Question 3: Do You Have Any Comments on the Sites Rejected by the Council S (See List

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)

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 communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging into one another and with the City. / R = Significant negative impacts / The Council state that there would be an impact on coalescence by decreasing the distance between the City and Coton. We do not accept this position. The West Cambridge site continues to be a major significant element within the landscape and construction continues apace 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 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 enhance the quality of the setting of Cambridge / R = Very high and high impacts / It is the Council’s view that the setting of the City would be negatively impacted by development having regard to a view that development would 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 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 remains our view that the contribution of 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 this edge to Cambridge.
Key views of Cambridge/Important views / R = Significant negative impact from loss or degradation of views / The Council consider that there are sometimes elevated views of the site from the west and the 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 City / Existing high quality edge, significant negative impacts incapable of mitigation. / The Council consider that the existing high quality rural soft green edge would be negatively impacted if development occurred on the site. It 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 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 penetrating into the City / R = Significant negative impact from loss of land forming part of a green corridor, incapable of mitigation / The Council consider that there would be a loss of land in the recognised green corridor south of the Coton footpath. In terms of response it is accepted that there would be a loss of land in 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 green corridor in this context.
The distribution, physical separation, setting, scale and character of Green Belt villages (SCDC only) / R = Significant negative impacts incapable of satisfactory mitigation / The Council consider that there would be an impact on the distribution, physical separation, setting, scale and character of Coton village. Our response to this matter relates to the issue of coalescence and which is already referred to above.
A landscape which has a strongly rural character / R = Significant negative impacts incapable of satisfactory mitigation / The Council consider that the landscape is strongly rural despite being on the urban edge 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 Green Belt / RR = Very high and high impacts / The Council consider that development of this 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 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.