roof and terracotta wall finish, with further details to be agreed in respect of detailing and signage provision on the western tower.

2.6 Aside from the north- west corner, which has a flat roof, the

remainder of the west elevation is 6.5 metres in height and has been designed with a mono-pitch roof, which slopes down to the east. The west elevation has a predominantly brick finish either side of a glass curtain walling and a glass entrance lobby. The window design has a vertical emphasis, which will include the use of timber infill panelling. At the north- west corner this will include the use of split glass to create visual interest.

2.7 On the north- east and south- west elevations (either side of

the central corridor) the building has a rendered finish, beneath a standing seam roof (which covers most of the building), although it is also proposed to provide a timber clad elevation at the end of the south wing.

Layout of key functions 2.8 The internal layout of the building has been separated into

three main areas, namely community, pre- school and school. The community facilities are located to the north- west corner of the school and include provision of an outdoor community space, two meeting rooms, community store and shared use of the school hall. The pre- school classrooms will be located along the west side of the school, to the south of the main reception/entrance area. The central street runs from the reception area through to the eastern boundary of the school building and has a length of approximately 82 metres. The central street will be used as a learning resource area, with the classrooms located either side. This design also includes a projecting gable end to the south, which is located approximately midway along the street. Changing room and P.E store facilities are provided at the far eastern end of the building, to give access to the MUGA and sports pitches.

External Layout of Site 2.9 Directly to the north of the school classrooms is an outdoor

classroom and quiet area. Car parking is located in the north- east corner and is aligned from north to south, running parallel with the boundary with the park and ride to the east.

Cycle parking will be provided in three locations on the site, with 102 covered cycle spaces and sprinkler tank being provided on the northern boundary, directly to the west of the car parking and a further 80 spaces being located on the western boundary to the south of the main built form of the school. A further 14 spaces for the community users will also be provided on the northern boundary. Two main pupil entrances are to be provided on site, one being on the northern boundary to the west of the sprinkler tank and covered cycle parking; and the other on the western boundary to the south of the building. The formal entrance for community and visitors will be on the west of the school site, in between the pre- school and community areas.

2.10 The land to the south of the building is proposed to be

predominantly open in nature. There is provision for two hard play areas directly to the south of the building and two grassed sports pitches to the south of the hard play areas. A multi use games area (MUGA) is also provided to the south- west of the building, adjacent to the park and ride. This will provide a fenced and flood lit artificial playing surface. The fencing will be galvanised green coloured and 3 metres in height, rising to 4.5 metres at the north and south boundaries of the pitch.

Landscaping 2.11 The landscaping scheme includes the provision for planting

of woodland trees and bog planting along the south boundary of the site. It also includes provision for planting around the outdoor classrooms to the north of the school and a vegetable growing area for children adjacent to the north boundary of the site. Planting will also be used to define the path and internal walking routes within the site.

Means of Enclosure 2.12 The means of enclosure will be provided in the form of a 1.8

metre high bow- top fence against the northern, southern and western boundaries, although part of the northern boundary will be enclosed by a brick wall. On the eastern side (fronting the park and ride) a weld mesh fence will

enclose the site, apart from at the northern tip where a bow- top fence encloses the car park.

Sustainability 2.13 Further to the submission of the initial application in April,

additional information has been submitted in relation to sustainability, to clarify the sustainable measures being undertaken. In terms of on- site renewables a ground source heat pump (GSHP) will provide 40% of the space heating. In addition solar panels will be the primary means of heating the water, although the GSHP will also be utilised for this purpose, when necessary to provide adequate storage and supply. The remainder of the heating load will be provided by gas fired condensing boilers, which will supplement the GSHP.

2.14 A BREEAM pre- assessment has been undertaken and this

demonstrates that the school achieves a standard of BREEAM ‘very good’. Proposals adopted to meet this requirement include provision of the following:

• Rain water harvesting system • Low flush facilities for WC’s and taps • Green roof above cycle parking • Under floor heating • Natural ventilation, created by high level and low level

window openings and roof vents • Mechanical ventilation in kitchens, shower, WC’s and

changing areas • Low energy usage lights to be controlled by sensors

2.15 The statement of sustainability includes a thermal modelling

report; this is used to assess the predicted internal temperatures of the school. The report submitted indicates that the proposed school meets the requirements of Building Regulations (BB101), although many of the classrooms within the school will be subject to some overheating (above 32 Celsius) for a short period of time during peak temperatures.

3. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

3.1 11/0073/REM- Submission of reserved matters (access,

appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for 163 dwellings to north east part (phase 1) of Trumpington Meadows pursuant to outline application 08/0048/OUT- Currently pending consideration by the City Council.

3.2 11/0075/REM- Submission of reserved matters (access,

appearance, layout and scale) for 190 dwellings to north east part (phase 1) of Trumpington Meadows pursuant to outline applications 08/0048/OUT & S/0054/08/O- Currently under consideration by the City Council.

3.3 S/1113/10- Reserved Matters application for the formation of

Country Park- Approved at Joint Development Control Committee on 2 November 2010

3.4 S/0501RM and S/0865/RM- Phase 1 Infrastructure

Provision- Approved 3.5 S/0054/O- Demolition of existing buildings and structures

and redevelopment for approximately 600 dwellings, land for primary school, recreation and leisure uses including change of use from agriculture to public open space, community and other local facilities with associated parking, infrastructure and earthworks (approved subject to signing of Section 106 Agreement) Site within South Cambs Duplicate application

3.6 08/0048/OUT- Demolition of existing buildings and

structures, redevelopment for approximately 600 dwellings, two new accesses onto Hauxton Road, recreation/leisure uses including change of use from agriculture to open space, with associated parking, infrastructure and earthworks (approved subject to Section 106 agreement) Site within Cambridge City- Duplicate application

3.7 S/01310/06/O- Outline permission for the demolition of

existing buildings and structures and redevelopment for approximately 600 dwellings, land for primary school, recreation and leisure uses including change of use from agriculture to public open space, community and other local facilities with associated parking, infrastructure and earthworks (approved subject to signing of Section 106

Agreement) Site within South Cambridgeshire, Duplicate application

3.8 06/0706/OUT- Outline planning permission for the demolition

of existing buildings and structures, redevelopment for approximately 600 dwellings, two new accesses onto Hauxton Road, recreation/leisure uses including change of use from agriculture to public open space, with associated parking, infrastructure and earthworks (approved subject to Section 106 agreement) Site within Cambridge City, Duplicate application

4. PUBLICITY

Advertisement: Yes Adjoining Owners: Yes Site Notices Displayed:Yes

The plans of the application were also displayed in Waitrose reception area from the 4 to the 16 May. A public exhibition was held at Cambridge Professional Development Centre on the 16 May, to give residents and stakeholders an opportunity to discuss the plans with planning officers.

5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY 5.1 South Cambridgeshire LDF Development Control Policies

(2007) 5.2 Cambridge Southern Fringe Area Action Plan (2008) 5.3 Trumpington Meadows Design Code (2010) 5.4 Cambridge City Local Plan (2006) 5.5 Cambridgeshire Quality Charter for Growth (2009) 5.6 Cambridge City Council Sustainable Design and

Construction Supplementary Planning Document (2007) 5.7 Cambridge City Council Public Art Supplementary Planning

Document (2010)

5.8 A full list of relevant policies, including National and Regional guidance is contained within appendix A of the report.

6. EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS 6.1 Full details of the external and internal consultation

responses received are contained with Appendices B, C, D, E and F of the report. A brief summary of some of the key issues has been detailed within this section.

6.2 Officers at Cambridge City Council and South

Cambridgeshire District Council broadly support the proposals and raise no fundamental objections in principle. Other consultees including the Highway Authority, Environment Agency, Anglian Water, Sport England and the Police Architectural Liaison Officer have no objection to the proposal. The proposals are generally supported by Trumpington Residents Association. However concern has been raised from Cambridgeshire Design Quality Panel, Haslingfield Parish Council and Trumpington Meadows Land Company, particularly in relation to the design of the building.

6.3 The main elements of concern from the consultation process

relate to the following areas: • The western elevation is not suitable for the closure of

a key vista and needs a re- design • The value of the tower on the western façade is

questioned • Further consideration needs to be given to the

treatment of the northern boundary • The application meets the 10% predicted energy

requirements and a standard of BREEAM very good; however the proposals do not use the best methods for achieving maximum energy targets/energy reduction

• Overheating of classrooms in the summer months is likely to be a problem

• The landscape plan is basic and needs to be developed further in conjunction with the ecology/biodiversity enhancements for the site

• Additional cycle parking needs to be provided to meet cycling standards

• The length of distance between car and cycle parking to the community entrance

• Further details need to be provided in relation to links to the school from the wider area, including Glebe Farm, Clay Farm and properties to the east of Hauxton Road

• On- street parking at key times could be a problem • The drainage strategy for the site needs updating • The community facilities provided are not adequate

and that further sports/activity facilities need to be provided for young girls at the school (Although it is acknowledged that both matters are primarily for the Fawcett Federations Group and the County Education Department to consider).

7. NEIGHBOUR REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 Two letters of representation have been received. One

representation gives thanks planning officers for all their hard work in securing improvements to the scheme, which have progressed significantly since pre- application stage. The only matters of concern relate to the following most of which can be dealt with by condition:

• Public Art- there is a lack of clarity about the budget for this and its purpose

• The tower will be a strong visual marker, but at the moment it needs better treatment and definition as it remains clumsy and lacks grace. Materials will also be very important here.

• The travel plan appears to be a generic one and needs substantial change. It takes no account of who will travel the difficult route from Clay Farm and Glebe Farm. It also fails to deal with issues related to the school being surrounded by a building site for several years.

7.2 The other letter of representation raises concern to the

following matters: • SUDS- Little evidence has been provided within the

application to demonstrate that rainwater is being treated in a sustainable way

• Access for children on foot and bike is likely to conflict with park and ride traffic

8. ASSESSMENT 8.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Act (2004)

requires that all applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Principle of the Development 8.2 The principle of a school development for this site has been

established through the granting of outline planning permissions reference 08/0048/OUT (Cambridge City) and S/0054/08/O (South Cambridgeshire District Council). The approved parameter plans for the outline permissions include the provision of a primary school on land to the west of Trumpington Park and Ride in the same location as the submitted application. Therefore the principle of a primary school on this site has been fully established.

8.3 It should be noted that this application has been submitted

for full planning permission and is not a reserved matters application. Therefore any grant of approval will be stand alone permission separate from the outline permission. Notwithstanding this, several of the conditions imposed on the outline permission are considered to be relevant and set general parameters that the school development should be seeking to comply with. This includes the approved design code for Trumpington Meadows, which is discussed in more detail in paragraphs 8.4 to 8.16.

Design Code 8.4 The design code for Trumpington Meadows was formally

approved at Joint Development Control Committee in June 2010. This sets out the design principles for Trumpington Meadows and seeks to ensure that a cohesive, locally distinctive and high quality development is delivered at Trumpington Meadows. The design code should be given significant policy weight in the determination of all applications within Trumpington Meadows and it is important to assess if the proposed primary school is compliant with the parameters stipulated within the design code.

8.5 The most relevant section to the primary school is contained

within pages 75 and 184- 187. Page 75 stipulates that the primary school will be a key landmark building fronting the eastern edge of the square and must be exemplary design and provide a strong urban edge. Building façade fronting the square must be a minimum of 6-8.5 metres in height and must clearly read as the principle civic building. It also defines that the school is located within the urban quarter of Trumpington Meadows.

8.6 In addition to the above, the design code sets out the

approximate locations where different elements of the school development should be located. Other mandatory elements of the design code require that a continuous frontage be provided adjacent to the local centre on the western façade and be set back no more than 5 metres from the site boundary abutting the local centre. Parking must be located on the eastern boundary adjacent to the park and ride and provide some limited community parking, with spaces being double counted to ensure maximum community use outside of the schools opening time.

8.7 In addition to the design code, adopted policies within South

Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies (2007) and the Southern Fringe Area Action Plan (2008) also set out parameters to achieve good design. The most relevant Development Control Policies are DP/1, DP/2 and DP/3; within the Area Action Plan the most relevant policies are CSF/1 and CSF/2. These set out that all new developments must be of a high quality design and be compatible with their location and appropriate in terms of scale, mass, form, siting, proportion, materials, texture and colour in relation to the surrounding area. Cambridge Southern Fringe will be a modern, vibrant, high quality, vibrant, innovative and distinctive urban extension, which will complement and enhance the character of the city.

8.8 The Cambridgeshire Quality Charter for growth sets out the

level of quality expected for new developments in Cambridgeshire and is based around four C’s, Community, Connectivity, Climate and Character.

Compliance with the Design Code and Design of School Building

Height of Western Elevation 8.9 The proposal is considered to largely comply with the design

code. A continuous frontage is provided along the western façade, to a height of 6.5 metres. The ‘tower’ feature rises to 11.3 metres, which is above the maximum set out in the code, however this only encompasses a frontage of 6 metres. Therefore in terms of height the west elevation is deemed to be code complaint.

Tower Feature 8.10 The proposed tower is considered to be a positive design

feature, which helps create a distinctive and landmark building on this important elevation. The tower will likely be visible from different parts of the Trumpington Meadows development and will help mark the location and significance of the school building, assist with “way finding”, and signal its hierarchy within the development. The comments of the design quality panel and Haslingfield Parish Council in relation to the tower are acknowledged, however it is the view of the Joint Planning Authority that the tower is required on the western elevation to provide visual interest and a distinctive feature on this façade. The tower also helps break up the long, horizontal nature of the westerly façade and to mark the termination of the vista from the country park across the local centre. The tower has been revised from the initial submission to provide a reduced depth. The reduced depth helps define the appearance of the structure as a more slender building element, rather than as a building in its own right. Along with being able to view the tower from the country park it will become a feature when viewing the school from wider areas to the north and south.

8.11 Without the inclusion of the tower, it is considered that the

school would not achieve the objectives of becoming a ‘landmark’ building and would be subsidiary in visual terms to the surrounding residential development. It is acknowledged that the final treatment of the tower, in terms of the actual materials and how they are assembled is vital to its success

visually and so a condition requiring approval of materials and detailing of the tower has been imposed (see section 8.12 on materials and finish). High quality, properly installed materials will be especially important to this element of the building.

Materials and Finish 8.12 The proposed use of materials including brick, standing

seam metal roof, terracotta rain screen, render and metal are largely code complaint. Furthermore the vertical window emphasis, including the use of timber infill panelling provides a beneficial visual break to the west elevation. The simplified pallet of materials is considered to achieve a suitable design standard. It is however considered imperative that materials and finishes on this elevation and the school as a whole are of a high quality and well integrated to achieve the architectural standard of design set out in the design code and relevant planning policies. It is recommended that this matter is secured by way of planning condition.

8.13 In addition to the materials, suitable landscaping to soften

the appearance of the western edge is considered to be important to enable a successful design solution and integration with the proposed village square. It is recommended that this matter be secured by way of planning condition.

Layout of the Site 8.14 The layout of the site complies with the design code. The

school and community use parking is located on the eastern boundary adjacent to the park and ride. The public access on the northern boundary is located in a position which will allow some integration between the school and the open space to the north of the site. The main built area for the school, the MUGA and the sports provision are also all located within the parameters areas set out within the design code.

Northern Boundary 8.15 Concern has been raised from Trumpington Meadows Land

Company (TMLC) that the northern edge of the school

struggles to meet the mandatory elements of the design code (see appendix E paragraph 1.84). The TMLC have expressed concerns about the brick wall defining the northern boundary of the site. Whilst it is acknowledged that the brick wall is not an ideal feature in the public realm, it is broken up by longer stretches of bow top fencing and attempt has been made to keep the main area of cycle parking generally open and visible to the public, a common feature seen in Cambridge. The brick wall also provides a functional purpose, namely to provide cycle storage and enclose a sprinkler tank. It is also not considered to be so excessively long as to harm the overall appearance of the development and or have an unacceptable impact on the adjacent streetscape. On balance it is considered that the northern frontage is acceptable in design terms.

Assessment of Scheme 8.16 Members will be aware of the need to assess planning

applications on their own merits, on the basis of the scheme submitted. Reference has been made that a two storey building would hold the corner of this important vista more effectively than the single storey scheme submitted. However this is a decision that has been taken by the applicants to achieve a building that functions well for the end users of the school and community users. Joint Planning Authority officers are satisfied that the design submitted generally satisfies the mandatory elements of the design code.

8.17 The design of the building has not received a favourable

feedback from all consultees. The Cambridgeshire Design Quality Panel and Haslingfield Parish Council have been quite critical of some of the elements of the scheme (see Appendices D and F), including the external appearance of the building. In considering the concerns raised, it is relevant for members to be aware of the process of the evolution of the building design. Over a period of months the applicant has redesigned the form and appearance of the building in an attempt to address concerns previously raised by officers and other consultees. The form of the building and detailing of the façades, particularly the western façade fronting the local centre, are the result of numerous requirements,

constraints and suggestions raised over the period of the evolution of the submitted design. The function of the building for community use, combined with the requirement for a formal “front door”, higher window sills to avoid viewing directly into classrooms, and the need to provide outdoor area for community use, to name but a few requirements, have all informed the final site and building design. The choice of materials is conditioned, but it is worth noting that the applicant is intending to use a small number of good quality materials (primarily brick, render and metal rain screens) and ensure that there is logic to where they are used. The final resulting design could be best described as a simple, functional building, which meets the functional requirements of the applicants and future users. The building may not be to some consultees expressed standard, but it has been the result of a detailed program of consultation and largely complies with formal design policy and requirements.

Safer Routes to School 8.18 At the last Joint Development Control Committee on the 15

June 2011, members were presented with options and issues surrounding the safer routes to school via Hauxton Road and the Park and Ride to the west of the application site. As confirmed in the consultation response from the County Council’s Highway Officer the foot and cycle links within the wider Trumpington Meadows development provide good links from the residential properties to the school.

8.19 However at June Joint Development Control Committee

members raised some concerns in relation to routes to the school from Glebe Farm, Clay Farm and residential properties to the east of Hauxton Road. It is recognised that this is an important issue that needs to be resolved; however this is considered to be a wider issue in the delivery of the southern fringe development and is not solely related to the proposed school development. As such it is considered that this matter can be progressed as a separate matter to the school application and should not be considered as a reason for refusal or deferral of this application.

8.20 This matter of safer routes to school is currently being worked upon by officers within the New Communities team at the County Council. Information requested by members in respect of a transport statement of traffic along Hauxton Road and an assessment of Safer Routes to School will be taken back for consideration by members at a later date.

Car Parking 8.21 The car parking standards specific to Cambridge Southern

Fringe is contained within Cambridge Southern Fringe Area Action Plan (2008). This states that car parking standards should not be exceeded but may be reduced where lower car use can be reasonably expected. For schools 2 spaces should be provided for every 3 members of staff and 1 space per 20 metres squared of public space, including disabled provision.

8.22 In support of the application it has been stated that there will

be a maximum of 40 members of staff on site at any one time. In accordance with the parking standards this gives a requirement of 27 spaces (maximum) to be provided. The floor area of the community facilities is approximately 200 square metres (excluding the hall and MUGA, which will be dual use facilities and only used by the community out of school hours) and provides for a maximum provision of 10 spaces. In total the car parking standards indicate that a maximum of 37 spaces should be provided for the combined school and community use.

8.23 Given the sustainable location of the school being well

connected by bus routes to the site and that it is adjacent to the park and ride and the proposed local centre, the number of proposed car parking spaces is considered to be acceptable in policy terms. However, this is subject to the provision of a robust travel plan for the site being further developed to encourage sustainable transport to and from the school site. It is recommended that this matter be dealt with by way of planning condition.

8.24 The car parking is located approximately 110 metes from the

community entrance to the building. However once plans for

the square to the west of the school come forward, this will provide car parking that can be used for community users adjacent to the main entrance, including disabled spaces. The car parking needs to be provided in its proposed location in order to comply with the Design Code and to minimise its impact on the public realm (reference paragraph 8.6). It also provides easy access to the MUGA, changing rooms and sports fields to the south of the development.

Cycle Parking Provision 8.25 As with car parking, the relevant cycle parking standards are

set out within the Cambridge Southern Fringe Area Action Plan (2008) policy CSF/11. This states that for schools a minimum of 50% of cycle parking spaces shall be provided for children between the ages of 5 and 12. In addition to this for crèches and nurseries 1 space should be provided per 2 members of staff and 1 visitor space per 5 children. For community use, 1 space should be provided per 15 metres squared of public floor area. On the basis of a 2 form entry Primary School 160 spaces should be provided for pupils between the ages of 5-12, plus an additional 28 spaces for staff and children at the pre- school/reception classes. This gives a minimum provision of 188 spaces to be required in connection with the school and pre- school. In addition to this 18 spaces should be provided for community use, given a total on site minimum provision of 206 spaces.

8.26 The proposed scheme provides for 194 spaces in total (14 of

which are for community use) and falls short of the minimum standards by 12 spaces.

8.27 Given the sustainable location of the site and the good cycle

routes to the site from Trumpington Meadows, it is considered necessary for a condition to be imposed requiring additional cycle parking to be provided on site to meet the minimum requirements set out in the cycle parking standards.

8.28 Whilst the location of the school cycle parking is acceptable

and relates closely to the two main pupil accesses, it is considered necessary for provision to be made for community parking on the west of the site, adjacent to the

community entrance. It is recommended that this matter is secured by way of planning condition.

Sustainability 8.29 Policy CSF/21 of the Southern Fringe Area Action Plan

(2008) and Policies NE/1, NE/2, NE/3 of the South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies (2007) set out the most relevant policies in relation to sustainability and energy efficiency. Policy NE/3 states that all development proposals greater than 1,000 m2 will include technology for renewable energy to provide at least 10% of their predicted energy requirements. It is also stipulated within condition 49 of the outline approval for Trumpington Meadows that 10% of renewable energy at the primary school will be accrued from renewable sources.

8.30 Following the submission of additional information the

applicants have provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the GSHP and the solar panels will achieve the 10% requirement of energy from renewable sources. Although alternative methods such as the use of photovoltaics in addition to the GSHP, may achieve a significantly higher and more efficient yield of energy from renewable sources the application is compliant with policy NE/3 and condition 49 of the outline approval.

8.31 Policy NE/1 relates to energy reduction and energy efficiency

and states that development is required to demonstrate it would achieve a high degree of measures to increase energy efficiency, through location, layout, orientation, aspect and external design. Developers are encouraged to reduce the amount of Carbon Dioxide a year emitted by 10% when compared to minimum building regulation requirements. County Council Policy also requires that all County Developments meet a BREEAM standard of ‘very good.’

8.32 The additional information submitted with the application and

the sustainability measures set out in paragraph 2.13 of the report are considered to be adequate to demonstrate that whilst the building may not be an exemplar in terms of sustainability it will meet the mandatory standard of

BREEAM ‘very good.’ It will also achieve a 10% energy reduction above the minimum building regulation standards.

8.33 In response to concerns regarding the orientation of the

school and the overheating of the classrooms, the applicants have stated that additional tree and landscape planting will be provided to the south of the classrooms (as recommended by the design quality panel). In addition the applicants are to review the glazing specification and utilise a high level of solar control glass to the south facing classrooms and to the high level windows in the northern classrooms. It is recommended that these additions be secured by way of planning condition.

Community Facilities and Sports Provision 8.34 Policy CSF/9 of the Cambridge Southern Fringe Area Action

Plan (2008) sets out that Trumpington West will provide community facilities, and will provide for an innovative means of provision, including opportunities for joint provision and co- location to provide services, which best meet people’s needs, are accessible to all and which are cost efficient to service and facility providers.

8.35 The location of the community facilities within the school

development was established at the master plan stage of the wider Trumpington Meadows development and is stipulated within the approved Design Code.

8.36 The proposed development provides the opportunity for co-

location of facilities to be used for both educational and community purposes and this concept has been well integrated as part of the proposals. The hall, MUGA and outdoor sports/hard play areas all have the opportunity to be used for both the school and the community. Whilst priority will be given to the school use, the community will also have access to their own facilities during school time. The activity studio/meeting room will be capable of hosting a number of formal and informal community activities during the school day, including keep fit, yoga, pilates and martial arts.

8.37 Sport England have confirmed that the sports provision is

acceptable and provides an excellent mix of sports facilities

for educational and community purposes. Concern has been raised in relation to the lack of facilities for young girls. However the sports pitches provided including the MUGA, hall, and outdoor hard surfaced play areas are capable of being used for a number of different sports and it is ultimately a decision for the end users of the school/community facilities to determine the level sports provision for each use. The changing rooms are considered to be well- located with easy access to the MUGA and the sports pitches and has been designed to allow easy access for both school and community users.

8.38 The entrance strategy has been designed to provide

segregation of entrance points for community and school users. The community access to the site is via a formal entrance on the west side of the building. Pupils and parents will access the school via two entrances to the north boundary or the west boundary to the south of the main school building, which is considered to be acceptable.

Landscaping and Ecology 8.39 Policy CSF/12 of the Cambridge Southern Fringe Area

Action Plan (2008) sets out the landscape principles for the Southern Fringe and is backed up by policy DP/2 of the South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies (2007), which states that new developments should include high quality landscaping compatible with the scale and character of the development and its surroundings. The landscape areas should provide an environment suitable to mitigate any adverse wildlife impacts and to maximise the benefits to wildlife, thus increasing biodiversity. The Design Code also includes detailed information in relation to the layout of landscaping and the use of planting within Trumpington Meadows.

8.40 The submitted landscaping scheme for the site is considered

to be basic in its current format and needs further integration to fully establish a clear landscape strategy for the site. Further work is required to provide a greater interaction between the internal and external spaces and to ensure that suitable marginal planting is provided. As part of this strategy, it is also considered important for native species to

be used and for suitable educational areas be established for the children. Any further details of the landscaping scheme for the site will also need to be developed in conjunction with a suitable ecology strategy and biodiversity enhancements. This is an important aspect of creating a successful external environment for users of the school/community areas and to successfully integrate the landscaping in the wider public realm for Trumpington Meadows.

8.41 Although parts of the ecology scheme for the site are

welcomed, such as the use of Emorsgate Seed EL1 and the provision of a wildlife area and green roof, it needs to be fully integrated with the landscape strategy for the site. It is recommended that a detailed landscaping/ecology scheme, including providing suitable biodiversity enhancements be secured by way of planning conditions.

Public Art 8.42 South Cambridgeshire Pubic Art Supplementary Planning

Document and policy SF/6 of the South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies (2007) state that provision of public art will be encouraged in developments that have a floor area of greater than 1000 m2. Public art funding should form approximately 1- 5 percent of the construction costs of the development.

8.43 As part of the outline permission a site wide public art

strategy for public art was agreed and a statement of public art strategy has been submitted with the application. The same artist consultants have been appointed for the school site as for the wider Trumpington Meadows development (Insite Art). The public art strategy outlines the intention to commission an artist in residents and to work up the public art strategy for the site with the end users, which is supported.

8.44 Whilst the public art strategy provides the basic strategy for

public art provision within the site, it needs to be fully related to the approved site- wide strategy and also explain its relationship to the local centre, role of the school itself, budget details, programme etc... It is recommended that this matter should be dealt with by way of planning condition. A

formal undertaking has also been received from the applicants in writing setting out that they agree to spend 1% of the total cost of construction on public art.

Secured By Design 8.45 Policy DP/2 of the South Cambridgeshire Development

Control Policies (2007) sets out that new development should provide an inclusive environment that is created for people and feels safe.

8.46 The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has confirmed that

the proposal has given due consideration to secure by design and provides a safe environment for educational and community users alike. To ensure suitable integration between the separate school and community elements, it is recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure that the implemented development accords with suitable security standards.

Drainage and Flood Risk 8.47 The Environment Agency has confirmed that the flood risk

assessment is adequate and accords with planning policy statement 25. However, the drainage plan for the site and the statement of drainage intent was based on an earlier iteration of the scheme, which has been amended since the application was submitted. As such it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring a revised drainage system to be submitted prior to commencement of the development, to ensure that adequate drainage of the site can be achieved. This condition also requires details of foul water drainage as requested by Anglian Water.

Lighting 8.48 Policy NE/14 of the South Cambridgeshire Development

Control Policies (2007) set out that development proposals, which include external lighting should ensure that the proposed lighting scheme is the minimum required for public safety and security and that there is no unacceptable light pollution or adverse impact upon nearby properties or the surrounding countryside.

8.49 Lighting will be provided around the MUGA, the external

areas around the school building and at the north and part of the west boundary. The proposed MUGA will be located approximately 70 metres from the nearest residential property (once they are built), which is considered to be a sufficient distance to ensure that there is no adverse impact from the MUGA to nearby residential amenity. Whilst the lighting levels around the building and along the boundaries of the site appear reasonable, the lighting assessment does not adequately consider the impact on properties to the north that will be 10-15 metres from the boundary of the school site. It is recommended that this matter and limitation on the hours of the lighting be secured by way of planning conditions.

Noise and Pollution 8.50 As stated in policy NE/15 of South Cambridgeshire

Development Control Policies (2007) planning permission will not be granted for development which has an unacceptable adverse impact on the indoor and outdoor acoustic environment of existing or planned development. Proposals should not be subject to unacceptable noise levels from existing noise sources.

8.51 The noise assessment submitted with the application

demonstrates that the noise levels from the outdoor activities at the school are not expected to give rise to annoyance and complaints and that the site is suitable for the design of a natural ventilation scheme. However noise emission from the MUGA and the community facilities requires further detailed assessment, which can be dealt with by way of planning condition.

8.52 There is some concern in relation to noise from the

M11/Hauxton Road to the school for a temporary period before the residential houses are built. The residential development to the south once completed is likely to provide a minimum of 5dBA attenuation of noise from the M11/Hauxton Road and will result in a significant reduction in the 59dBA maximum noise levels measured when the noise assessment was undertaken. In the short term it is

recommended that additional information on noise from the south/noise attenuation for the southern boundary be submitted for approval as part of a condition.

Other Matters 8.53 An archaeology survey of the wider development area has

already been undertaken and all archaeological remains recorded and removed as necessary.

8.54 The proposals for bin and recycling storage on site are

considered to be adequate. A condition has been imposed requiring details of bin and recycling storage around the MUGA.

8.55 Consultee and representation responses have raised

concern in relation to the internal layout of the school building and have questioned whether elements of the community and educational facilities are suitable and functional. However the internal functionality of the school is not considered to be a material planning consideration and is ultimately a decision for the applicants and the school governors to operate the school in an efficient manner. The concerns raised in this regard can be communicated as an informative on the decision notice, but should not form part of the material consideration of the planning application.

9. CONCLUSION 9.1 This proposed educational and community development will

provide an important facility for the community of Trumpington Meadows and southern fringe of Cambridge. It is important that this facility is implemented at an early phase of Trumpington Meadows, to ensure that adequate educational and community facilities are in place prior to the occupation of the majority of the new residential accommodation.

9.2 The application has attempted to co-ordinate at times

conflicting interests of providing a design of the highest architectural standard, yet at the same time secure a functional development that provides a positive learning

environment, with adequate community facilities. In policy terms the school building and the western elevation are considered to be generally complaint with the mandatory elements of the design code, in terms of the height, massing and layout. The tower feature is considered to be necessary to provide a visual focal point on this west elevation and support the landmark building requirement stipulated in the design code. The materials, finish and detailing of this elevation, along with the rest of the building is critical to the success of scheme in design terms and this matter can be satisfactorily dealt with by way of planning condition.

9.3 The development meets the requirements of policies NE/1,

NE/2 and NE/3 of the South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies (2007) in terms of sustainability and reducing energy efficiency. The additional measures that the applicants have agreed to, to reduce overheating of classrooms will also negate some of the concerns raised by consultees in this regard. There are some other matters, where additional information and planning is required particularly in relation to landscaping, ecology, drainage and public art. However none of these matters are considered to cause fundamental concern that would warrant refusal of the application.

9.4 As members are aware full clarification needs to be provided

on safer routes for pedestrians and cyclists between the southern fringe developments and the residential areas, with particular areas of concern being the crossing of Hauxton Road and the Park and Ride. This is a wider site issue for the southern fringe and should be considered to members separately to this application. Although it will ultimately inform the travel plan for the school site, which will need to be robust to demonstrate encourage sustainable modes to school.

9.5 On balance the application is largely complaint with the

design code and the relevant planning policies set out in section 5 of the report. On this basis it is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in chapter 10 below.

10. CONDITIONS AND REASONS

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning

Authority, the development hereby permitted shall not commence except in accordance with the details set out in the submitted application form, supporting statement, design and access statement, and associated documents and statements as amended by the conditions stated on this decision notice and the following drawings: • Titled: Site Location Plan, numbered: TM-CA-000-DSP-AR-

91001 P01 and dated: 21 April 2011 • Titled: Proposed Site Plan, numbered TM-CA-000-DSP-AR-

910002 P04 and dated 21 April 2011 • Titled: Ground Floor Plan, numbered: TM-CA-G00-DFP-AR-

061001 P05 and dated: 21 April 2011 • Titled: Proposed Roof Plan, numbered TM CA- G00-DFP-

AR-061003 P03 and dated 21 April 2011 • Titled: Elevations, numbered TM-CA-000-DEL-AR-062001

P04 and dated 14 June 2011 • Titled: Proposed Sections AA BB CC DD EE FF and dated

21 April 2011 (Only the section areas within this plan are approved)

Reason: To define the site and protect the character and appearance of the locality in accordance with Trumpington Meadows Design Code, Policies DP/1, DP/2, DP/3 of the South Cambridgeshire District Council LDF Development Control Policies (2007) and policies CSF/1, CSF/2 and CSF/9 Cambridge Southern Fringe Area Action Plan (2008).

3. No development shall commence until details, colours and

samples of the materials to be used for the external walls, roofs, doors, windows and metal rain screens of the buildings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. This shall include approval of the junctions, seams and overlapping of various materials on buildings and details of depths of window reveals on the western elevation. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and coherent design in accordance with Trumpington Meadows Design Code, Policy DP/2 of the South Cambridgeshire District Council LDF

28 Prior to the first use of the MUGA, details of recycling and bin

storage for the MUGA shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority. The recycling and bin storage shall be implemented in accordance with the scheme as approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for recycling and bin refuse and in accordance with policy DP/3 of the South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies (2007).

29 The proposed methods for security by design shall be

implemented in accordance with section 18 'Secure by Design Statement' of the Design Access Statement, dated April 2011 as received on the 21 April 2011, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County Planning Authority. The fencing, external lighting, external doorsets, glazing and window apertures shall be implemented in accordance with the relevant BS Security Standards, and maintained to the appropriate standards, to the satisfaction of the County Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that suitable measures are taken to secure the site and in accordance with policy DP/2 of the South Cambridgeshire LDF Development Control Policies (2007).

30. If during the development contamination not previously

Identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the (County Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the County Planning Authority for, a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved to the satisfaction of the County Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of contamination of the water environment and in accordance with PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control

APPENDIX A- RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES National and Regional Guidance PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Water Management PPG13: Transport PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation PPS22: Renewable Energy PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control PPG24: Planning and Noise PPS25: Development and Flood Risk East of England Plan (2008) Trumpington Meadows Design Code (2010) (formally approved under condition 9 of the outline permission) South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies (2007) DP/1 Sustainable Development DP/2 Design of New Development DP/3 Development Criteria DP/4 Infrastructure and New Developments DP/6 Construction Methods SF/6 Public Art and New Development SF/11 Open Space Standards NE/1 Energy Efficiency NE/2 Renewable Energy NE/3 Renewable Energy Technologies in New Development NE/6 Biodiversity NE/9 Water and Drainage Infrastructure NE/11 Flood Risk NE/12 Water Conservation NE/14 Lighting Proposals NE/15 Noise Pollution CH/1 Historic Landscapes

CH/2 Archaeological Sites TR/1 Planning for More Sustainable Travel TR/2 Car and Cycle Parking Standards TR/3 Mitigating Travel Impact TR/4 Non- Motorised Modes Cambridge Local Plan (2006) Although the site is within the administrative area of South Cambridgeshire, it is in close proximity to Cambridge City and the policies contained within the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) are considered to be relevant. 3/1 Sustainable Development 3/2 Setting of the City 3/4 Responding to Context 3/6 Ensuring Coordinated Development 3/7 Creating Successful Places 3/11 The Design of External Places 3/12 The Design of New Buildings 4/9 Scheduled Ancient Monuments/Archaeological Areas 4/13 Pollution and Amenity 4/15 Lighting 5/12 New Community Facilities 5/13 Community Facilities in the Areas of Major Change 8/2 Transport Impact 8/3 Mitigating Measures 8/4 Walking and Cycling 8/5 Pedestrian and Cycle Network 8/6 Cycle Parking 8/16 Renewable Energy in Major New Developments 8/17 Renewable Energy 8/18 Water, Sewerage and Drainage Infrastructure 9/2 Phasing of Areas of Major Change 9/3 Development in the Urban Extensions 9/5 Southern Fringe Supplementary Planning Guidance Cambridge Southern Fringe Area Action Plan (2008) CSF/1 The Vision for the Cambridge Southern Fringe

CSF/2 Development and Countryside Improvement Principles CSF/3 The Site for Trumpington West CSF/9 Community Services, Facilities, Leisure, Arts and Culture CSF/11 Alternative Modes CSF/13 Landscaping within Trumpington West CSF/15 Enhancing Biodiversity CSF/16 Archaeology at Trumpington West CSF/17 Public Open Space and Sports Provision CSF/19 Land Drainage, Water Conservation, Foul Drainage

and Sewage Disposal CSF/22 Construction Strategy Cambridgeshire Quality Charter for Growth (2009) Cambridge City Council Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document (2007) Cambridge City Council Public Art Supplementary Planning Document (2010)

APPENDIX B: Comments of Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Council

1.1 A joint response has been submitted on a large number of

consultation areas, which are sub- divided into sections below.

Urban Design

Design Code 1.2 The proposal largely complies with the approved Design

Code for Trumpington Meadows, specifically Section 5.4; Primary School (pages 184-187). The overall building height is now appropriate and the location of the parking area has been amended. The proposed use of materials including brick, standing seam roof, terra cotta rain screen, render and metal is also largely code compliant.

General Comments

1.3 The form of the building and general approach to the use of

materials are an improvement on earlier proposals and the use of brick on the western façade and the incorporation of a “tower” to mark the front elevation is welcomed. The reduction in depth of the tower is an improvement in that the proportions are slender, making the tower stand out more obviously. The applicant will need to co- ordinate closely with the master developer for the site in relation to the use of paving materials in front of the building and how this relates to the paving for the square.

1.4 It is recommended that conditions be imposed requiring the

applicants to provide samples of materials and details of the colour, finish, junction of materials and depths of window reveals on the western elevation and the east end of the central hall/changing rooms.

Community Development

Size and function of the kitchen area

1.5 Within the community area the plans show provision for a

café and a small kitchen for community use. The café was not within the original brief and the community officers would like only a kitchen in this area, mainly for the provision of light refreshments associated with bookings. The detailed design of the kitchen/café layout will need to be worked up further.

Car Parking and Security

1.6 Concern is raised in relation to the distance from the parking

area to the main entrance, particularly for disabled and drop- off requirements. The security implications associated with the dual use of the building/site for the school and community purposes will also need to be addressed carefully. Two conditions to address these matters are recommended.

Environmental Health

1.7 No objections in principle to the application, most issues can

be dealt with satisfactorily by condition.

Noise, Construction, Vibration and Dust 1.8 In relation to noise from traffic to the school site, the

submitted baseline noise assessment is reasonably robust. However, clarification is sought in relation to the installation of a noise barrier to the south/south- east boundary of the site, which is recommended in the noise report to reduce noise from the M11/Hauxton Road (to address the time period before housing is completed to the south of the site, effectively providing screening).

1.9 The noise report does not consider any of the possible noise

sources associated with the community use aspect of the school. This needs to be addressed by condition, with particular regard given to the community rooms that may be used for recreational and entertainment purposes. Mitigation measures/noise insulation are likely to be required,

potentially an acoustic lobby or special glazing design specification. There is also potential for noise nuisance and loss of amenity arising from use of the MUGA. This requires detailed assessment and a high level of mitigation measures such as use of rubber/neoprence damping to welded mesh fencing and kick boards is suggested.

1.10 The following conditions are recommended: • Limits on hours of construction • Limits on hours of use of the community areas and MUGA • Limits on the hours of delivery to the site • Noise assessment and scheme for insulation of building to

be submitted • Noise and Vibration report to be submitted in the event that

the foundations require piling • Programme of measures to minimise the spread of airborne

dust

Operational Odour Generation and Control 1.11 It is noted that the kitchen will have a roof top extract/inlet

type stack. If this is to include the extraction of cooking odours it will need to adequately discharge or abate them to avoid odour nuisance to surrounding residential properties, which can be dealt with by way of condition.

Artificial Lighting

1.12 Lighting assessments have been submitted in relation to the

external areas of the school and immediate grounds and the floodlighting of the MUGA. Whilst the proposals appear reasonable, the assessments do not adequately consider the impact on future residential properties to the north that will be 10- 15 metres from the boundary of the school site. It is considered that this could be dealt with by way of condition. In relation to the MUGA, given that the nearest residential properties will be 70 metres away, the artificial lighting scheme is considered to be acceptable.

Contaminated Land

1.13 It should be noted that the contaminated land condition

imposed on the outline permission has yet to be fully

discharged by the master developer. The County Council should satisfy themselves on accepting the school land transfer that the site is clean and that any soils brought on site for the laying of ditches/landscaping are from a clean source.

Ecology Officer

1.14 Several aspects of the ecology scheme for the site are

welcomed, including the provision of a green roof above the bike shelters, the provision of a pond within the wildlife area and the provision of bat boxes. It is recommended a green roof should also be used above the bike shelters on the west and that further details are provided in relation to the balancing pond. It is also recommended that additional bird nesting boxes be provided and that the mix of landscaping provided be amended. These matters can be dealt with by way of condition.

Sustainability 1.15 Following the submission of additional information, the

proposals meet the target of producing 10% of the predicted energy requirements through the inclusion of on- site renewable energy technologies.

1.16 However, there is some concern that the use of a GSHP and

solar hot water does not provide the best solution for achieving maximum renewable energy targets from the development. It is considered that the use of photovoltaics would present a better option, in terms of producing a higher percentage of energy from renewable sources, but also linking to future revenue budgets with current capital budgets.

1.17 Reference is made in the additional information submitted to

a separately commissioned natural ventilation report. The opportunity to review this report would be welcomed, particular in order to understand tolerances etc.

1.18 The report demonstrates that the school is achieving a

BREEAM standard of ‘very good’, there does not however appear to be any attempt to reach a BREEAM standard of

‘excellent’, which new buildings should be seeking to achieve.

1.19 The demonstration of climate change adaption measures,

especially summer overheating is a major concern. Although some measures are put forward, there is insufficient evidence in the proposals to provide confidence that they will be effective.

Walking and Cycling Officer

Routes to School 1.20 The submitted Transport Statement does not adequately

address the issue of identification of provision of safe routes for pupils coming to the school from Glebe Farm, Clay Farm, Trumpington and Trumpington Meadows, in terms of cycle and pedestrian routes. A route across the John Lewis depot entrance must be agreed as well as signed routes through the Park and Ride site from the guided busway and from the crossing of Hauxton Road.

Travel Plan

1.21 The travel plan gives no consideration of how staff will travel

to work or objectives relating to staff travel. Reference also needs to be made to identify locations where parents can drop- off/pick up children.

Cycle Parking 1.22 The design code states that cycle parking should be

provided on plot for 50% of children between 5 and 12. Some of the children in the reception class will need to be included in this calculation. The provision of 194 spaces does not currently meet the City Council’s Cycle Parking Provision of 1 space per every 2 members of staff and 1 visitor space per 5 children (see paragraphs 8.25- 8.28 of the main report for detailed information on the cycle parking). It is recommended that a condition be imposed, requiring additional cycle parking to be provided.

1.23 It is also recommended that the community cycle parking be relocated from the north to the front of the main entrance on the west of the site and that provision is made for scooter parking and drop off- pick up cycle parking.

Drainage

1.24 The submitted drainage strategy is not consistent with the

approved site- wide drainage strategy, in that it is based on a previous iteration of the scheme. It is noted that the from the infiltration testing undertaken the site carries a low infiltration rate; however more extensive site- specific tests should be undertaken before dismissing the possibility of infiltration.

1.25 Green/brown roofs should be considered for all flat roof

locations in the school and the water recycling system should be integrated with the drainage scheme. Additional measures should also be provided to utilise source control.

Landscape 1.26 A number of comments are made regarding the landscaping

plan for the site. Relationship between internal and external 1.27 There needs to be more interaction between internal and

external space and exits from the classrooms should lead to meaningful spaces of various scales as a transition to the wider landscape. The marginal planting around the building is not considered to be sustainable, planting beds with a greater width will be much more successful and create a more substantial threshold between the classrooms and play areas.

Functionality of Spaces 1.28 The functionality of the different landscape spaces is difficult

to understand. There is no information on who will use each space, what equipment will be used and how it is going to be used. This includes the northern play space, the sensory garden and the southern play areas. The boundary

treatments and entrances to the school also need careful design consideration.

Southern Play Spaces 1.29 Shade must be provided to the south face of the building.

This will require some form of structure, such as shade sails, for immediate effect. Tree planting will provide dappled shade but not for several years to come. The pre- school area and south wing must also have shade structures. The area is a south facing box and will suffer from reflected heat. The area needs planting suitable for stimulating young children.

Tree and Shrub Planting 1.30 The tree species should comply with the list provided within

the Design Code to aid the creation of a sense of place with connections across and beyond the site. Ideally the car park should accommodate trees to break it up, together with some perimeter hedging. The planting of Gold Beech Trees is not supported.

1.31 It is recommended that conditions be imposed requiring the

applicant to submit full details of hard and soft landscaping and full details of boundary treatments.

Sport and Recreation- MUGA Proposals 1.32 It would be helpful if the supporting information could include

additional reference to the community use aspects, rather than just focusing on educational use, given that the site is also a shared facility for the community. The MUGA surface pitch is 3G rubber crumb infill suitable for most sports.

1.33 The fencing around the MUGA is generally acceptable, but

clarification is sought in relation to the access point for the MUGA as the submitted plans are inconsistent. There is also some concern that the pedestrian gates are not well located and access is not direct from the school/changing rooms. The floodlighting is welcomed and indeed necessary to optimise the full potential of this facility for school and community use.

1.34 It is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring

bin/recycling facilities for the MUGA to be provided. Public Art 1.35 Further information is required and the public art delivery

plan needs to be better related to the approved site wide public art strategy and also to explain its relationship to the local centre, the role of the school itself, future students, budget details and the programme. This can be secured by way of a planning condition.

Waste 1.36 The proposed waste storage details are satisfactory and

provide sufficient capacity. Conclusion of Comments from Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Council 1.37 The two District Councils broadly support the proposals and

raise no fundamental objections in principle.

APPENDIX C: COMMENTS OF INTERNAL COUNTY COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS

Highways Development Control 1.38 The application would not be anticipated to have any

significant adverse impact upon the strategic public highway network, however the proposed use of the site has potential to engender drop off and collection of children in the vicinity of the school with the associated disturbance and potential detriment to residential amenity.

1.39 In line with current policies, both locally and nationally, this

should be addressed through discouraging the use of private car for short journeys that could be taken by more sustainable modes, such as walking and cycling. To this end the school proposes to operate a travel plan, and this must be developed to further encourage and increase travel by more sustainable modes.

1.40 The site is well connected by foot and cycle routes to the

Trumpington Meadows residential development, aside from the section of the development shadowed from the school by the interposed John Lewis Warehouse facility. Details of the links across the John Lewis facility together with the access on foot and cycle from the wider area, such as Glebe Farm and Clay farm developments need to be determined.

Environment Management and Climate Change Ecology and Landscaping 1.41 The inclusion of a pond within the scheme is welcomed.

However the proposed scheme does not maximise the biodiversity potential for the pond and this matter needs further consideration.

1.42 The use of non- native species in the tree/shrub/bog planting

is considered to be inappropriate. It is requested that native species should be used, which are indicative of the landscape character.

1.43 Further information is required in relation to the landscaping

scheme in general. This should include details of the number, height and density of plant specimens, planting list for spring bulbs, type of wildflower grassland mix and the location and number of bird and bat boxes.

1.44 These matters should be addressed by way of planning

conditions. BREEAM 1.45 Having raised initial concern that the information provided

insufficient detail to prove the scheme will meet a BREEAM rating of very good, the additional information submitted demonstrates that a rating of BREEAM ‘very good’ can be achieved. This addresses the previous concerns and they have no further comments to add.

Cambridgeshire Archaeology

1.46 The archaeological issues for the site are being addressed as part of the Trumpington Meadows outline permission. The fieldwork in this area is complete and no further archaeological conditions are necessary for the school application.

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS OF PARISH COUNCILS AND COMMUNITY GROUPS

Haslingfield Parish Council 1.47 It is acknowledged that there has been comprehensive

consultation with a number of relevant stakeholders but further work is still required. Comments provided have been divided into three categories:

School Planning Arrangement 1.48 Although largely a matter for the Fawcett Federation and the

County Education Department, members expressed concern over the apparent absence of gym & outside facilities for young girl’s sports.

1.49 Many of the rooms have a northern aspect and that the

outside eating hours will be soulless and windy even in sunny weather. In addition members are concerned that the impact on small pre- school children of the height of their classrooms, even with under drawn ceilings.

1.50 The spine 'street' needs articulation at it central crossing and

at its eastern end, a large window with no doors is weak and unnecessary given the rooftop lighting.

Location of buildings and facilities within the site including parking and access

1.51 These meet the requirements of the Design code in principle;

however the two large football pitches may need greater flexibility in practice.

1.52 Entrances for the children fit the school plan but the landscape footpaths and fencing leading to them needs further clarification.

1.53 Parking for 27 cars meets the design code, but with 60 staff it

is inevitable that cars will end up on the street at times. The same may happen at peak community use given the distance from the car park to the community entrance.

Community centre accommodation 1.54 Attention to the detail of locating events notice boards, public

art and visual integration with the local centre would be helped by a large 10 metre high glazed gable incorporating entrance lobby. This would draw the eye outwards to the local centre and inwards to the cafe area.

1.55 Concern is raised with regard to the internal layout and

provision of the community facilities. This includes that the kitchen size is inadequate, that the size of the storage facilities for the hall is too small, that the central lobby area needs reorganising and that the storage and changing rooms should be enlarged.

Relationship to local centre & three dimensional design of building

1.56 Without any details of the surrounding housing it is difficult to

assess the design in its environment. 1.57 The difficulty faced by architects has been the requirement in

the Design Code for a landmark building requiring its height facing the local centre equivalent to a 2-3 storey building. The choice of a primary school to fulfil this function creates a major problem when the decision is later taken to design the school floor plan on a single level. The design code states that it is mandatory that the main facade "must rise to 6-8.5 metres in height (including roof) along entire elevation" but does not say that must be 6- 8.5 metes everywhere on the elevation. There are local precedents for primary schools presenting high walls and gables to the front with high window cills. However, these use the hall and bell tower effect, as seen in Haslingfield.

1.58 In this instance the relationship between educational and

community spaces have not allowed the main hall to use its height on the western elevation. In member’s opinion, the proposal is ugly and lacks imagination in its attempt to satisfy the height requirements. The western elevation is not suitable as a closure of a key vista and needs a quality redesign. In addition the west elevation is badly detailed, inappropriately coloured with false windows to the pre- school wing. This is out of scale with the pedestrian movement in the local centre and does not clarify the main entrance to the building. It is suggested that a campanile or clock tower could be located on the north- west corner to provide a focal point seen for all parts of Trumpington Meadows.

Trumpington Residents Association 1.59 Express their thanks to planning officers for organising the

planning exhibition on the 16 May and also to the architect for the scheme, who provided a helpful presentation to the residents association on the 25 May.

1.60 The scheme provides a good balance between the different

elements of the building and the layout should provide an attractive and welcoming learning environment. The concept of a single storey building is strongly supported and each time the design has been discussed with resident association members this approach has been endorsed. The inclusion of a 2- form entry school from the outset is welcomed, so that the early residents will be able to benefit from a completed facility without the threat of disruption from major building work.

1.61 The emphasis on the use of natural light and ventilation and

the sustainability and energy efficiency of the building is supported.

1.62 The design of the front of the building has the potential to

provide an attractive and inviting entrance but more work needs to be done to produce a successful solution. This includes the incorporation of a distinctive clock or art work on the frontage and the exploitation of the extra height of the

internal space behind the entrance. This extra space internally could be used to provide a positive feature of the entrance/community area, such as by dramatic art work, perhaps a mobile suspend over the void, perhaps a mobile. It is hoped that the public art consultant can be involved in this work.

Granchester Parish Council

1.63 No comment to make in relation to the application. 1.64 Harston, Hauxton and Great Shelford Parish Councils were

also consulted, but no comments were received.

APPENDIX E: COMMENTS OF OTHER STATUTORY AND NON- STATUTORY CONSULTEES

Sport England 1.65 From a sporting perspective the plans include the following

indoor and outdoor facilities that are capable of being used for sport:

• Two 64m x 39m natural turf football pitches • 40m x 30m floodlit multi- use games area (school and

community use) • 20m x 10m main hall • 9m x 9m activity studio • Changing rooms (school and community use)

1.66 It should be noted that the proposed pitches as shown on the

plan are above the recommended size of a mini- football pitch (under age 10) group of 54.9m x 36.5m, although the dimensions shown may be indicative only. For under 11/12 the Football Association recommends a pitch size of 73.15 x 45.72 so the pitches shown would be suitable for this age group. It is recommended that the size of one of the pitches be amended to reflect the younger age groups.

1.67 The MUGA will be capable of hosting a range of sporting

activities including five a side football, tennis, netball and basketball and can be sub- divided into smaller areas for school use.

1.68 The proposed changing rooms have been designed to allow direct access to the outside pitches. Which is a positive design feature as it will enable community access out of school hours.

1.69 The main school hall appears to be suitable for a range of

formal and informal sporting uses with the main hall being capable of hosting formal sports such as badminton, whilst the activity studio will be suitable for activities such as keep fit, yoga, pilates, martial arts etc.

1.70 Sport England has outlined their support for the proposals,

which provides an excellent mix of sports facilities that will benefit both school and community. This community offer is particularly important as the school will serve the new urban extension, therefore its function as a community sporting ‘hub’ will be particularly beneficial.

Environment Agency 1.71 No objection to the development, subject to suitable

conditions being imposed on any grant of approval. 1.72 The flood risk assessment submitted with the application is

acceptable, however it is recommended that a condition be imposed to limit the surface water drainage from the site to 420l/s into the surface water drainage system and that ownership and maintenance of SUDS is maintained for the lifetime of the development.

1.73 It is also recommended that a condition be imposed to

ensure that the Planning Authority is notified if any contamination of land is discovered during the construction of the development.

Anglian Water 1.74 At present there is capacity within Cambridge STW for the

additional foul water flows. There is however a possibility that the development will lead to a risk of flooding of the foul sewerage network downstream. As such a condition is recommended requiring a drainage strategy is submitted.

1.75 In relation to surface water disposal, the surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the application relevant to Anglian Water is acceptable. It is requested that the agreed strategy be reflected in any planning approval.

Sustrans 1.76 Sustrans main concern is that the details of the access

eastward from the school to Hauxton Road, and to a safe and convenient route from the school to the Glebe Farm development has not been clarified in the planning application.

1.77 The outline submission for Trumpington Meadows

development clearly indicates the need for, and the expectation of provision of walking/cycling paths through the park and ride site. Sustrans have been informally assured that a high quality traffic free route will be provided, including an improved crossing of Hauxton Road, but consider it important that this is indicated on the planning application for the school, and should be a requirement of any consent.

1.78 It is also suggested that pedestrian and cycle routes could be

improved along the bus way adjacent to Hauxton Road. Beyond that, the comments submitted by the Walking and Cycling Officer at Cambridge City Council are supported and appear to be well judged and comprehensive.

Police Architectural Liaison Officer 1.79 Pre- application discussions were held with the applicants

and from reviewing the submission, it appears that all recommendations have been taken on board. As such no objection is raised in relation to the application, although the following should be met when the school is built:

• Security fencing and gates to meet BS 1722 Standard • External lighting be adequate to provide CCTV images to an

elevated standard • Lighting for the car park to comply with BS 5489-1:2003 • External door sets to be certified to BS PAS 24-1: 2007-

Enhanced Security • All ground floor and easily accessible glazing must

incorporate one pane of laminated glass to a minimum

thickness of 6.8mm or glass successfully tested to BS EN 356:2000

• Consultation be undertaken with the Police Liaison Officer once the school is built

English Heritage 1.80 The application should be determined in accordance with

national and local policy guidance and on the basis of the County Planning Authority’s special conservation advice.

Natural England 1.81 From the information provided the application does not

appear to be an application that Natural England would routinely comment on. The County Planning Authority should assess and consider the possible impacts resulting from the proposal in accordance with Natural England’s standing advice.

Terence O’Rourke Ltd on behalf of Trumpington Meadows Land Company

1.82 Without raising formal objection to the proposal it is

considered that further design work is necessary to meet the intent of the design code and to ensure that the primary school becomes a civic building of the highest quality at the community heart of Trumpington Meadows. It is requested that any approval is conditioned to allow further work to be produced on the concerns outlined below.

1.83 The design code stipulates that the primary school design

should be of the highest architectural quality and fulfil the mandatory requirement as a key landmark building fronting the eastern edge of the square.

Context and Siting 1.84 The northern edge of the school struggles to meet the

mandatory elements of the design code, with bin stores and community spaces showing a poorly conceived set of spaces along this edge. Concern is also raised in relation to the appearance of the 2 metre high brick wall and the sprinkler

tank along this edge. The north- east elements of the building weakly hold the corner and provide minimal building mass.

1.85 Concern is raised in relation to the location, size and lack of

screening of the service yard and that the outdoor community area adjacent to the school should ideally be relocated in front of the school to help give the local centre identity and activity.

Building Mass and Elevations 1.86 The elevation design and quality of presentation material is

lacking and unconvincing with limited reference made to the context and masterplan surrounding.

1.87 Further concern is raised in relation to the hard edges to the

public space and very high cill levels with a lack of consideration between the west elevation and the public realm space. The idea of an event to celebrate and identify the entrance is supported but has been poorly executed with an uninspiring design. Public art should help give this element some identity. The benefit of mirroring this at the south- east side is also questioned. It is suggested that the community element should be opened up to fully engage with the main focal space on the public realm.

Pallet of Material 1.88 Careful consideration of materials and referencing to the

surrounding design code is required to tell the story of how the materials are chosen; further information is required on the selection and choice of materials and finishes. The use of materials, street furniture and public art will play an important role in enforcing the school design and entrance approach from the country park as suggested in the design code (page 173).

Landscaping 1.89 Much of the external landscaping struggles to meet with the

design code. Additional consideration needs to be given to the plant species used and in a number of locations

insufficient room has been provided to create a good quality boundary treatment.

APPENDIX F: FULL COMMENTS OF CAMBRIDGESHIRE DESIGN QUALITY PANEL CAMBRIDGESHIRE QUALITY PANEL REPORT OF PANEL MEETING Scheme: Trumpington Meadows Primary School Date: 8th June 2011 Venue: Kings Room, Cambridge Corn Exchange, Wheeler Street, Cambridge CB2 3QB Time: start 1.00 pm Quality Panel Members Robin Nicholson (chair) Lynne Sullivan Oliver Smith Simon Carne Steve Platt Panel secretariat and support John Williamson Lianne Parrett Juliet Richardson (Cambridgeshire County Council) Developer representatives Paul Innes Capita Architecture

Lisa Skinner Capita Planning Local Authority Attendees Glen Richardson Head of the Joint Urban Design Team Sharon Brown Major Developments Manager David Fletcher Cambridgeshire County Council Rob Lewis Cambridgeshire County Council Other Attendees Anne Kent Chair of School Governors 1. Scheme description and developer’s presentation Architect Capita Architecture Submitted by Cambridgeshire County Council Planning status Application submitted Overview Trumpington Meadows, to the south of Cambridge between the existing settlement of Trumpington and the M11, is an allocation within both the Cambridge City Local Plan and the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework. The main components of the Trumpington Meadows development are: • 1,200 new homes; • Primary school; • Country Park; • Allotments; • Informal and formal open space throughout the development. The scheme, including the primary school, will be developed in phases. The school site occupies a parcel of land adjacent to, and immediately to the west of the County Council’s park and ride site.

The school is two-form entry and will include pre-school facilities. The current design has been developed through collaboration with the school Governors around three themes: • Integration – the community and education functions should be

fully integrated; • Collaboration – part of the school’s ethos is collaboration,

between years and teachers, and between the school and community users; and

• Celebration – the school as a great place for pupils, teachers and the wider community.

The design response to these themes is a single-storey building with a central area running the length of the building, with a main hall and year-based classrooms grouped around this. The open, central area is intended as a key resource which can be used for teaching and exhibition space. Dedicated community rooms are proposed at the front of the building immediately in front of the main hall. Key principles which have informed the design and layout of the building are: • Flexibility; • Practicality; • Easy access; and • Appropriate scale. 3. Cambridgeshire Quality Panel views Introduction The Panel acknowledges the submission of a planning application and the tight timescale for the school to open by September 2012. The Panel considers that some improvements have been made since it last reviewed the proposal in January this year, for example to the external space arrangements and landscaping. However, in the Panel’s view the building design still has some basic flaws and it is disappointed that a number of issues raised in the two earlier review meetings have not been addressed as might have been hoped.

The Panel makes the following specific observations and comments on the current proposals for the school within the context of the four ‘C’s’ (character, connectivity, community and climate) stated in the Cambridgeshire Quality Charter. • The Panel is concerned that its previous comments about

solar orientation and overheating appear not to have been taken into account. Notwithstanding the computer modelling the Panel considers that the orientation of the building and the location of certain classrooms on the south and south-west sides will lead to overheating; similarly the unprotected south-facing clerestory glazing to the north-facing classrooms. Unless the orientation is changed then remedial measures will be needed to prevent this; for example, extending the line of tree planting across the classrooms close to the Key Stage 2 entrance should provide greater shading (and will have the added benefit of creating a better demarcation between the area immediately outside the entrance and the hard play area beyond). Also, the Panel is concerned about the heating effect of the extensive areas of tarmac.

• The Panel continues to question the functionality of the central ‘street’ and considers that furnished layouts are needed to enable a proper understanding by the school of how it might work in practice; this should show the routes into each doorway and the pools of light from above.

• The Panel is concerned that both ventilation and natural daylight would be inadequate in the central corridor. The Panel recommends developing the ‘ceiling scape’ of the corridor to reflect a clearer, integrated approach to use of natural daylight and ventilation which would better respond to the intended use of the whole area. The Panel questions whether both the roof lights and funnels are needed as they seem to duplicate the same purpose and do not, therefore, represent good value for money.

• In the Panel’s view there appears to be no clear materials strategy. The range of different external materials, including brick, timber and render, would lead to a less effective appearance than a predominantly brick finish on the exterior

and render within the perimeter walls. The Panel recommends removing the timber cladding on elevations and removing the ‘blind’ windows which detract from the overall design. On a detailed point, the Panel questions the proposed use of powdered finishes on metal fittings such as downpipes, to reduce the likelihood of damage.

• The Panel questions the value of the tower on the front façade. While the Panel acknowledges the need to break up the horizontal line of the frontage, its preference as an alternative to the empty tower is to extend the height and width of the glazed frontage of the café. In the Panel’s view this would produce a more effective design solution than the tower to breaking up the horizontal line of the façade and welcoming in the community.

• The Panel has remaining concerns about how effectively the nursery wing would work as a practical space; it suggests a reconsideration of the internal layout of this element of the building, including room heights. The Panel cannot accept the parents and toddlers room off the main entrance in terms of circulation through it, sliding folding partitions, daylighting and views out.

• The Panel notes that there is no convincing overall strategy for energy reduction in the building, nor is it clear how rainwater will be gathered and recycled to best effect. From the Panel’s analysis of the BREEAM assessment, the building appeared to score poorly against a number of basic criteria, including views out, glare control, vehicle deliveries etc.

4. Conclusion The Panel acknowledges the time and effort that has been put into the design so far but is concerned about a lack of response to some of the issues it raised at both previous review meetings. This report sets out a number of specific matters about which the Panel has outstanding concerns. The most significant of these is the potential overheating of classrooms and the function of the central corridor. Other concerns focus on the final appearance of the building, particularly its overall coherence given the range of materials; and the important public face of the building, particularly

the question of whether the tower is an appropriate design response. More generally, the Panel considers that lessons should be drawn from the design process for Trumpington Meadows Primary School. In the Panel’s view the relationship between form and function of the building has not been thought through or expressed as clearly as it should have been; and the building design has suffered from an incoherence and piecemeal approach to each separate issue. The Panel chairman intends to write separately to Cambridgeshire County Council to outline these issues further.

APPENDIX G: Site Edged Red (Separate Circulation)

Appendix H: Plans Pack (Separate Circulation)