joint development control committee...

JOINT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (CAMBRIDGE FRINGE SITES) Report by: Head of Planning Services Date: 26 February 2014

Application

Number 07/0003/OUT Agenda

Item

Date Received 25 February 2013 Officer Elizabeth Rolph Target Date

Parishes/Wards Arbury and Castle

Site Darwin Green One, Land Between Huntingdon Road And Histon Road, Cambridge

Proposal Discharge of Condition 07, Design Code, pursuant to the outline permissions 07/0003/OUT approved on December 18th 2013 for mixed use development of up to 1593 dwellings, primary school, community facilities, retail units and transport infrastructure and open space.

Applicant David Wilson Homes & Consortium of Landowners Recommendation Approve Application Type Discharge of Condition Departure: No The above application(s) have been reported to the Committee for determination by Members in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation for the Joint Development Control Committee for the Cambridge Fringes

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The Joint Development Control Committee first resolved to approve the

outline application for mixed use development of up to 1593 dwellings, primary school, community facilities, retail units and transport infrastructure and open space in July 2010 subject to completion of the S106 agreement. Updates were reported and amendments approved on August 2011, July 2012 and August 2013. The S106 agreement was completed and outline permission issued on 18 December 2013. The permission contains a number of strategic conditions that require approval before any reserved matters can be determined. A list of these conditions is set out in Appendix 1.

1.2 This report relates to Condition 7 which is the requirement for a Design

Code to be approved prior to commencement of development. The reason for imposing this condition on the outline consent is to ensure high quality design and coordinated development across the Darwin Green One site.

1.3 The applicants submitted details to discharge this condition on 20

December 2013. Following this, officers have carried out public consultation in the manner identified in Paragraph 4 below.

1.4 Prior to this submission, extensive pre submission meetings have been

held with the applicant and responses on draft documents have been provided. There was a presentation to this Committee in December 2013.

1.5 Minor issues were identified during the consultation process post

submission. A revised document has been submitted to address these concerns.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Committee are asked to:

Discharge planning condition 7 in respect of 07/0003/OUT.

3.0 SITE HISTORY

Reference Description Decision

07/0003/OUT Mixed use development comprising up to 1593 dwellings, primary school, community facilities, retail units (use classes A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5) and associated infrastructure including vehicular, pedestrian and cycleway accesses, open space and drainage works

Approved

14/0063/FUL Construction of vehicular road link across the north-west green corridor of consented development 07/0003/OUT to provide access to the proposed secondary school parcel of land

o/s

within South Cambridgeshire District Council.

14/0086/REM Reserved matters of 07/003/OUT for access roads, pedestrian and cycle paths, public open space, services across the site and one allotment site.

o/s

4.0 PUBLICITY

4.1 Advertisement No

There is no statutory requirement to advertise the discharge of condition. Adjoining Owners No

There is no statutory requirement to consult adjoining owners with regard to the discharge of condition, however consultation has taken place with all the relevant residents’ associations and with Histon and Girton Parish Councils. Prior to submission a meeting was held with Windsor Road Residents’ Association in May 2013. Site Notice Displayed No

There is no statutory requirement to for a site notice to be displayed for the discharge of condition. Public Meeting/Exhibition Yes Presentations and / or Display boards at the North West Community Forums in March and September 2013 (pre submission) and January 2014 (post submission).

5.0 POLICY CONTEXT

National Planning Policy Framework 2012 Cambridge Local Plan 2006 Policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/11, 3/12, 4/15, 9/3 and 9/8

6.0 CONSULTATION 6.1 External Consultees

Comments received from external consultees have been summarised within Appendix 2 of this report. This includes comments from the County Council, Architectural Liaison Officer (Cambridgeshire Constabulary) and Windsor Road Residents’ Association.

6.2 Internal Consultees

Comments received from external consultees are summarised in Appendix 2 of this report.

6.3 Parish Councils

No comments received

6.5 Quality Panel

There was a presentation to the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel in April 2014 at the draft stage to gain feedback for incorporation into later versions. The report from this is included as Appendix 4 of this report.

7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 This discharge of condition is being reported to this Committee in line

with working protocol agreed with Chair, Vice- Chair and Spokes (see Appendix 1). The full wording of the condition is set out within Appendix 4 of this report.

The Design Code 7.2 The definition of a design code is best set out within the CLG’s

‘Preparing design codes: a practice manual’ 2006. It is defined as “a set of illustrated design rules and requirements which instruct and may advise on the physical development of a site or area. The graphic and written components of the code are detailed and precise, and build upon a design vision such a masterplan or a design and development framework for a site or area.”

7.3 Design codes are used as ‘a bridge’ between the parameter plans set

out at the outline stage, and the detailed reserved matters applications. They detail how to set out and assemble different urban components and how they should be delivered consistently across a development where there could be a number of different developers and designers. They require substantial work up front but can lead to time savings and more certainty and quality later on.

7.4 Condition 7 on the outline permissions requires a Design Code for the Darwin Green One site to be submitted prior to or concurrently with the submission of the Reserved Matters application, and approved prior to commencement of development. Condition 8 requiring every reserved matters submission to demonstrate compliance with the Design Code. Both conditions are set out in Appendix 5.

Document Structure 7.7 The structure of the design code follows that set out in the note

endorsed by the JDCC on 16th May 2012. After a general introduction to the site including the vision and key objectives, the document sets out how the code should be used, and appraises the existing character and how this will inform the development. It then moves into the site wide elements, which are key to ensuring consistency and coordination across the site. This includes design objectives and requirements for all key elements including urban structure, amenity space, streets and parking (including cycle parking), open space and biodiversity, drainage, waste & recycling and sustainability. The code sets out best practice principles, which all parcels will need to adhere to.

7.8 The document then moves into the character areas section, which

provides more detail by setting out how the site wide coding elements should be applied to specific locations across the site (the different character areas). Three main areas are defined; the ‘Local Centre’, ‘Urban quarter -high density’ and ‘Medium / lower density’/; areas. For each of these areas overarching guiding design principles are set out, as well as more detailed coding elements relating to building plots & typologies (eg. building rhythm, enclosure, roofline), edge treatments, materials and architectural detailing. Guiding principles are then set out for key spaces, frontages and public realm areas within each character area (eg the school site, secondary pocket parks, green corridors etc). The document then concludes with a ‘Delivery and Review’ section.

7.9 The information within the document which is Mandatory is clearly

shown. Mandatory elements are those where there is minimum flexibility. For illustrations a mandatory symbol is places next to the image, and mandatory text is printed in blue. It is stated that all other guidance is important and must be taken into account when schemes are developed. This is set out in section 2.2 of the code which explains how to use the code.

7.10 A programme of meetings has been held with the applicant prior to

submission. Meetings were initially held in 2008 then work was put on hold. A further workshop and meetings were held in 2012. The production of the submitted design code followed the process outlined within the updated Design Code Guidance Note (May 2012), which was prepared by the authorities and endorsed by the JDCC. In addition to the external consultation set out above, the meetings/ responses from 2013 include:

Jan 2013: A Design Code ‘surgery’ where technical specialists at both local authorities and the County Council commented on a draft of the Design Code.

March 2013: A Design Code ‘testing day’ was organised by ‘Design for Homes’ in March 2013 which involved four architectural practices using the draft code to prepare schemes for 2 different parcels to test

whether the code worked and feedback any issues. The participating architects were questions by officers on their experiences. Issues identified at the testing day were incorporated into later versions.

April 2013: The provision of detailed comments.

August 2013: The provision of detailed comments on a revised draft. Issues Raised During Consultation 7.11 Comments from consultees reflect the significant amount of pre-

submission work on this code. The document is fully supported by the urban design team and officers across a number of disciplines including sustainability, landscape, ecology, drainage and highways, who are all content that the document provides a sound basis for the consideration of future designs.

7.12 Appendix 2 summarises the responses received. A number of minor

issues and points of clarification have been raised during this process. These, along with comments from the case officers were sent to the applicant, and a revised version of the code has been received addressing all these issues. The changes made to the code and the reason for the change is set out in Appendix 3. The Architectural Liaison Officer and County Highways have confirmed that their comments have been addressed. There is an outstanding issue in relation to the comment from County Education that the Design Code should allow flexibility as to how the policy requirements for renewable energy will be met. It is considered that the amendments set out in Appendix 3 (pg 100) provide adequate flexibility.

7.13 Windsor Road Residents’ Association (WIRE) submitted a significant

number of comments. These are summarised in Appendix 2. Four changes have been made to address their concerns as set out in Appendix 3. These relate to correcting inaccuracies on photo labelling, tree species, the area close to Windsor Road junction (see below) and code review. The majority of their other comments relate to issues which are not directly relevant to the Code. The comment relating to opening times and access to community facilities and the school will be addressed under individual Reserved Matters applications. The comment regarding the relationship between the Darwin Green primary school and the University school is a separate matter for County Education to consider rather than this developer.

7.14 Detailed pre-submission discussions have been held with WIRE in

relation to the area adjacent to the end of Windsor Road. Whilst many of their previous concerns have been addressed, they are still seeking additional safeguards in relation to width constriction to prevent future vehicular access from Windsor Road and in relation to cycleways, access for motor vehicles, parking and garages. These will be addressed at the Reserved Matters stage for this part of the site, and it is not considered appropriate or desirable to include further details in the Design Code.

Quality Panel 7.15 The Quality Panel viewed an earlier draft of the code in April 2013.

The Panel noted and welcomed the work that had been undertaken on developing the code, considering the draft at the time to be extremely comprehensive and a good starting point. They raised the following issues/recommendations at the meeting, the majority of which were acted on and incorporated into the submission draft. The full minutes are included in Appendix 4.

(i) Document usability – the Panel questioned the usability of the

document due to its thickness and over emphasis on the masterplan. At the time, this too was a concern shared by officers and was also identified as an issue through the testing day. Since the Quality Panel meeting, the subsequent drafts of the code were rationalised so that the document was far more legible both in terms of presentation as well as how the code is navigated, and is less repetitive, giving a better focus to the key elements and guiding principles. Masterplan images within the document have also reduced in number and the ‘illustrative only’ status of this drawing clearly identified. Officers are therefore satisfied this issues has been addressed.

(ii) Phasing diagram – the Panel suggested the inclusion of a diagram

‘mapping out’ the development of the site and phasing of critical infrastructure. Whilst details of phasing are not required by Condition 7, the design code does provide a degree of information about delivery and phasing of Darwin Green 1 in section 6.1. Detailed phasing information will be dealt with pursuant to condition 5 (phaing).

(iii) Vision – The Panel felt further details were needed regarding the

overall vision and guiding principles. Following the panel meeting further work was undertaken on this. The design code now clearly sets out at the beginning of the document (section 1.1) the vision for Darwin Green 1 and the overarching objectives central to delivering this. The vision and accompanying guiding principles are built upon and expanded further within the site wide coding section and more detailed character area sections.

(iv) Clarity of mandatory elements – The Panel felt that further work was

needed to clarify the mandatory/non-mandatory elements. Following the panel meeting, the number of mandatory elements has generally been reduced within the code. This change not only reflected panels concerns, but also echoed concerns at the time by officers and the findings of the testing day. Officers now consider that the mandatory elements within the code are clearly shown and that

overall the document establishes the right level of flexibility and detail for a site of this size.

(v) Future flexibility – The Panel highlighted the need for future flexibility and adaptability of the code, and information as to how benchmarking will be undertaken to ensure quality is achieved through the build-out of the site. Details of the procedure and circumstances where a review of the document could be implemented are outlined under section 6.3 of the design code. This could include modifications to reflect design issues that become apparent once the initial phases are constructed.

(vi) Central Park – The Panel welcomed the great legacy that the ‘Central

Park’ will bring to the site and its importance in developing a sense of community. However, they were concerned that the vision for the ‘Central Park’ was yet to be developed within the code. Since the panel meeting the ‘Landscape, biodiversity and trees’ section of the design code (Section 4.7) has been significantly modified , to pick up panels concerns regarding the vision for ‘Central Park’ but to also reflect officers concerns at the time. The landscape framework/vision for the development as a whole is now much clearer, for key open spaces such as the Central Park, green corridors and secondary pocket parks. Officers are satisfied that the above panel concern has been addressed, and that overall the code establishes the right level of detail to guide and deliver the design of high quality landscape and open space throughout the development.

(vii) Connectivity with Darwin Green 2 & 3 – The Panel were concerned about the connectivity between DG1 and DG2 & 3 and suggested that in order to develop a sense of cohesion that the principles within the code should help to inform subsequent codes for DG 2& 3. Further information has been incorporated into the design code regarding links between Darwin Green 1 & 2 since the panel meeting. Where applicable the emerging indicative layout of Darwin Green 2 has been ‘ghosted’ onto diagrams and information about the vehicular link between DG1 and the secondary school site within DG2 is included in Appendix F. It should be noted that this information regarding vehicle links cannot be included within the main text, as the outline approval only includes a pedestrian link at this point, and the design code needs to be compliant with the outline consent.

(viii) Route of ‘main road’ – The panel suggested a review of the main road

access within the agreed parameter plans advocated more flexibility in terms of its design. The principle of creating a circuitous vehicle route through the site and a more direct bus route was established at the outline stage through

the parameter plans, to discourage short trips by car and ‘rat-running through the development. The route of the primary roads is in accordance with these parameter plans and a review is not considered appropriate at this stage, given the extensive masterplanning process that took place to inform these plans. However, the design code was amended following the ‘testing day’ and Quality Panel, to address concerns that the street network promoted within the code was too rigid. The code now makes it clear that it is the principle of the routes are mandatory (e.g. connectivity and hierarchy) but that the exact alignments will be determined through Reserved Matters applications.

(ix) Wider connections – Panel suggested the inclusion of a simple diagram providing details of movement and connections off site. Site movement diagrams have been amended following the panel meeting to provide further details of connections off site. See section 4.4 in particular.

(x) On street visitor parking – The Panel felt that opportunities for on street

visitor parking should be sought.

This was a view shared by officers, and following the panel meeting the code was amended to provide clearer guidance on the integration of on street visitor parking throughout the development. See section 4.5 in particular.

(xi) Sustainability – Panel were concerned that there was little mention of

climate issues through the presentation to panel. Since panel meeting, section 4.13 ‘Sustainable development’ has been significantly modified to reflect concerns raised by panel and officers. The design code is fully supported by the Councils Sustainability Officer see Appendix 2.

7.16 Quality Panel Conclusion

The design code has moved on considerably since being presented to the Quality Panel, taking into account panels and officer input as well as the results of the testing day. All of the key issues raised by panel have in officers’ opinion been successfully resolved.

8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The code has been the subject of wide consultation both at the pre-

submission and post submission stage. It has been analysed by both technical officers and the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel, and tested by architects at the testing day and through the working up of the first phase.

8.2 The document establishes the right level of flexibility and detail for a site of this size, and crucially it is considered that the key principles established within the Code will provide an effective tool for moving from the Outline Application to detailed Reserved Matters.

8.3 For the above reasons it is recommended that the condition should be

discharged. 9.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

Application File 07/0003/OUT: Condition 7 Joint Development Control Committee Reports for 14th July 2010, 10th August 2011, 11th July 2012 and 21st August 2013

10.0 Appendices

Appendix 1: Conditions for approval by JDCC Appendix 2: Consultation responses Appendix 3: Changes to submitted draft Appendix 4: Quality Panel Report Appendix 5: Conditions 7 and 8 in full

11.0 Inspection of papers

To inspect the background papers or if your have a query on the report please contact:

Author’s Name: Elizabeth Rolph, Principal Planning Officer (New Neighbourhoods) Cambridge City Council

Author’s Phone Number 01223 457293 Author’s Email: [email protected]

APPENDIX 1 Discharge of Planning Conditions Planning conditions are often applied to the grant of planning permission. These limit and control the way in which the planning permission may be implemented. Conditions are imposed on the grant of planning permission for regulating development in a certain way or requiring further details which weren’t necessarily required at the time of granting permission, but are necessary prior to the submission of reserved matters or implementation. Applicants are required to submit information to discharge planning conditions on the standard form entitled “Application for Approval of Details Reserved by Condition”. The appropriate fee must be provided with the application. Provided that all the information that is required by the condition is submitted and this information is adequate, the local planning authority should write to the applicant to confirm that the condition has been discharged in a timely manner (normally within eight weeks). Local planning authorities cannot request information that was not stipulated by the initial planning condition. Following consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokespersons for the JDCC it has been agreed that the following conditions would be referred to the JDCC for determination:

Condition 5 – Site Wide Phasing

Condition 7 – Design Code

Condition 9 – Youth Facilities and Children’s Play

Condition 26 – Surface Water Drainage

These are the conditions, which relate to strategic issues, which will set out the principles for future reserved matters applications.

APPENDIX 2 – CONSULTEE RESPONSES EXTERNAL CONSULTEES County Council Highway Authority

The Highway Authority have made a number of detailed comments about the code many which require a tweaking to the document and/or clarification of points within the document. These have been included in the revised document. With these changes made the Highway Authority consider the design code acceptable. County Council Education Authority Renewable energy (pg 100): Paragraph 4.13 (page 100) states:

‘Following a review of low carbon and renewable energy systems for the

scheme considering key factors, solar technologies have been selected as the

most suitable option for the provision of low and zero carbon hot water and

electricity for the dwellings and school’

It is recommended that the words ‘and school’ are deleted from this sentence. Although the school will at least meet planning policy requirements for provision of renewable energy, it is inappropriate for the Design Code to establish technical solutions. Instead the Design Code should retain the flexibility for these solutions to be identified as part of an holistic design solution. School access (Page 112): There is no reference to the road outside the school being delivered as a no-through road. Architectural Liaison Officer As Architectural Liaison Officer, it is my responsibility to comment on matters from a crime reduction and/or community safety perspective. As far as the Design code is concerned, there are some references that are of relevance. Secure By Design (pg 38): Clause 58 of the NPPF (Achieving sustainable development) makes reference to 'creating safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion'. There is nothing in the Design Code about creating this safe environment or Secure by Design Standards. Apartment Parking (pg 61): There must be good surveillance and security to parking courts. Would recommend that all parking courts (where required) be small (no more than 8-10 spaces) and be gated. Due to surveillance issues, undercroft parking should be avoided. Meter boxes (pg 99): Concerns about the wording that meter boxes will be located to the side of properties wherever possible to avoid visual intrusion to

the street scene. Secure by Design advices that where possible meter boxes should be to the front of properties to minimise the risk from bogus callers. INTERNAL CONSULTEES Urban Design The Urban Design Team has had extensive involvement in the development of the Design Code for Darwin Green 1. Over the course of the past 12 months a considerable amount of work has been undertaken by the developer’s team to incorporate our comments and overcome our concerns raised. We have worked collaboratively with the applicant design team to help develop a code and we feel the changes made throughout the pre-submission process have been positive. Throughout the process, the applicant has taken on board many suggestions and amended the document to address the majority of our concerns. The result is a good quality, well-structured document that systematically and gradually breaks down the elements that contribute to the creation of high quality placemaking. The document establishes the right level of flexibility and detail for a site of this size, and crucially we consider the key principles established within the code will provide an effective tool for moving from the Outline Application to detailed Reserved Matters. Therefore subject to the minor amendments set out within the ‘Amendments’ table, the Urban Design Team are satisfied that the code meets the requirements of Condition 7 of the Outline permission and that the Condition can be discharged in Urban Design Terms. Sustainability Officer The Vision of Darwin Green affording residents with the highest opportunities to live healthy and environmentally conscious lifestyles is welcomed, as are the development objectives to embed in the development a deep sense of quality and sustainable living and create a high quality, truly sustainable neighbourhood. These statements are supported within the Design Code, particularly at Section 4.13, which considers the ways in which the design of Darwin Green can help achieve sustainable development. The measures referenced in this section are welcomed, and particularly the inclusion of figure 4.56 which sets out the Sustainability Strategy for the site and the reference to the use of green roofs in combination with solar technologies. Following comments on earlier drafts of the Design Code, the wider coverage of sustainability within the Code is welcomed including:

The consideration being given to the role of green roofs as amenity spaces within the development;

The reference within the sections on character areas to the dual aspect nature of many of the residential units, which will assist with the implementation of natural ventilation;

The references to obtaining materials for street furniture and surface finish materials from sustainable sources;

The requirement for the design of the allotments to consider ways in collecting rainwater run-off from allotment roof structures for irrigation purposes.

The objectives of the development to embed in the development a deep sense of quality and sustainable living are welcomed, and it is considered that the Design Code provides a good level of information and guidance as to how this can be achieved at a building and site-wide scale. Walking and Cycling Officer A number of amendments to the submitted document are required in relation to cycle parking, routes and access. Environmental Health (Waste and recycling) There is no reference to the waste recycling facilities being underground. Section 4.11, page 98 advises reversing distance of no more than 30m. The RECAP guide says no more than 12m for reversing. It is recommended that the developers assess our information regarding their design, available at: https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/waste-and-recycling-provision-information-for-developers Landscape, Ecology and Drainage Overall the changes made to the document are supported, particularly in relation to drainage. A number of comments remain outstanding from those made in August 2013 relating to tree setbacks, corridors, tree species and drainage. Providing the detailed recommendations are incorporated the Landscape Team supports this application. WINSOR ROAD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION General: The images are poor on the on-line version. There are inaccuracies on photo labelling (pg 33) Site and context: Statements about public transport are misleading. Will extra buses be put on as the new development fills up? The guided bus does not stop on Histon Road. Access to a number of key employment sites around Cambridge is hardly “easy”. Urban Structure: No information about the location of standing spaces and garages for the new houses surrounding the public realms at and near the end of Windsor Road Landscape: Support the retention of existing hedgerows, proposals for central park, pocket parks, applaud the high number of trees proposed in the development.

Tree species (pg 85): Support the statements that tree planting should be native, where possible, with species type relating to context and conditions. However, we note that of the 18 “broadly native” tree species recommended are non-native. Concern about inadvertently introducing pests and disease These risks could be minimised by specifying native trees, all of which should be sourced from the UK. Drainage (pg 96): Welcome the plan to drain surface water toward the north. Add an explicit assurance that there will be a generous engineering safety margin, including allowance for climate change. Amendment required to address change in design of foul drainage. Note that swales and ponds are a feature of the development, and that (p73) these provide opportunities for informal play. Question what measures are proposed to discourage toddlers and small children from drowning. Local Centre (pg 112 118): Question whether opening times and access to the community facilities and school will ensure that a hive of activity throughout the day and night, and whether they will cater for residents in Darwin Green 1, 2 and 3 or only Darwin Green 1. Need a statement about public access to the school for community use. Northern quarter (pg 149): Comments re relationship with residential communities should also apply to other boundary regions between Darwin Green and existing residential suburban areas. Area close to junction with Windsor Road (pg 158 & 159):

Strongly support all the mandatory guiding principles. Request confirmation that these will not be changed as a result of recent changes in plans for foul drainage (pg 96).

Concerned that the width constriction between the built forms, located to prevent future vehicular access into/out of the development in this location may be compromised if threshold/defensible space fronting the route is added to the 4.8 metres required for pedestrian/cycle access. This requires careful consideration and additional safeguards added to the text.

Some changes to figure 5.75 are needed in the location of numbers not clear that the width constriction of the cycle/pedestrian path must be limited by built form and make it clear that all of these new buildings at the end of Windsor Road should be detached or semi-detached houses.

Concerned that there should be measures to ensure that cyclists keep to the cycleway, especially near the exit onto Windsor Road.

Concerned about access for motor vehicles, parking and the location of garages associated with the new detached and/or semi-detached houses bordering the green space at the end of Windsor Road and the new terraces bordering the square beyond.

Concerned about the potential conflict between the users of the “shared surface” road and the cycle/pedestrian route across the square.

Code Review (pg 163) Wish to be consulted and involved in any discussions relating to changes in the Design Code, both when reserved matters vary from the Design Code (para 1) and also when there are changes arising from reviews of the Design Code after 2 years from commencement of the first reserved matters for residential development (paras 2 and 4). Additional comments

In view of the extra wet winter we are experiencing, has there (or could there) be a change of attitude to the use of water-permeable macadam?

Could land not presently in use for construction (i.e. awaiting construction) be seeded with plants to supply nectar for insects and bees in particular, prior to use for gardens, public spaces, ponds etc?

Could consideration be given to the effect which the University plans for a school linked to a Teaching Centre must invariably have on the “ordinary“ Primary School to be built on Darwin Green 1. It is vital that a strong, constructive lead comes from either a Benefactor or a dedicated Council, so that the proposed Private Development won’t always be perceived as the Poor Relation.

APPENDIX 3: CHANGES TO SUBMITTED DOCUMENT January 2014

Page / Topic Amendments to text, new text is shown underlined and deleted text struck through.

Reason

Pg 33 Amend title & 2nd caption: Bishops Bateman Court Quayside and correct text

Amend third caption: and Ridley Hall beyond

To correct error and address WIRE concerns

Pg 38 Add in separate blue box: ‘Account should also be taken of Secured by Design New Homes 2010’

To address ALO concern

Pg 44 Movement and Streets

Amend: Key principles could include:

To address UD concern

Pg 44 Movement and Streets

Bullet Point 10

Amend: ‘The following design elements could be adopted…

Clearly defined Private on-street parking and parking lay-bys clearly defined through the introduction of a specific material for parking bays, distinct form the carriageway…’

To address HA concern

Pg 45 Table 4ii

Tertiary Street Shared surface

Replace ‘N/A’ with same text as under Tertiary Street


Pg 46 Table 4iii

Tree pits

Add ‘Tree pits within the proposed adopted public highway should be in accordance with the Highway Authority’s requirements.’


Pg 46 Table 4iv

Replace ‘Roads’ with ‘Carriageway’ and ‘Pavements’ with Footway / Footpath’

Add new row ‘Shared Surfaces / Block paving’


Pg 48 Pedestrians and cyclists

Amend 2nd and 3rd sentence to blue so that text is mandatory.

Add additional sentence: The location of new pedestrian/cycle links across green corridors should pay due regard to the alignment of adjacent streets to ensure the principles of a legible north-south secondary route is delivered. This new text should also be mandatory.

To address UD, C&WO concerns

Pg 48 Street network – Fig 4.12 text

Amend 2nd sentence ‘The principle of routes is mandatory but exact alignments and extent of Tertiary Street Shared Surface will be determined through Reserved Matters applications’. Please also amend this sentence to blue so that the text is mandatory.

To address HA and UD concern

Pg 50, 52, 54, 56 & 57: Key characteristics of streets

Replace ‘Maximum speed’ with ‘Design speed’. To address HA concern

Pg 57 12. Section through Tertiary Street

Section to be amended: Extent of adoptable highway – underground services should not include 3m verge with tree planting.


Pg 58 Cycle parking for houses

Amend: Designers are encouraged to provide parking as close to the front of the dwelling a possible. Where cycle parking is towards the rear of the plot, car parking spaces / garages For houses with garages cycle parking should be provided within the garage and they should be wide enough to enable cycles to be moved past parked cars manoeuvred in and out without moving the car. For houses without garages cycles should be stored within the footprint of the house; any structure cycle parking should be well integrated into the design of the plot itself, preferably within the footprint of the building. When provided within the footprint of the building or as a free standing shed, Cycle parking not within the footprint should be easy to accessed by means of a door at least 900mm wide and the structure should be a minimum of 2000mm deep with a door at least 900mm wide.

To address C&WO concern

Pg 59 Cycle parking for apartments

Amend 1st sentence: …and should be close to the front of the dwelling building.

Delete 2nd sentence: Parking entrances can be within parking courts and should be within communal parking within a lockable enclosure.

Amend 3rd sentence: Alternatively, cycle parking could be within the building footprint. Cycle parking should be well integrated into the design of the plot itself and preferably within the footprint of the building.


Pg 60 On street – houses and apartments.

Amend 7th sentence ‘On-street parking may will be subject to a traffic regulation order’


Pg 61 On plot - Apartments

Amend 2nd paragraph ‘An alternative to parking courts would be undercroft apartments parking that must be at ground floor or partially below ground floor, providing with. There must be good surveillance and security, natural lighting and ventilation. Undercroft parking should be carefully designed, especially where it interfaces with the public realm.

To correct error and address ALO concern

Pg 70 Design Requirements

Add: Provide links to adjoining green-spaces To address L concerns

Pg 74 Design Requirements

Add bullet point: seek to provide a cycle/ pedestrian link across the green corridor to provide a continuous cycle route parallel to the primary road north.


Pg 78 School site

Add as a design requirement: Provide covered cycle parking conveniently located for all main entrances


Pg 85 Tree species

Add common names to all species.

Tertiary Streets: Add Tilia ‘Greenspire’ (Lime) and Pyrus ‘Chanticleer’ (Ornamental pear)

Secondary and Urban squares: add larger species.

Central Park: Add more varieties of very large trees including more native trees such as; Quercus robur (English Oak), Tilia x europaea (European Lime) and Betula pubescens (Downby Birch).

To address L & WIRE concerns re size of trees and native species

Pg 88 or 89 Wildlife

Add reference to provision of gaps in fences for hedgehogs

To address L concern

Pg 96 Foul Drainage Design

Amendment to text to reflect changed position re foul drainage. No changes to other text as result of this.

Proposed by Barratts to address change required by Anglian Water. Also requested by WIRE.

Pg 97 On plot Amend title: On plot / parcel

Replace photograph with better precedent picture to show best practice for catching water (Rills etc).

To address L concerns

Pg 98 Waste and recycling

Amend fourth bullet point under considerations:

…reversing distance of no more than 30m 12m.

Amend penultimate bullet point under considerations:

An underground recycling centre Bring site shall

To address EH concern

be provided.

Add blue box ’City Council’s information for developers on waste and recycling provision https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/waste-and-recycling-provision-information-for-developers

Pg 99 Meter boxes

Amend: Meter boxes should be well located to the side of properties wherever possible integrated into the thresholds of properties to avoid visual intrusion to the street scene.

To address ALO concern

Pg 99 Utility Routes

Add 2nd sentence ‘Routes should avoid tree pits, grass verges and planting areas’


Pg 100 Energy

Amend 2nd sentence: Following a review of low carbon and renewable energy systems for the scheme considering key factors, solar technologies have been selected as are likely to be the most suitable option for the provision of low and zero carbon hot water and electricity for the dwellings and school.

In response to CE concern

Pg 112 School access

Add after accessibility text: ‘The tertiary street between school square and town square should be a no through route for vehicles if this can be achieved satisfactorily.

To address CE, ED and HA concerns

Pg 125 Bottom right photograph caption

Amend caption to delete …and within parking courts


Pg 126 and 127

Amend references to balconies: Simple rhythm to the façade accentuated by bolt on balconies


Pg 142: Green corridor crossing

Add to guiding principles and on Figure 5.27 as approved: Signalised crossing across the primary street linking the orbital cycle route to routes onto Histon Road.


Pg 158 Windsor Rd junction Fig 5.75

Reposition 1 on plan next to 5 and within the gap between two buildings.

To address WIRE concern

Pg 163 Code Review

Add to final paragraph after first sentence: Consultation will be carried out if appropriate

To address WIRE concern

Pg 168 Detailed Parameter Master Plans

Delete the ‘detailed parameter master plans’ entry within glossary. The explanation contained is confusing. All approved drawings are adequately explained on pages 12-17 within the code.

To address UD concern.

Pg 180 Remove Figures 7.16 & 7.17 To address

Secondary School access

Case Officer and SCDC concern that these have not been agreed.

ALO: Architectural Liaison Officer

C&WO: Cycling and Walking Officer

CE: County Education

EH: Environmental Health

HA: Highway Authority

L: Landscape

UD: Urban Design

WIRE: Windsor Road Residents Association

APPENDIX 4: CAMBRIDGESHIRE QUALITY PANEL

REPORT OF PANEL MEETING

Scheme: Darwin Green 1 – Design Code

Date: 26/04/2013

Venue: Room 3B1/3B2, Castle Court, Cambridgeshire County Council

Time: 13:00 – 16:00

Quality Panel Members

John Worthington (Chair) Simon Carne David Prichard Meredith Bowles Lynne Sullivan

Panel secretariat and support

Antony Proietti (Cambridgeshire County Council) Judit Carballo (Cambridgeshire County Council)

Local Authority Attendees

Elizabeth Rolph (Cambridge City Council) Julie Ayre (South Cambridgeshire District Council)

Applicant and Representatives

Stuart Bailey – Barratt Homes Marcia Whitehead - Bidwells Mark Reeves - Mark Reeves Architects Alex Robinson - The Landscape Agency Ian Bishop - Woods Hardwick Chris Birch - Hilson Moran Sarah Collicott - Insite Arts

1. Scheme description and presentation

Architect/Designer Mark Reeves Architects

Applicant Barratt Homes

Planning status Design Code (pre-determination)

2. Overview

Darwin Green (formerly known as NIAB) is a residential extension to Cambridge, located on the north-west fringe of the City. It is bounded by Huntingdon Road, the A14 and Histon Road. Darwin Green currently comprises of two sites; Darwin Green 1 (located within the administration boundaries of Cambridge City Council, with only the entrance in South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC)) and Darwin Green 2 (which is entirely within the administration boundaries of SCDC). A further phase, known as Darwin Green 3, is being considered through the SCDC issues and options report 2013. Darwin Green 1 comprises up to 1593 homes, a local centre with mixed retail and community facilities, a primary school, open space and recreational facilities. It currently has a planning committee resolution to be approved subject to conditions and a Section 106 legal agreement, which has yet to be signed. The site is allocated in the Cambridge Local Plan adopted in 2006. Barratt Homes submitted an outline application in December 2006, and the Joint Development Control Committee has resolved to grant permission subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement. The Design Code is a condition to the planning application. Discussions have been ongoing regarding the Design Code since 2008. The current draft was submitted in March 2013 and has been the subject of a testing day. Approval of the document is currently programmed for September 2013.

3. Cambridgeshire Quality Panel views

Introduction

The presentation of the Design Codes by the team focused on the Parameter Plan diagrams, which established: location and hierarchy of roads and landscape infrastructure; character areas reflecting density, height and house typologies; and zoning of uses. The aspirations (objectives) for the development were also presented, and application of the code was explained by describing the site wide coding, with an emphasis on movement, parking and streets, landscape, sustainability and public art. The coding principles were explained for the local centre, high density urban quarter and the medium and lower density suburban quarters.

It was explained to the Panel that the Design Code document will be used to support the master developer and planning authority in allocating sites to individual developers, achieving agreed expectations of quality and ensuring continuity and consistence between development parcels.

The Panel welcomed the opportunity to review the Design Code, as this is a critical document for steering the quality of the overall area in the long term. Quality Panel involvement at this stage provides an excellent opportunity to ensure that the Quality Charter principles are embedded into the core characteristics of the scheme and can then be taken through to the more detailed reserved matters applications.

The Panel also noted and appreciated that development of this site had been undertaken over a number of years and that a number of issues had now been signed-off; particularly in light of the Section 106 which was nearing completion.

The Panel’s advice reflects the issues associated with each of the four ‘C’s’ in the Cambridgeshire Quality Charter.

Community

The Panel welcomed the great legacy that the Central Park will bring to the site and its importance in developing a sense of community.

It was explained to the Panel that an artist has been contracted to work on the site and their role would be to identify both the existing communities and the new residents coming forward, working with them to develop an overall sense of community for the site and surrounding area. The Panel welcomed this approach and the benefits it can offer in terms of community cohesion and inclusion.

Connectivity

The Panel were concerned about the connectivity between Darwin Green 1 and Darwin Green 2 and 3. The site boundary should link the places together rather than separate them. In order to develop a sense of cohesion and continuity the Panel therefore considered that the principals within this document should help to inform the subsequent Codes for DG2 and DG3.

The Panel also recommended reviewing the design and route of the main road. They also queried the mandatory aspect of this and advocated allowing more flexibility in terms of its design.

The Panel considered that it would be useful for the Code to include a simple diagram showing movement of people and connections in relation to areas beyond the development.

Character

The Panel noted that the vision for the area was of particular importance. It would therefore be useful to know what the guiding principles are and have them clearly set out in the Code.

The Panel questioned the size of the parcels that the developer was looking at and their expectations for the site. They were informed that around 150-200 units (approximately 10 parcels) are informing character area strategy.

The Panel noted that parking is one of the key elements which will determine the character of the development and therefore this needs to be got right. The Panel advised that if on-street parking is allowed then the scheme will be robust.

Given that the Central Park will drive the character of the area the Panel were concerned that a vision for the space was yet to be developed within the Code.

The Panel questioned how they can be sure if something comes along in the future that the code will adapt. The City Council stated that although the principles within the Code are mandatory there is flexibility if amendments are justified.

The Panel questioned the mandatory status of the Code and would like to see more flexibility and adaptability. One of the reasons to move to design code and parameter plans was to speed up the process with some certainty of working to a set of agreed principles that ensures that the whole site works together, and relates to surrounding sites. It would also be useful to have an illustrative schedule showing what is mandatory and non-mandatory.

The Panel questioned how the Code will be measured and benchmarked against, to ensure quality is continued to be achieved through the life of the development.

Climate

There was little mention of climate issues through the presentation. The panel were concerned that the document only related to achieving Code Level 4. Zero carbon levels will need to be achieved within the timeframe of the Code however the Design Code did not contain any strategy for achieving these. These long-term sustainability issues need to be covered.

4. Conclusion

The Panel noted and welcomed that the work that has been undertaken to date in developing the Design Code. This was considered to be been extremely comprehensive and a good starting point.

However, the Panel questioned the practicability of the document. It was considered to be a very thick document with an over emphasis on the masterplan rather than explaining how the parameter plans could respond to changing circumstances. It needs to instead articulate the core issues quickly and easily. The Panel therefore recommended reducing the size of the document and including an executive summary which sets out the core principles, summing up where the work has got to and how it would be taken forward (including a timeline for development).

The Panel made the other following recommendations:

It would be helpful to include a diagram or drawing mapping out the development of the site and phasing of critical infrastructure, in terms of agreed trigger points.

Further details regarding the overarching vision and guiding principles.

Clarity on what is mandatory – Useful to include an illustrative schedule detailing what is mandatory/non-mandatory.

Need to ensure future flexibility and adaptability of the Code.

Further information on how benchmarking will be undertaken to ensure quality is achieved throughout the build-out of the site.

Further work to be undertaken on the design and vision of the Central area.

Design and route of main road access to be reviewed within the agreed parameter plans. The potential for the plan to adapt to retail demand and movement within and around the site should be reviewed.

Details of movement and connections off-site, both to and from the site.

Opportunities for on street visitor parking should be sought. In view of the changing demographics of car ownership and use, this should be periodically reviewed.

Concern regarding climate and sustainability. Code needs to set out how zero carbon levels and sustainability in the long term will be achieved.

The Panel was disappointed not to have received more feedback on the results and lessons learnt of the testing workshop, which should have influenced the amendments to the Design Code as it moved forward. Very little seems to have been learnt or incorporated from this important exercise. The Panel noted that the principals within the Darwin Green 1 Design Code will have to guide the Green Darwin 2 and Green Darwin 3 developments, especially in respect to strategic issues. In order to move this process forward the Panel suggested that the Darwin 1 Design Code progresses with a proviso that it is reviewed as a combined Code for Darwin 1, 2 and 3, at a date to be specified. The Panel would welcome the opportunity to review a combined Code. Since there were a number of outstanding issues it was discussed that a workshop as proposed by Barratt may be a useful forum and way forward, in order to better understand and discuss the key points and move them forward. The workshop should include representatives of the local planning authorities, Barratt Homes and the Quality Panel, and draw on experience learnt from applying other design codes. A review and evaluation of experience at Trumpington Meadows would be a good introduction to the workshop, which would critically review the Darwin Green 1 coding document from the perspective of a number of different sections. The proposal for a workshop with all parties was supported.

APPENDIX 5 – CONDITIONS 7 and 8 OF 07/0003/OUT Design Code

7. Prior to or concurrently with the submission of the first of the reserved matters applications for the development, a Design Code shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Design Code shall be prepared in accordance with the principles and parameters established by this outline approval and shall include both strategic and detailed elements. The Design Code shall include:

a) The overall vision of the development; b) The character, mix of uses and heights established through the

approved parameter plans and include the block principles and the structure of public spaces, making reference to the phasing of land parcels;

c) The street hierarchy, including the principles and extent of the adoptable highway, along with traffic calming measures;

d) Typical street cross-sections which will include details of tree planting, tree species, underground utility/service trenches, and on street parking;

e) How the design of the streets and spaces takes into account mobility and visually impaired users;

f) Block principles to establish use, density and building typologies. In addition, design principles including primary frontages, pedestrian access points, fronts and backs and threshold definition shall be provided;

g) Key groupings and other key buildings including information about height, scale, form, level of enclosure, building materials and design features;

h) Approach to incorporation of ancillary infrastructure/buildings such as substations, pumping stations, pipes, flues, vents, meter boxes, external letterboxes, fibres wires and cables required by statutory undertakers as part of building design;

i) Details of the approach to vehicular parking across the entire site including the location and layout of car club spaces and parking for people with disabilities and for each building type, including details of a design approach for access points into and the ventilation of undercroft/underground parking;

j) Details of the approach to cycle parking for all uses and for each building type, including the distribution (resident/visitor parking and location in the development), type of rack, spacing and any secure or non-secure structures associated with the storage of cycles;

k) The approach to the character and treatment of the structural planting to the development areas including green corridors, the linear park, play spaces, central park and allotments;

l) The approach to the treatment of any hedge or footpath corridors and retained trees and woodlands;

m) The design and approach to the sustainable drainage management system including all sustainable drainage features to be used, and planting strategies to enhance biodiversity and improve water quality;

n) The conceptual design and approach to of the public realm to include public art (making reference to the Public Art Strategy), materials, signage, utilities and any other street furniture.

o) The conceptual design and approach to the lighting strategy and how this will be applied to different areas of the development with different lighting needs, so as to maximise energy efficiency, minimise light pollution and avoid street clutter;

p) Details of waste and recycling provision for all building types and underground recycling points;

q) Utility routes, type and specification; r) Measures to demonstrate how opportunities to maximise

resource efficiency and climate change adaptation in the design of the development will be achieved through external, passive means, such as landscaping, orientation, massing, and external building features and how the renewable energy target could be met;

s) Details of measures to minimise opportunities for crime; t) Details of the Design review procedure and of circumstances

where a review shall be implemented. The Design Code shall explain its purpose, structure and status and

set out the mandatory and discretionary elements where the Design Code will apply, who should use the Design Code, and how to use the Design Code.

No development apart from enabling works agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall commence until the Design Code for the entire site has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure high quality design and coordinated development

(Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/11, 3/12, 4/15, 9/3 and 9/8).

8. Applications for reserved matters shall include a Design Code

Statement that demonstrates how the application accords with the approved site wide Design Code.

REASON: To ensure high quality design and coordinated development

(Cambridge Local Plan 2006 policies 3/4, 3/7, 3/11, 3/12, 9/3 and 9/8).

joint development control committee...

Documents