Question 3:
Do you have any comments on the sites rejected by the Council’s (see
list in Appendix 4)? Please provide any comments.
1.0
Savills (UK) Limited act on behalf of St John’s College, Cambridge and have made previous
representations to the Issues & Options Consultation exercise undertaken in 2012 in respect
of the promotion of the Grange Farm site, west of Cambridge for residential development.
1.1
The submission at that time referred to a 44 hectare College land holding known as Site
CCC916 within the consultation process.
1.2
The Council as part of the current Issues & Options Consultation 2 has stated that it has
undertaken a technical assessment in respect of this site and has concluded that it should be
rejected as a Green Belt site and accordingly Appendix 4 of the consultation document states
that it should be rejected on the basis of the following scoring and reason:
“Red – very significant impact on Green Belt purposes.
Difficult access issues unless developed in conjunction with other sites.
Air quality and noise issues near the M11.
Poor public transport.
Distance from health facilities”.
1.3
Appendix 3 of the same consultation document summarises the Council’s detailed
assessment and states the following:
“Very significant impact on Green Belt purposes.
Site is further than 800 metres from a health centre/GP and its size would mean it is less
likely to be able to provide for new health facilities on site.
The western part of the site suffers from poor air quality and noise due to the proximity of the
M11.
Air quality worsening as a result of size of development”.
1.4
Our response to this consultation is by way of comment on the points raised by the Council
within the technical assessment of the site and which was undertaken by the Council on the
basis of a “traffic light approach” and which was summarised in Appendix 3 above. By way of
background to these comments, we wish to highlight the fact that the College’s vision for the
site has always been and remains that development should be in the eastern portion of the
Site and that there would be a significant public open space in the Western portion of the site.
(see Appendix A)
CAPL/239328/A6/GH/MW
1.5
We consider the most appropriate way of responding to those expressed views by the Council
is to highlight these in tabular form.
To prevent
R = Significant negative
The Council state that there would be an impact
communities in the
impacts
on coalescence by decreasing the distance
environs of Cambridge
between the City and Coton. We do not accept
from merging into one
this
another and with the
continues to be a major significant element within
City.
the landscape and construction continues apace
position.
The
West
Cambridge
site
on the site. Indeed it is our view that the recent
major development taking place on the site
including the current sports building under
construction has had a very significant impact on
the landscape particularly on the west side of
Cambridge. It is such a dominant feature in the
landscape that one’s eye is now drawn towards
the new sports building rather than the previous
Schlumberger building which we consider was
the previous iconic feature within this landscape.
It remains the case that development focussed
on the eastern side of the land within CCC916
does not reduce the gap between the City and
Coton. The edge of Cambridge is defined at the
point where the built form terminates at the West
Cambridge site at High Cross. That is the point
of development that is closest to Coton.
To
suggest that our proposed development site is
closer to the City than this point is clearly
inaccurate. It does not bring development any
closer to Coton at present and thus the threat of
coalescence is inappropriate.
It remains the
case that there continues to be pressure for
Cambridge
to
grow
on
its
periphery
and
decisions made by the City Council and South
Cambridgeshire District Council continue to push
the City towards those villages.
The gap
between the settlements and the edge of City
continues to be the focus for development having
regard to the sustainable nature of the City and
CAPL/239328/A6/GH/MW
recent
developments
such
as
NIAB
on
Huntingdon Road have eroded the gap between
the City and the village of Girton. The extent of
land that exists at present between the City and
Coton is significantly different in scale and
character.
To maintain and
R = Very high and high
It is the Council’s view that the setting of the City
enhance the quality of
impacts
would be negatively impacted by development
the setting of
having regard to a view that development would
Cambridge
compromise
the
openness
of
the
area,
interrupting views to the historic core and have a
negative impact on setting and changing the soft
green existing urban edge.
We would confirm that previous representations
have been made to the City Council in respect of
detailed landscaping assessments of the whole
of CCC916 and referred as part of that
assessment to the 2002 Inner Green Belt Study.
That Green Belt study referred to Area 1 (which
is the eastern parcel on the College’s land
holding) as “medium” in terms of its importance
to the setting of Cambridge and was only a
“minor part defining role”.
Indeed, one would
certainly agree that the land parcel is now more
closely
associated
with
the
existing
built
development of West Cambridge since over the
passage of time there has been significant new
building of the West Cambridge site which has
ultimately changed the character of this part of
the City. In assessing the overall “importance to
Green Belt” the 2002 Study considered the
eastern parcel to be High with the other areas to
the west (known as Area 2) to be Very High. The
eastern
parcel
is
therefore
relatively
less
important in Green Belt terms that land further to
the west. It is the intention that the western side
of the Site would form public open space.
It is the case that the existing built boundary of
the West Cambridge development next to the
CAPL/239328/A6/GH/MW
eastern parcel comprises a number of dominant
built forms and is an abrupt edge to the City and
the Green Belt. Whilst some of those buildings
may be of architectural merit they do not help to
extend the soft edge that is present to the edge
of the City further to the south east. It is our view
that current built form of the City boundary could
in our view be eased by less dense development,
incorporating areas of open space and structural
landscaping.. However, it is the case that there
will still be large scale buildings close to and
readily visible from the site.
The criteria of maintaining and enhancing the
quality of the setting of Cambridge must be
considered in the context of the need to
accommodate new development in sustainable
locations.
It
contribution of
remains
our
view
that
the
land within CCC916 is vitally
important to contributing to Cambridge’s housing
needs and if development were focussed to the
east, its location that would not compromise the
views towards the historic core.
Indeed the
views from the Coton footpath/cycleway towards
the City are generally directed towards the
University Library which is a 20th Century Grade
2 Listed building and visible from a number of
locations. The views are not of a wider range of
the historic towers or spires.
Any glimpses of
spires are simply much more inconsequential
and set between the trees and very much seen in
the context of other more dominant features such
as the flood lights around the all weather hockey
pitch at the University Sports Ground. It is our
view that this land must be considered as a
serious
contender
for
accommodating
new
development having regard to its sustainable
location and the manner in which the open
spaces and landscaped areas within a new
development could perform an important role on
CAPL/239328/A6/GH/MW
this edge to Cambridge.
Key views of
R = Significant negative
The Council consider that there are sometimes
Cambridge/Important
impact from loss or
elevated views of the site from the west and the
views
degradation of views
south. The Council consider that those existing
clear views to the historic and collegiate core of
the
City would
be
negatively impacted
if
development occurred on the site. Development
focussed on the east of the Site would be to the
south of the West Cambridge site and would in
effect wrap around the University Sports Ground.
When viewing from the south or the west this
land
parcel
cannot
be
considered
to
be
interrupting historic and collegiate views of the
City. As mentioned above, the role of this parcel
of land within the Green Belt is questioned and
importantly it is considered that the character and
setting of Cambridge having regard to the need
to meet development needs would not be
compromised by its future development. There is
no doubt that the character of the landscape will
change as a result of built form but not to the
extent that the “clear views” to the historic and
collegiate core of the City would be negatively
impacted.
Soft green edge to the
Existing high quality
The Council consider that the existing high
City
edge, significant
quality rural soft green edge would be negatively
negative impacts
impacted if development occurred on the site. It
incapable of mitigation.
is not exactly clear what the Council means by
the terminology but it is certainly the case that a
development site clearly changes its character
and the impression put forward by the Council in
respect of this site is to suggest that this site has
its own particular quality compared to other areas
of land on the edge of the City.
The arable
nature of the site with physical site features
restricted to its edges containing mature hedges
and copses can be fully utilised in any future
development
–
the
retention
of
boundary
features, sensitive layout and a restriction on
building heights and densities together with the
CAPL/239328/A6/GH/MW
incorporation of a number of green infrastructure
features which would include strengthening the
green fingers
are
all
component parts
in
accommodating development on the site.
Green corridors
R = Significant negative
The Council consider that there would be a loss
penetrating into the
impact from loss of land
of land in the recognised green corridor south of
City
forming part of a green
the Coton footpath. In terms of response it is
corridor, incapable of
accepted that there would be a loss of land in
mitigation
terms of built development coming forward on
that land south of the Coton footpath. The term
“green corridor” is presumably being used having
regard to the sweep of landscape that protrudes
to the north of Gough Way as well as the nature
of the Coton footpath/cycleway which provides
an important east west corridor south of the West
Cambridge site connecting the City to locations
at West Cambridge itself and also to the other
side of the M11. The Coton corridor is of course
bounded by modern new development on the
West Cambridge site on its northern edge and
yet the presence of landscaping and the spaces
on its northern side provide a built up edge to the
route.
There is certainly no reason why a
development of the Site cannot retain an
important sizeable strip of green space on its
northern
edge
and
south
of
the
Coton
footpath/cycleway to retain this open safe and
green route.
The green corridor reference in the context of this
criteria is therefore assumed to mean that area to
the south of the easternmost parcel of land which
is outside of the College’s ownership.
In this
context we support the retention of this land as
an unbuilt feature and would respectively remind
the Council of the contents of their Inner Green
Belt Boundary Study in 2002 (and particularly
Sector 3, Map 3 and Sector 3, Map 4 of that
document) which shows the green corridor to the
south of the College’s land. We therefore do not
consider there would be a loss of land to such a
CAPL/239328/A6/GH/MW
green corridor in this context.
The distribution,
R = Significant negative
The Council consider that there would be an
physical separation,
impacts incapable of
impact on the distribution, physical separation,
setting, scale and
satisfactory mitigation
setting, scale and character of Coton village. Our
character of Green
response to this matter relates to the issue of
Belt villages (SCDC
coalescence and which is already referred to
only)
above.
A landscape which
R = Significant negative
The Council consider that the landscape is
has a strongly rural
impacts incapable of
strongly rural despite being on the urban edge
character
satisfactory mitigation
adjacent to West Cambridge and the M11. It is
their view that development would have a
negative impact. In responding to this issue, we
would certainly question the Council’s view that
the College’s land is “strongly rural in character”.
The site is located on the edge of Cambridge City
with the West Cambridge site being an imposing
feature on its northern edge. In addition to the
University Sports Centre whose floodlights are a
dominating factor in the landscape. To assume
that the site itself must be seen in isolation from
surrounding development is inappropriate and,
thus, one must take a wider view of the site in
context. Undoubtedly, the character of the site
would change but that would certainly be the
case with any other arable Greenfield site being
given over to built form.
Overall conclusion on
RR = Very high and high
The Council consider that development of this
Green Belt
impacts
site would have a significant negative impact on
the purpose of the Green Belt. In terms of our
response, it is the case that the Council must
accommodate a significant amount of new
development on the edge of the City and is the
case that the nature of the built up area will mean
that land will have to be released from the Green
Belt around the City edge.
It is entirely
appropriate for assessments to be made in such
a context but these assessments do need to
weigh up the level of new housing that is required
and importantly the location of such sites having
regard
CAPL/239328/A6/GH/MW
to
the
sustainable
location
of
the
development and the links to the rest of the
higher
order
services
and
facilities
within
Cambridge. St John’s College land at Grange
Farm is positioned on the western edge of the
City close to major employment areas at West
Cambridge and within easy reach of other
facilities in the City. The linkages by means of
other modes of transport other than the car are
exceptional and the opportunity exists for a
significant new development to accommodate
new residential development in Cambridge. The
Green Belt in this context should not be seen as
a constraining mechanism to development where
there are clear compelling reasons as to why
development must take place in such sustainable
locations.
1.6
Other concerns within the Council’s assessment which appear as Red in the traffic light
approach relate to the absence of certain services close to the development site eg. health
centre and railway station. We acknowledge that this is technically correct but this will be the
case for many other sites that have been rejected – indeed all of the Key Options GB1 – GB6
certainly fail the test when it comes to the railway station and their physical relationship to it.
1.7
In terms of health centres it would not be unusual for proposed development sites on the
edge of a settlement to be remote from existing health centre provision. Typically they would
have been generally developed in more central accessible locations and surrounded by
development. New development locations such as the College’s landholding in the west of
Cambridge would typically increase demand for such facilities as a result of new population
and consequently there may be an opportunity to secure such provision within the site itself.
1.8
Concerning access matters, the Council states in its assessment that it is not clear how the
site can be accessed by vehicular traffic. We can confirm that highways consultants working
on behalf of the College have undertaken relevant studies to confirm appropriate access can
be gained from Clerk Maxwell Road and which would require improvement works to the
junction with Madingley Road. We also note the Council comments on the need for a
Transport Assessment and Travel Plan and we fully acknowledge the need for those
components as part of any planning application.
1.9
Regarding the Red assessment for the site in respect of air quality, pollution, contamination
and noise, we would, again, ask the Council to note that the College envisages that
CAPL/239328/A6/GH/MW
development would be in the eastern side of the Sitet.
Consequently the edge of new
development will be considerably further away from the M11 than previously assessed by the
local planning authorities. As a result we would respectfully suggest that the current Red light
as relates to the impact upon development would no longer be relevant. Indeed we know that
the M11 is not within an AQMA and the fact that an air quality assessment may be required
should not automatically trigger such a negative assessment. The Council would appear to
be pre-empting the outcome of technical studies and simply because a study is required, this
should not in itself be a determining factor for a site coming forward for development.
1.10
We note that the Council concludes in its “cross-site comparison” that the “western part of the
site suffers from poor air quality and noise due to the proximity of the M11”. We therefore
conclude that development of the eastern part of the site (with the western part of the site as
structural landscaping/open space) should be assessed differently and result in a more
positive outcome ie. green or amber.
1.11
Consequently we consider that the Grange Farm Site should be considered as a site to be
released from the Green Belt for residential uses having regard to the need for the Council to
respond to objectively assessed development needs and which are the subject of separate
representation to Question 1 of this consultation.
CAPL/239328/A6/GH/MW