Agenda item

Appendices A, C and E have previously been printed as part of the Scrutiny and Overview Committee agenda dated 21 May 2019. They are available on the website by typing this short URL (case sensitive) into a web browser and pressing Enter

https://bit.ly/2QsboVk

Appendices B and D are attached to the printed version of the agenda and also available online.

Cabinet

(a)          Agreed the content of the draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) attached at Appendix A to the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development subject to the recommended changes set out in Appendix B to that report;

(b)          Approved the draft SPD for public consultation in accordance with for public consultation in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 for a period of six weeks;

(c)           Approved the consultation arrangements set out in the Consultation Statement (Appendix C);

(d)          Delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in liaison with the Deputy Leader (Statutory), to agree the draft Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and draft Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) Screenings Reports for consultation alongside the draft SPD, including with the three statutory bodies; and

(e)          Delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in liaison with the Deputy Leader (Statutory), to make editorial changes to the draft Bourn Airfield SPD and supporting documents for consultation (to comprise minor amendments and factual updates and clarifications).

Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins declared a non-pecuniary interest as the elected Member for Caldecote Ward, in which the site of the proposed new village was located. She also declared that she lived on West Drive in Highfields Caldecote, which was directly east of, and next to, the new village, meaning that her property was among the closest to the boundary of the new village.  Following concerns raised by Bourn Airfield site developers, arising because of Councillor Hawkins’ previous participation in the campaign to stop the inclusion of the airfield in the Local Plan, and having sought and received legal advice from South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Monitoring Officer, Councillor Hawkins addressed the meeting as the local Member and then withdrew to the public gallery, took no part in the debate and did not vote.

Cabinet considered a report seeking its agreement for the draft Bourn Airfield Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to be published for consultation.

The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development introduced the report, highlighting several aspects. He focussed on access for cars, the village centre and eastern boundary.

Access for cars. The basis for resisting the formation of a new access onto the A428 was three-fold – national policy, the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s proposals for quality public transport between Cambourne and Cambridge, and South Cambridgeshire District Council’s aspirations for a low-carbon future.

Village Centre. The proposed location of the village centre had been determined by the need to relate it to the public transport corridor, school, the early delivery of retail, and community infrastructure.

Eastern boundary. The spatial framework had been revised so that the eastern boundary had a more mediated merging of soft landscaping and built development.

The Leader said that the Scrutiny and Overview Committee would have an important role to play as the process unfolded.

Andrew Taylor, representing Countrywide (developers of a village at Bourn Airfield) addressed the meeting. He said that his company was committed to working with South Cambridgeshire District Council to deliver a high quality development. Countrywide would participate in the consultation process.

Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins made the following statement:

“For the avoidance of any doubt, I and residents of Bourn and Highfields Caldecote accept that this new village will be built in accordance with the adopted Local plan. Going forward, we want to play our part in ensuring the harms identified in its inclusion in the plan are mitigated properly through the planning process. This SPD is one of the steps in that process.

Following the scrutiny committee meeting on 21 May 2019 I note that officers have taken some of the concerns on board, as stated in today’s papers. However, these amendments do not completely address those issues, and it is important for residents of Bourn and Caldecote that we continue to press for this.

1: Separation between Highfields Caldecote and Bourn Airfield.

The papers state on page 100 that I have misinterpreted Policy SS/7 para 6b to mean the strategic landscape will all encompass woodland. I disagree, as I was present at the portfolio holder meeting and full council where this matter was discussed at considerable length.

We in Highfields Caldecote know that the proposed 30m of woodland is inadequate and not what was promised and that the parcel 4 in the main modifications submitted to the Inspector should be planted as a continuous woodland belt.

Planting this parcel as woodland will also increase the green infrastructure on the new settlement and add to the provision of biodiversity gain, meeting one of the councils’ core objectives of becoming green and achieving zero carbon by 2050.

The SPD papers make reference to the framework of Highfields being 240 to 270m, when in fact it falls to 214m and will fall to about 30m when the parcel of land behind Grafton Drive given permission for 58 dwellings during the 5YLS hiatus is built out.

Furthermore, we request clarification of the definition of playscape on page 55 of the SPD, in reference to the North East Green Gap, and request that the requirement of the Caldecote Village Design Statement for this area be taken into account and used. It is the gateway entrance to Highfields and should be left open to avoid damaging the setting and character of the village.

2: Access to new village.

Residents of my ward are rightly concerned about the traffic issues and rat running through our villages that will occur when a village of 3500 homes is built out.

The potential for access via the Broadway direct on to the A428 should continue to be explored. I have been informed by County Cllr Mark Howell that the County’s Highways & Transport Infrastructure committee have accepted the principle of this direct link.

The SPD seeks to make new policy on page 37 stating the new village will not have direct link to A428. This statement discounting that potential access must be removed.

We see no statement making provision for junction improvements to the Childerley roundabout which is currently slated to take the bulk of the traffic from the new settlement.

3: New Village Centre

We believe the settlement centre should be located centrally, not at the current north west location, whilst still keeping the route for the HQPT to the north of the village if so desired.

This will keep the centre from competing with Cambourne, and put it within the acceptable 800m walking distance of most of the settlement.”

Councillor Hawkins withdrew to the public gallery.

Councillor Brian Milnes (Vice-Chairman, Scrutiny and Overview Committee) reported on that Committee’s comments about modal shift. He said that Committee members had been concerned that the promised high-quality public transport system might not be in place when the first residents moved to the new village. An effective road-based alternative was therefore necessary. Councillor Milnes suggested that a pause would be appropriate so that transport issues could be reviewed. The Scrutiny and Overview Committee had also raised concerns about creating a sense of place, and about competing with Cambourne in retail terms. Economic development opportunities should be seized in developing a 21^st century village centre.

The Leader emphasised the importance of the consultation exercise, feedback from which would be considered by the Scrutiny and Overview Committee. Cabinet members made the following comments:

·         Consultation must be objective and as wide-ranging as possible, with full consideration being given to views contrary to those favoured by officers

·         The effective management of destinations and timescales would be crucial in securing modal shift from private vehicles to public transport and other modes of sustainable travel

Others present made the following comments:

·         The Council’s approach should be bold, seeking solutions that were acceptable to everyone

·         The growing popularity of electric bicycles needed to be taken into account

·         The Local Highways Authority should be made aware of users’ increasing unease with shared pedestrian and cycle paths

Those present raised the issue of creating a junction onto the A428, and officers undertook to seek further information from the Local Highways Authority.

Cabinet

(a)          Agreed the content of the draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) attached at Appendix A to the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development subject to the recommended changes set out in Appendix B to that report;

(b)          Approved the draft SPD for public consultation in accordance with for public consultation in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 for a period of six weeks;

(c)           Approved the consultation arrangements set out in the Consultation Statement (Appendix C);

(d)          Delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development in liaison with the Deputy Leader (Statutory), to agree the draft Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and draft Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) Screenings Reports for consultation alongside the draft SPD, including with the three statutory bodies; and

(e)          Delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development in liaison with the Deputy Leader (Statutory), to make editorial changes to the draft Bourn Airfield SPD and supporting documents for consultation (to comprise minor amendments and factual updates and clarifications).