Is South Cambridgeshire District Council trying to build Cambourne East by stealth? That is the question that has been on my mind, and voiced by others, since Bourn Airfield was proposed for the development of up to 3,500 houses in the Draft Local Development Plan which is currently undergoing verification by the Planning Inspectors.
You only have to read my previous article and look at the map on the right to see what I am talking about.
If you have read my report in the latest edition of Caldecote Journal, and/or received the StopBAD leaflet, you will know that South Cambridgeshire District Council is carrying out a new consultation on what it calls Main modifications which may be necessary to make the Local Plan sound.
The ongoing consultation started on Friday 5th January 2018 and ends at 5pm on Friday 16th February 2018. See details at https://www.scambs.gov.uk/mainmods
If you are reading this, I implore you to please send in your response to the consultation most especially on the modifications relating to the proposed Bourn Airfield Development.
There are many modifications (over 300), but only a handful are relevant to Bourn Airfield. These are my thoughts on those modifications and form the basis of my response to the consultation. Feel free to use any or all of it.
Bourn Airfield Main (BAD) Modifications
Modification SCMM078
The proposers of the site had sought to have additional land allocated on the eastern boundary of the site. This includes the current site of Thyssen Krupp, fondly(not) and locally called TKA Tallent as well as some of the grounds surround it, and a parcel right on the eastern edge of the airfield that will bring the development to within 50m of our parish boundary.
SCDC actually considered their request back in November 2016. I wrote about the meeting where the Planning Portfolio holder considered the request. Fortunately, I was able to persuade him to reject the Parcel 3 which would have completely blocked in Highfields Caldecote. His decision was later ratified at Full Council.
Although SCDC promised that there would be at least a separation of 200m between the developed area of BAD and Caldecote, it turns out that the distance was being calculated from the BAD built up boundary to the Caldecote development framework. So most of that separation was to be the private long gardens of the properties along the western side of West Drive. This is private property that the BAD owners have no control over, yet the SCDC is claiming this as the separation. That was a slight of hand that just beggars belief and I wrote about it in this blog article. I pointed this out to the Inspector at the public hearing!
The Proposers admitted at the Public hearing that I attended in July 2017 that the current allocation was not sufficient to enable them build 3,500 houses! This is nothing new. We knew that already, as did the Planning Inspector that ruled against selection of this same site as far back as 1992!!
The current Inspector did not consider this additional allocations during the public hearing because she wanted to focus on the plan as was submitted and felt that this was a major modification that needed to go back out to public consultation, if it was to be included. I, together with the StopBAD and Coalition of Parish Council representatives had prepared our arguments for rejecting the new areas and were rather surprised that the Inspector decided not to consider these allocations. We as a community have a chance to do that now, to make your voices heard.
OBJECT to this modification
Reasons:
The policies map referred to shows additional land in light orange hatch east of the development site. This additional land brings the boundary of the proposed new village closer to the boundary and gardens of properties along West Drive in Highfields Caldecote.
The Parish boundary is also the boundary of the gardens of properties along West Drive, Highfields. By bringing the development area closer in this way, the separation is reduced in places to 50m or less. Coalescence of the new village and Highfields Caldecote is therefore more likely to occur.
The proposed new village if built in this location will give the appearance of Highfields Caldecote being indistinguishable from the new development and form one long ribbon of development along the A428 corridor from Caxton Gibbet to Hardwick.
Modification SC-MM080
The plan clearly shows that this proposed new village is being squeezed into an area that is not suitable for it. This modification talks about designing the edge of the new village to ensure an “appropriate relationship with Cambourne and Highfields Caldecote”. There should be no need to design a special boundary if there was sufficient separation!!
OBJECT to this modification
Reason: Wording is too vague. What does the Council mean by “appropriate relationship with Cambourne and Highfields Caldecote”. Who determines the appropriateness of the relationship and will residents of Highfields Caldecote be involved in the determination? If recent history is anything to go by, SCDC will be judge and jury on this one!
Modification SC-MM081
Looking at paragraph 6.b, whilst it talks about providing Employment development, the modification actually deletes the TKA Tallent site. This of course is because the Proposers would like to use it to build houses on, to be able to meet the 3,500 target.
My view is that it is already an employment site and should remain as such and not subsumed into the major development area.
One interesting fact that has come to light recently is that Savills have bought the land that used to belong to TKA Tallent, and according to their recent Press Release, is to be used to build commercial employment area. This is in total contradiction to the proposal by SCDC and the Site Proposers to include it in the area for house building and on which this consultation is based. The same site cannot be used for both houses and employment buildings at the same time. It is laughable that the search for Park & Ride sites also included the top field as a potential location. That was soon jettisoned after I pointed out the ridiculousness of the option.
6.b OBJECT to this modification
Reason: The phrase “to include the current ThyssenKrupp site” should be retained. This is because it is already an employment site. It has also recently been acquired by Savills as a strategic commercial employment site on which it proposes to build facilities for the industrial, technology and R&D sectors. according to the Savill’s press release of 5th February 2018 announcing the acquisition.
The ThyssenKrupp site cannot and should not be integrated into the proposed new village development area.
Modification SC-MM082
Once again, we have the Council playing “fudge the wording” which proposed a continuous woodland belt along the full length of the boundary to provide suitable buffer to Caldecote Highfields”. Who determines how deep this buffer will be? Again it begs the question why should a buffer be needed if the development site is in the right place and not attempting to subsume our village?
7b. OBJECT to this modification
Reason: The wording is too vague and leaves a lot open to interpretation.
What is meant by “substantial and continuous woodland belt”?? How is this substantial term to be measured? Is 10m substantial or 100m? Should a minimum depth of woodland belt be specified? And it should be stated also that this woodland belt will and must remain a woodland belt in perpetuity, never to be cut down or built upon, thus preventing a complete merging of the new village with Highfields Caldecote, especially because gardens of properties on West Drive extend right to the parish boundary with Bourn Airfield.
Modification SC-MM084
This one is meant to provide a second access road into the proposed new village, but only for northbound traffic. It is good design practice to have two access routes, the lesson having been learnt from Bar Hill. This time however, the proposed second exit is one that SCDC itself promised would never be open to car traffic, due to its potential effect on the village of Bourn.
9.c. ii and 9.c.iii OBJECT
Access to Broadway SHOULD NOT be allowed for two reasons.
When Cambourne was built, the community of Bourn was promised that there would be no car access to the Broadway to help preserve the rural nature of the village and avoid it being used to rat run southward through the narrow road in the village.
In addition, the proposal to allow only northbound traffic onto the Broadway will be difficult to police. The bridge over the dual carriageway provides poor visibility to traffic attempting to join the Broadway from the current Bourn Airfield access and so increases likelihood of road traffic collision.
Modificiation SC-MM091
This modification is an attempt to bring forward the start of development of the proposed new village, stating it will be built out over the full plan period. This presents the potential to have hundreds of new houses built, generating additional road traffic, but with no new busway or even a solution to the congestion on the A1303 Madingley Rise that occurs every day at peak times. Whilst there is a general acceptance that reconfiguring Girton Interchange to allow traffic from A428 to join the M11 southbound would reduce congenstion on Madingley Rise, there are no concrete plans just yet-just talk
The proposed Cambourne to Cambridge busway and associated Park & Ride sites being planned by the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) as a transport solution for the A428 corridor has run into serious opposition and delays. It is in very early stages of planning as suitable options are still being investigated, with the latest flawed consultation on 3 potential options just having finished. Same applies to the options for Park & Ride sites. The transport plans being proposed by the Mayor of Cambridge are not yet known, but what is known is his stated view that the Cambourne to Cambridge busway is not the solution that will fix the existing problem on that route, let alone the additional traffic that will be generated by 2,350 new houses on West Cambourne (already approved) and 3,500 on Bourn Airfield (if approved).
OBJECT to this modification
Reasons:
Implementation of the proposed new village should be deferred until transport infrastructure is in place to alleviate the effect of the additional traffic that will be generated by the development. The proposed busway and the Park & Ride sites must be delivered before construction starts on the new village to avoid grid lock and rat running through the neighbouring villages
There are no proposals at all yet for dealing with the additional car traffic that will be generated by the new village, Cambourne West and other traffic from A428 going down the A1303 Madingley Rise to connect with the M11 southbound traffic. This will cause more severe traffic congestion as already identified.
Measures to prevent rat-running through surrounding villages are still unknown and work not yet begun on identifying them.
Therefore, building out the proposed new village early in the development plan will only lead to detrimental effect on surrounding villages and affect the amenity of thousands of families.
Modification SC-MM262 a/b
This modification relates to the Inset map showing the boundary modifications of SC-MM078 and the status of the TKA Tallent site as in the response to SC-MM081.
OBJECT to this modification:
Reasons as stated for SC-MM078 and SC-MM081.
If you have read this far, thank you. There’s a lot at stake, and we must keep fighting our corner until the Planning Inspector makes the final decision.
Final Words of Encouragement
Our community is strong. Whatever the final decision, we can work together to make try and ensure our rural way of life is not overwhelmed or destroyed by urban creep.
Please take action – NOW. Don’t leave it till tomorrow.
CONSULTATION DEADLINE IS 5PM, FRIDAY 16TH FEBRUARY 2018.
The online consultation is at http://scambs.jdi-consult.net/localplan/ To save you time, the actual schedule of modifications is at http://bit.ly/BADMMSchedule
Download a blank consultation response form (it is in Word format). Complete it, save as pdf and email to ldf@scambs.gov.uk. Or you can print it out and drop it in my postbox on West Drive by Thursday morning 10.00am, and I will hand deliver to South Cambs.
If you wish to use the very clunky online consultation system, you will find it here at http://bit.ly/BADModsOnline. You will need to register an account to get access, then scroll down to find the appropriate modification, the ones I have discussed above.
If you have found this article useful, please leave a comment and share with your friends and neighbours.