Trumpington Residents’ Association
101 Paget Road
Trumpington
Cambridge
CB2 9JG
email:
13 January 2008
Elizabeth Rolph
Major Sites Officer
Development Control
Cambridge City Council
The Guildhall
Cambridge, CB2 3QJ
Michelle Cress
Senior Planning Officer, Major Developments
South Cambridgeshire District Council
South Cambridgeshire Hall
Cambourne Business Park
Cambourne
Cambridgeshire CB23 6EA
Dear Mrs Rolph and Ms Cress
Trumpington Meadowsapplication, Application 06/0706/OUT and S/1310/06/O
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the revised application for Trumpington Meadows. We sent you comments on the previous applications on 25 July, 29 August and 3 October 2007 and this letter refers back to the previous comments.
We note the specific changes listed in your covering letter of 18 December and the principle revisions listed in the Design & Access Statement (p. 62).
We welcome the approach that has been taken in the application, which provides a good balance between dwellings, public facilities and open space, in an area which is currently inaccessible to the public. We are particularly pleased to see the provision for the primary school and the community and play facilities. We support the imaginative use of the river valley, the preservation of the archaeological and historic features and the potential to develop the biodiversity of the area. We like the sense that the development will be well integrated into the historic village, be an area where residents can walk or cycle to and from local services and those in other parts of Trumpington and Cambridge and will be very well served by public transport links. The increased demand on the P&R bus service and the Guided Bus resulting from the new population should improve their financial viability and be to the benefit of the whole community.
Our concerns are discussed below, including the phasing of the school, play and community facilities,the management of the green space in the interest of the public and biodiversity, the provision of interpretation facilities and staff in the green space and the vital importance of investing now in a sustainable future.
We are also concerned that the discussions about revising the City/District boundary should be taken forward as urgently as possible, in the hope that the whole of the built-up area and ideally the green space is included within the City before the development is underway.
Detailed Parameter Master Plan
We welcome the revisions to the plan, including the introduction of a village green and the improved visual connection between Anstey Hall and the northern area of housing and the sense that the development will screen the John Lewis building from the Hall and the surrounding conservation area (Design & Access Statement, p. 62).
Access
We are pleased to see the changes to the design of the spine road, with the dog leg at the local centre and a low speed limit to discourage its use as a through route (Design & Access Statement, p. 62). We support the intention that residents in the southern part of the development will be able to use the spine road to travel through the site to the existing village, rather than having to drive along Hauxton Road. This will give unity to the development and help to integrate all the residents with the existing village.
We are still concerned about the poor connections out of the site for pedestrians and cyclists along Grantchester Road and Hauxton Road and the low level of provision for cycle parking and urge additional spaces, particularly at the school and community centre (Design & Access Statement, p. 66 and 89).
Local centre and community facilities
We support the idea of a village green, the visual links between the local centre and the green space, physical links between the centre and the public transport hub and the integration of the school, community facilities and sports facilities (Design & Access Statement, p. 62, 87, etc.).
We are very aware that the proposed community, library and health facilities at Clay Farm will have a vital role to play in the future of the Trumpington Meadows development. We are concerned that the applicant makes a major contribution towards these facilities.
School and temporary school
We are very concerned that the primary school mustbe built at an early stage in the development, to provide education, sport and community facilities and reduce the type of problems that have arisen at Cambourne. The new school is likely to be in great demand, in an environment where families have a choice where to send their children, as has been found at Arbury Park. We support the County Council’s aim of opening the school by September 2010 and urge the applicant to meet this expectation (Design & Access Statement, p. 91).
We would continue to be against the Court building being used as a temporary school, when an extended Fawcett School will provide a short-term solution.
Children’s play and youth strategy and tennis courts
We welcome the mix of children, youth and sports facilities that are planned for the development (Design & Access Statement, p. 89, 109-111). It would be useful to stress that these are for youth as well as younger children, as there is a concern that the needs of teenagers are being neglected in the overall Southern Fringe plans. As with the school, it is essential that some of these facilities are provided at an early stage in the development.
Country park
The proposed development provides a unique opportunity to provide public access to a substantial open space and enhance the biodiversity of this part of the river valley and Byron’s Pool LNR. We welcome the intention of the landscape strategy and the proposed balance between grassland and agricultural use and between public and semi-restricted areas. However, we are concerned that the plans have not fully taken into account therecommendations made by the City Council’s Community Reserves Officer (Ellis Selway) and the Wildlife Trust’s officer(Iain Webb) and that the area must be developed and managed following the methods recommended by Natural England.
While we note that the applicant continues to propose to establish a subsidiary company to manage the green space (Design & Access Statement, p. 109), we continue to feel that the greater part of the green space would be best managed by the City, after boundary changes. We request a progress report on developments since the City Council Scrutiny Committee meeting on 6 September 2007, at which the Open Space Management Framework proposed by the applicant was discussed. We urge that the final management plans conform with the Cambridgeshire Biodiversity Action Plan and directly involve the input by the local wildlifeofficers. We remain concerned at the proposed demolition of the Shepherd’s Cottage and particularly at the limited plans for the interpretation of the green space. We urge the Council to press for the provision of an interpretation centre and ranger services.
We welcome the additional tree planting within the green space and urge additional planting along the boundary with Byron’s Pool.
We reiterate the need for car parking facilities at the southern end of the site and near Byron’s Pool, the two end-points of the path across the meadows.
Allotments
We welcome the provision of allotments at the northern end of the development and urge the Council to allocate resources to help with the management of the allotment site. We also believe that more allotment provision will be needed in the future, as many of the new homes will have little or no garden and families become more committed to local food production. We encourage the Council and applicant to anticipate future demand for a second allotment site in the south of the development.
Recycling
We remain to be convinced by the idea of an underground recycling facility at the local centre. How will this work?
Sustainability and climate change
As with Clay Farm, we are greatly concerned that the development must be energy efficient and have minimum impact on the environment (see the letter written by Geoff Wexler on behalf of the TRA, dated 16 December 2006, concerning Clay Farm).
As we stressed in our recent response to the Clay Farm application, further results have come to light in the last few weeks that are really frightening. Climate change appears to be happening at a much faster rate than predicted and scientific predictions relating to the rate of ice cap melting by 2070 have already been superseded. In the last 12 months, 25% of the ice which was expected to have disappeared by 2070 if we did not try to arrest climate change has now melted. This factor and the rise in energy costs due to world demand on declining oil resources, demands expediency in planning for carbon neutral housing, such as the PassivHaus referred to in our previous letter, localised food production and reduction in energy use generated by transport. This is already affecting us and it is no longer a problem we will face in the future but is the reality in the present, affecting the most vulnerable in our community first.
We welcome the proposals on climate change and sustainable homes summarised in the Design & Access Statement (p. 92), but strongly believe that the Council and the applicant must take a much more vigorous stance in these matters.
The applicant proposes to build the first dwellings to Level 3, then move to Level 4 and show how dwellings could be enhanced to Level 5. We urge the Council to press for Level 4 as a minimum. We note that the dwellings will be capable of accommodating biomass boilers and urge that these facilities are implemented as standard, rather than an optional extra. We also urge that district heating and power generation is considered, at least for the apartment blocks. We are pleased to see that south facing roofs will be capable of being fitting with photo-voltaic cells, which should be affordable within a few years, and urge that most dwellings are orientated to maximise solar gain. Overall, weask that the Council presses for these developments to be actively pursued.
Affordable housing
We welcome the provision for affordable housing (Design & Access Statement, p. 63).
Noise and pollution
We note the emphasis on the use of earth mounds and trees to screen the site and reduce the visual intrusion of the motorway, but are concerned that these should extend to the A10 junction (Design & Access Statement, p. 108).
We also ask the applicant, the Councils and the Highways Agency to work together to reducethe impact of noise from the motorway. The noise is likely to be very disruptive toresidents in the tall dwellings on the western and southern edges of the development, as it currently is to existing residents of Trumpington. The fence on the south west side of the motorwaydeflects noise towards Trumpington and we urge you to investigate the feasibility of removing it where it is on top of the bank near the junction and to also investigate the effectiveness of a fence on the north east side of the motorway.
We are also concerned about the effects of pollution from the motorway on residents of the development and request information about the evaluations that have been undertaken to assess the level of risk.
Yours sincerely
Graham Bass
Chair
Trumpington Residents Association
Cc: Anne Kent, Phillipa Slatter, Sheila Stuart, Andy Blackhurst
1