Council Reneges On Separation Pledge for Highfields Caldecote

When I wrote my open letter to Cllr Burkitt with regard to the A428 Busway and explained how the residents of Highfields felt let down by the Board decision, little did I know that worse was to come.

Could it get any worse? Oh yes it can.  How and why? Its to do with Bourn Airfield itself and the pledge by South Cambridgeshire District Council to ensure that there is good separation between the proposed new development and Highfields Caldecote. So, what has changed?

In briefings and meetings, I had been assured by Officers and the Administration that there would be a spatial separation of at least 200m from the built edge of the proposed Bourn Airfield Development (BAD) and the boundary of Highfields Caldecote. The figure usually quoted was 200 to 300m. However, I was always skeptical that this would be the case, especially as such an assurance had been given to Longstowe in the early stages of the Northstowe plans, and now, according to their District Councillor Alex Riley, they are lucky if they see 20-30m of separation.

So, it should not have been a suprise then, when on Thursday 3rd November, I read the main paper prepared for the Planning Portfolio Holder’s meeting to take place on 8th November. In it was a proposal to extend the boundary of BAD eastwards toward Highfields, as well as subsume the land that currently houses and is designated as industrial use. The map below illustrates this clearly.

 

So let’s go through the proposal – focus on the top right section of the map. The TKA Tallent site was NOT originally part of the area to be developed. It was allocated for employment. TKA have planning approval to build a brand new building on the site of the old one, and I took part in the discussion which saw us nail down the conditions for the building, right down to the last decibel of noise level that was acceptable. The company claimed to have spent several hundred thousands of pounds in the preparation of the plans and wanted to be good neighbours and needed the site for better working etc. etc. So, what has changed??

Assume that TKA have agreed to this, what about the other business on the site David Ball Plc? They moved from a site off the A14 to Bourn Airfield – nothing has been said about them yet. Will their building remain or will they be forced to move?

Parcels 1 and 2.

And it would be good to look at that in conjunction with an aerial view where I have marked out as best I can, each new parcel.

Parcels 1 and 2 have been assessed together, and acccording to the Council assessment document , these two areas lie within the body of the site and would not extend the overall extent of build development. Errr, no. Parcel 2 is in the current allocation, Parcel 1 is not. It is thought that putting both in would ensure best use is made of this brownfield site. Their words, not mine. That we say it is not brownfield is not a factor they consider.

Parcel 3

This is no doubt the most controversial. I quote “The parcel of land at the entrance to the new settlement is put forward by the promoters as a consequence of the integration of the employment area into the development. They say it could create a better entrance and gateway to the development compared with the boundary in the submitted Local Plan. This would take the Major Development Site closer to the northern edge of Highfields Caldecote – 111 metres at one corner – with the nature of any development and its height, scale and associated landscaping subject to masterplanning.”

Furthermore, they go on to say “The proposed modifications to Policy SS/6 require that the design of the edges of the new village will have particular regard to ensuring an appropriate relationship with Cambourne and Highfields Caldecote. If Parcel 1 is included in the Major Development Site this would help with the creation of a gateway to the development and reduce the corridor effect of the submitted boundary, and with sensitive design Parcel 3 would provide further opportunity and flexibility to create an enhanced gateway to the new settlement that provides an appropriate relationship with Highfields Caldecote” (bold mine)

Not sure how much enhanced the supposed gateway can be with so much land to lay it out on. But that’s not all, this one is the kicker:

“Officers have noted the positive impact that the proposal would have on the presentation of the new settlement at this key access gateway. The assessment of harm to landscape interests and separation from Highfields Caldecote is also considered capable of being mitigated with careful masterplanning. The overall positive impacts argued are accordingly recognised by officers but this remains a matter of judgement for members.” (bold mine).

Really? I mean, really?? what utter nonsense. What about the negative impact on Caldecote. So from an open outlook that currently exists whichever way you approach Highfields, the proposals will close that view so the first thing anyone approaching sees is the new “estate” of probably 3 story buildings. How can this improve the setting and character of Caldecote? Especially when planning over the years seems to have conspired to destroy its character?? Is the end of Highfields Caldecote as we know it, and the beginning of Bournfields Caldecote??

Oh and by the way, at the meeting yesterday, the Officers kept saying “the developers don’t have to build on all of Parcel 3”. At the same time, they have referred to Appendix C in which the developers clearly laid out their plans on page 63 of Appendix C2 and how many houses and at what density they propose to build on Parcel 3. I could not for the life of me understand how such a statement could be made and justified, including stuff like “we know developers are often ambitious” etc. I managed to hold on to my temper … only just.

Parcel 4.

Next controversial one. This is where another significant shift in boundaries is proposed. And as if to justify their request, the Proposers kindly provided a map showing the distances of their new proposed development boundary to – get this – not Highfields Parish Boundary as has previously been the case, but to the Highfields Development Framework Boundary. No, I kid you not. See for yourself

So, the plan is to move the development boundary closer to Highfields by 50m. Whatever happened to that pledge to keep a good separation between the boundary of BAD and the Parish boundary of Highfields. I bet you nowhere will we find anything that nails it down to Parish boundary – except in verbal assurances. Of course, if we are to believe the assurances, the developers don’t have to build on this bit either.

This is the Officer comment: “If these changes were made, the Major Development Site would overall be approximately 50 metres closer to Highfields Caldecote although separated from it by open land as currently and screened from it by thick woodland. These distances are shown on pages 59 and 60 of Appendix 1 to the promoter’s evidence (Appendix C). Officers have considered the impact of these changes on the wider landscape and are satisfied that the physical impact upon separation and appreciation of space around the settlement would be maintained. For that reason, officers consider that the modification would not undermine the policy objectives of the submitted plan for the site”

Yeah, what about your pledge to our community to keep the development away from us? What happened to that – even before the plan is approved or rejected, that pledge has been shown to be nothing more than an attempt at appeasement.

Parcel 5

This is probably the least controversial, is at the bottom of the development area – but from what I can estimate, is close to the public footpath that runs from Highfields to Bourn.

At the meeting, I made it clear that residents of Highfields did not want or take kindly to Parcels 3 and 4, and both of those should be removed from any further consideration. An alternative proposal was suggested, that if Parcel 4 was left in, then it should be planted out with trees/vegetation/landscaping. But that is not good enough for us, is it?

It seems to me that South Cambs is hell bent on building on Bourn Airfield, no matter what. That site was sneaked into the plan, it was not a contender during the discussions and workshops held for Members during the preparation phase of the plan. We ruled it out because of the very real reason that it would end up forming a ribbon of development along the A428. In the land assessment, it scored low. But as if by magic, when the selected sites were finally announced, low and behold, there was Bourn Airfield. Everything that is being done now to “mitigate” impacts and prevent coalescence would be completely unnecessary if the site had not magically appeared on the final list. What was the magic? who knows. The truth will out one day.

 

To finish this off – I left the Portfolio Holder meeting after I had made my points – being too upset to continue to sit there and listen to the proceedings. I have been informed that the Portfolio holder in his conclusions, removed Parcel 3, but wants more clarification on what exactly Parcel 4 is, and that this will go to the Full Council at the next meeting. Seemed clear enough to me. I await the final minutes of the meeting to be able to confirm this.

 

So, if you saw my post on Facebook yesterday on how I felt about Local Government, now you know why.  It is the prospect of having this

instead of this

and what seems to be the complicity of our own local authority in this matter. When I asked why the Council did not just tell the developers to take a hike when the proposals were brought, the answer given is that as the same had been submitted to the Planning Inspector examining the plans, they had to show that the Council had considered it and it would not help the Council’s case not to have done so. I replied that it could have been considered, yes, and their response held in abeyance until such a time as it was needed, rather than be seen to be supporting the proposal as they are now doing. You can find all the meeting documents on the council website here.

We always knew that the development of 3500 houses plus schools, shops, employment etc. etc. could not all be fitted onto the original allocation without building it like a ghetto. StopBAD did the calculations and it is in the public domain. This scramble by the Proposers for more land just goes to show the plan was not as viable as was initially made out.

But for me, its the betrayal on the pledge that rankled, and still does.

If you have read this far, thank you. I would love to hear your views on this, so please feel free to comment below.