AGENDA ITEM NO 5 MAIN CASE

Proposal: Construction of the A142 Southern Bypass, linking Angel Drove with Stuntney Causeway: construction of 1.7km long single carriageway road between two roundabouts, including crossing of the Ely to Cambridge railway line and . Associated works to include earthworks, planting, drainage, minor road structures, lighting, signage, pedestrian and cycle provision and temporary construction compound, these are inclusive of works to the bypassed A142

Location: Ely Southern Bypass Site, Angel Drove, Ely,

Applicant: Cambridgeshire County Council

Agent:

Reference No: 13/03005/CCA

Case Officer: Scott Jackson

Parish: Ely

Ward: Ely East Ward Councillor/s: Councillor Richard Hobbs Councillor Lis Every

Date Received: 24th September 2013 Expiry Date: 31st October 2013

[N207]

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. This application has been submitted by Cambridgeshire County Council for the construction of the Ely Southern Bypass, linking Angel Drove with Stuntney Causeway. This involves the creation of two roundabouts (one created at each end of the bypass respectively) and two bridges to cross the railway line and the River Great Ouse. The proposed southern bypass will occupy a total distance of 1.7km (1 mile) and will include associated planting, drainage, lighting, signage, pedestrian and cycle routes and earthworks.

1.2. This application is being referred to the Planning Committee as it relates to a strategic highway project of significance to the district of . East Cambridgeshire is a statutory consultee in the planning process, and not the decision making authority in this case.

Agenda Item 5 – page 1 1.3 The proposed A142 Southern Bypass is supported in planning policy terms, it is referred to as a Core Policy project in the East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy 2009 (at policies CS7 and CS9) and in the East Cambridgeshire Draft Local Plan 2013. The recommendation is therefore to SUPPORT the planning application in principle.

1.4 A site visit has been arranged for 10.05 prior to the Committee meeting.

2.0 THE APPLICATION

2.1 This application has been submitted by Cambridgeshire County Council for the construction of the Ely Southern Bypass, linking Angel Drove with Stuntney Causeway. This involves the creation of two roundabouts (one created at each end of the bypass respectively) and two bridges to cross the railway line and the River Great Ouse. The proposed southern bypass will occupy a total distance of 1.7km (1 mile) and will include associated planting, drainage, lighting, signage, pedestrian and cycle routes and earthworks.

2.2 The proposed route is a 1.7km, 7.3m single carriageway road with 1m hard strips running from the A142 Angel Drove to the A142 Stuntney Causeway. The road heads east on a low embankment from the proposed Angel Drove roundabout, rising to cross over both the Cambridge to Ely and Branch railway lines. It then sweeps north east, passing over arable land and the River Great Ouse, flood plain and flood banks, before continuing on a low embankment to a new roundabout on Stuntney Causeway. The existing A142 underpass under the railway line will be retained, but the carriageway will be narrowed to permit only single-way operation under traffic signals.

2.3 The river bridge, is a continuous structure with an overall length of approximately 300m extending westwards on a constant gradient and curved layout from the lower east end abutment to pass over respectively: a farm access track, the eastern flood bank along which passes National Cycle Route 11, the River Great Ouse and its associated flood plain on either side, the western flood bank and footpath, before finally passing over an access track and field ditch to land at the higher western abutment. A 2.5m wide walkway structure is supported off the northern side of the bridge and includes an extended viewing platform adjacent to and supported from the west river pier. The walkway joins the bridge structure directly from the eastern flood bank departing in the vicinity of the west flood bank pier to rejoin the path on the western flood bank via a gently graded footway link.

2.4 The rail crossing, consists of a two span bridge of the type described as a “Half Through Girder”, such form being typical to the railway environment whilst enabling the road level above to be kept as low as reasonably practical. The bridge traverses the electrified Cambridge to Ely railway line below the western span and the Soham Branch line under the eastern span. The overall length of the bridge deck is in the order of 104m consisting of two equal spans about a central support. The overall bridge width is in the order of

Agenda Item 5 – page 2 16.5m with the overall depth of the edge beams being no greater than 3.1m, including anti-access features to prevent unauthorised access to the railway.

3.0 THE APPLICANT’S CASE

3.1 The Applicant’s case is set out in the Design and Access Statement, Planning Statement, and Transport Statement which can be viewed online via East Cambridgeshire District Council’s Public Access online service, via the following link: http://pa.eastcambs.gov.uk/online-applications

Alternatively a paper copy is available to view at the East Cambridgeshire District Council offices, in the application file.

3.2 In addition to the documents stated in the paragraph above, the applicant’s case is also set out in the Environmental Statement (of which a non-technical summary is available), a Flood Risk Assessment, Statement of Community Involvement and Sustainability Appraisal, these documents can also be accessed via the link above.

4.0 THE SITE AND ITS ENVIRONMENT

4.1 The Scheme is located on the south east side of the city of Ely, within an area bounded by Harlock Farm, south-east of Stuntney; the A142 junction with the A10 at Road to the west; Braham Farm to the south and the area bounded by Witchford Road, Cambridge Road, Barton Road, Back Hill, Broad Street, Victoria Street and the River Great Ouse to the north.

4.2 The existing A142 runs in a generally south east to north west direction across the predominantly flat fenland landscape typical of this area. The Scheme is centred on the valley of the river Great Ouse which bisects the area in a generally south west to north east direction. The land either side of the river is generally flat floodplain, with flood protection bunds approximately 5m high running between 20m and 150m from either bank of the river. The area to the south east of the river rises gently to a height of around 10m around Stuntney, whilst the area to the north east is generally flat. To the west of the river, the land on which the city of Ely is built rises up from the Great Ouse to a height of around 25m.

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 None relevant

6.0 REPLIES TO CONSULTATIONS

6.1 Responses received from internal consultees:

Agenda Item 5 – page 3 6.2 Conservation Officer- Lack of information in respect of mitigation measures to built heritage in particular. No reference to the fact that Ely Cathedral is also a Scheduled Ancient Monument and not just a listed building. A lot of work has been undertaken on trying to limit the visual impact and height of the proposed bypass and bridges and it appears that this option seems to limit the visual impact as far as practicable. However it is undeniable that the introduction of such a large engineering feature will have an adverse impact on the setting on Ely as a Cathedral City, particularly when viewed from the south.

There are valid arguments on both sides for and against the bypass, ultimately it will come down to the issue of harm. At this point the applicant has not shown how the harm caused to the setting of Ely Cathedral meets the criteria set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. More work is required to show clear understanding how the public benefits of the scheme would potentially outweigh the harm to heritage assets.

6.3 Trees Officer- It would be desirable for this Local Planning Authority to seek the services of a professional landscape consultant. The A142 Southern Bypass is likely to have a profound impact on the city of Ely’s landscape and on the wider surrounding landscape. The landscape impact assessment should ideally include a much wider area and consider the views from Stuntney, the south of Ely. In addition I suggest the connectivity between different landscape schemes over the life of the project.

6.4 Forward Planning Officer- There is wide variation across the documentation in support of the application as to the policies to be applied for this scheme. The failure to apply a consistent approach to consideration of planning policy has clear ramifications for the assumptions and methodology applied for the preparation of the application documents and for the Environmental Statement. It is essential to have regard to the Local Transport Plan and all relevant guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework. I would suggest that an assessment of the connectivity between different schemes in the vicinity of the application site would be of benefit to the evaluation of indirect, direct, secondary and cumulative impacts.

6.5 Responses received from Other Consultees (direct to Cambridgeshire County Council)

6.6 Ely Society- There is some reluctance to accept the need for the bypass as proposed here. Support the use of quieter road surfacing and the viewing platform which offers a new elevated view of the city skyline. The colour of the bridge will allow it to blend into the background. The adverse environmental impact of the bypass should be mitigated as far as possible with landscaping, tree planting and other measures. Await details of the public interchange proposals and detailed proposals for the bridges.

Agenda Item 5 – page 4 6.7 The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB)- Strong objection to the proposals as a result of the negative impact on the views of Ely Cathedral. The need to protect the setting of Ely Cathedral and its surrounding landscape has not been afforded sufficient weight. The concerns of other consultees (specifically in relation to heritage matters) have not been properly addressed. We therefore urge that the application is refused and every effort is made to find a more appropriate solution that will not have such a harmful and long-term impact on one of the most important historic buildings in this country and its incomparable landscape setting.

6.8 English Heritage- The proposed bypass would result in severe harm to the Cathedral’s significance and therefore requires clear and convincing justification. Since there is a valid and deliverable alternative option we believe that it should be pursued to resolve the issues associated with the Ely level crossing in preference to constructing a new bypass. Given the importance of Ely Cathedral, the level of harm that would result from this proposal and the absence of clear and convincing justification, we strongly recommend that this application is refused.

6.9 CCC Ecology- Disappointed that route option B has been taken forward given the ecological impacts associated with crossing the floodplain. The raw data for the ecological survey work should be supplied prior to the determination of the planning application to demonstrate that the survey results have been analysed correctly. The proposal will result in the permanent loss of 11.72 hectares of habitat, however the proposed ecological mitigation and compensation measures identified are considered appropriate, subject to further details. Recommend conditions in relation to the submission of a construction environmental management plan and landscape and ecological management plan.

6.10 CCC Highways- Following review of the information further consideration/information is required on the following issues:

 Results of the sensitivity test undertaken on the impact of the proposed scheme;  Further consideration on impact of proposed scheme and increased flows on Queen Adelaide Way;  Further information on the proposed traffic management measures at the Underbridge, particularly the expected queues likely;  Information on the likely wider impact of the proposed scheme on local roads;  Further details on the proposed cycle bypass and its links with cycle infrastructure in the area;  Provide response to the highway design comments;  Provide response to the comments from the State 1 Safety Audit.

6.11 Environment Agency- No objections in principle. Recommend conditions in relation to the validation of a Flood Risk Assessment with hydraulic modelling, contamination risk assessment, verification report of contamination, watching Agenda Item 5 – page 5 brief for unidentified contamination, surface water disposal scheme, piling and foundation designs using penetrative methods.

7.0 THE PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

7.1 East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy 2009

CS1 Spatial strategy CS6 Environment CS7 Infrastructure CS9 Ely S6 Transport impact EN1 Landscape and settlement character EN2 Design EN5 Historic conservation EN6 Biodiversity and geology EN7 Flood risk EN8 Pollution

7.2 East Cambridgeshire Draft Local Plan (2013) (Pre-submission version)

GROWTH 3 Infrastructure requirements GROWTH 5 Presumption in favour of sustainable development ENV1 Landscape and settlement character ENV2 Design ENV7 Biodiversity and geology ENV8 Flood risk ENV9 Pollution ENV11 Conservation areas ENV12 Listed buildings COM7 Transport impact ELY7 Employment-led/mixed-use allocation, Station Gateway ELY8 Station Gateway visions by area

7.3 Supplementary Planning Documents

Ely Conservation Area Appraisal

7.4 Other Documents

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2011 Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines 1991 Ely Environmental Capacity Study 2001

8.0 CENTRAL GOVERNMENT POLICY

8.1 National Planning Policy Framework 2012

Agenda Item 5 – page 6 1 Building a strong, competitive economy 4 Promoting sustainable transport 7 Requiring good design 8 Promoting healthy communities 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 12 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012

9.0 PLANNING COMMENTS

9.1 This Council is a consultee only and Cambridgeshire County Council will need to consider, in detail the technical information contained within the Environmental Statement, together with the advice of statutory consultees.

9.2 This Council needs to consider matters particularly relevant to this Local Authority, including the principle of development, impact on the character and appearance of heritage assets and impact on the landscape

Principle

9.3 The site lies outside the settlement boundary for Ely, on land designated as countryside. Policy CS1 (Spatial Strategy) of the Core Strategy 2009 states that development in the countryside will be strictly controlled, and restricted to ‘other uses specifically identified in this Plan which support the rural economy, help meet affordable housing or special housing needs, or provide essential rural services and infrastructure. It goes on to state development that would adversely affect the character and appearance of the countryside will not be permitted. The impact on the character and appearance of the countryside will be assessed in a subsequent section of this report.

The proposal is for a highway infrastructure project which is specifically identified within the Core Strategy in policy CS7 (Infrastructure) for ‘transport improvements, including major improvements to the A142 between Angel Drove and the Stuntney Causeway in Ely’. The reasoning put forward for the scheme in the applicant’s design and access statement is as follows:

 Increased rail freight traffic along the Felixstowe to Nuneaton Line, resulting in longer and more frequent closure of the level crossing;  Increased patronage on passenger traffic from Ely railway station;  Increases in the stacking of HGV traffic to either side of the level crossing, thereby resulting in greater traffic congestion along the A142;  High strike rate of vehicular collisions on the railway underpass;  Increased congestion and journey times along the A142.

In planning policy terms the proposed Southern Bypass is identified as a major scheme required for Ely (policy CS9) to relieve congestion, improve road safety and to provide improved walking, cycling and public transport links between Ely rail Agenda Item 5 – page 7 station and town centre. Reference is also made to the requirement for the Southern Bypass in the East Cambridgeshire Draft Local Plan (2013) which at policy GROWTH 3 (Infrastructure Requirements) includes the Ely Southern Bypass as a key transport infrastructure requirement. As part of the Ely Town Vision (section 8.14) the key transport challenges facing Ely include problems with heavy commercial vehicles using the roads, particularly in the east of the city and congestion in the south of the city caused by the level crossing. These are existing issues which are encountered in Ely and which the proposed Southern Bypass is identified as a solution. The proposed line of the County Council’s preferred option for the Southern Bypass is shown indicatively (map 8.14) and in conclusion the document states that this scheme would reduce journey times and create a road network which supports the long-term expansion of Ely and to allow the increased use of the strategic rail network for freight movements between the East Coast and the Midlands.

Turning to national planning policy, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), at paragraph 30, Core Planning Principle 4 (Promoting Sustainable Transport) states that encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion. The objectives of this scheme have been set out in the previous paragraphs of this report and it is considered that the proposed Ely Southern Bypass would accord with this policy.

Impact on heritage assets/landscape

9.4 Core Planning Principle 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF states that where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss.

Chapter 3 of the Environmental Statement (Volume 3B) sets out the designated heritage assets which were identified as being affected by one or more of the options put forward to address the existing transport issues in Ely. The principal heritage assets that were assessed within the context of the Environmental Statement included the following:

 Ely Cathedral;  Ely Conservation Area;  Castle Mound;  Listed Buildings on Castlehythe;  Stuntney and its listed buildings.

It is also worth noting that the issue relating to the impact of the proposed Southern Bypass upon heritage assets is directly linked with the impact on the landscape. To demonstrate this a number of supporting photomontages have been submitted with the planning application, these provide a visual illustration of how the Southern Bypass will appear in various viewpoints in 2015 and 2030 and also provide a before and after shot of the city landscape. These photomontages clearly show that the proposed Southern Bypass will become a defining part of the fen landscape and will frame views of the Cathedral, particularly from the south and south east (i,e. the same approaches identified in the Environmental Statement). The photomontage taken from the flood bank west of the River Great Ouse, to the south east of Ely Agenda Item 5 – page 8 shows that the Cathedral will appear framed or juxta-positioned between the road bridges that span the river and the railway line. The photomontages taken from the south and south east directions reinforce the fact that the Southern Bypass will intercept views of Ely Cathedral, in particular the bridge that spans the railway line, given its height (10.4m) and width (104m).

These photomontages (in particular those carried out to the south and south east of the site) show that the proposed Southern Bypass will have a screening effect for the modern industrial buildings that have been constructed on the urban edge of Ely, in particular those located on the Dock Light Industrial Estate and Cambridgeshire Business Park. The viewing platform, which will form part of a cycle and pedestrian link over the River Great Ouse will provide an additional view towards Ely Cathedral and the city centre.

The analysis within the Environmental Statement (Volume 2) confirms that the scheme would permanently affect part of the setting of the Cathedral, in particular in middle distance views and views on the approach to Ely from the south and south east. Overall this document (at paragraph 9.5.1) states that the proposed development would have a large adverse effect. (Large relates to the significance of the heritage asset and adverse to the magnitude of change).

Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement states that there will be temporary negative effects on the setting of Ely Cathedral, resulting from construction of the scheme. Disturbance would also be caused in medium distance views of the Cathedral when approaching Ely from the south, via the river corridors, public rights of way and via train. The Environmental Statement recognises that there would be some disruption to the quintessential view of the Ely landscape and the Cathedral from Stuntney (travelling along the A142), with the construction of the new road junction and roundabout, however the Cathedral will largely appear to the right of the view, with much of the construction to the left of the viewpoint. It is accepted that views of the proposed Southern Bypass will be screened to some extent by the existing line of Poplar trees that run to the south of the existing allotment site on Stuntney Causeway.

In addition it is also accepted that views of Ely Cathedral from , , Witchford and Road will remain uninterrupted by the proposed Southern Bypass. Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement concludes that the proposed Southern Bypass will have the following impact on the identified heritage assets:

 Ely Conservation Area- moderate adverse effect;  Castle Mound- slight adverse effect;  Listed Buildings on Castlehythe- No impact;  Listed Buildings in Stuntney- moderate adverse effect.

Chapter 4 of the Environmental Statement (Volume 3B) states that views of the town from the outlying landscape are best appreciated from the north east, east and south east where it can be viewed running down the steeper scarp slope towards the wharf with the Cathedral above. This is consistent with the Ely Environmental Capacity Study 2001 which identifies the quintessential views of Ely and its Cathedral, most notably of which is from Stuntney Causeway approaching the city of Ely from a south easterly direction. Many of the quintessential views identified within the study have

Agenda Item 5 – page 9 been included within the Environmental Statement and an analysis of each viewpoint, with specific reference to the Cathedral has been undertaken.

The Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines (1991) states that ‘in the transition area between fen and island, the creation of small grass paddocks surrounded by thick hedges and trees or areas of woodland would reinforce the contrast and the sense of moving from one landscape to another’. The main issue to consider here is that this is a scheme which is constrained by the requirement to cross both the river and the railway lane, thereby resulting in the Southern Bypass being somewhat functional in its appearance. Being driven by functionality and environmental constraints means that there is little opportunity to create the areas of landscape set out in the Landscape Guidelines. In this case the bridge that is proposed to span the railway line is strictly guided by the safety specifications of Network Rail.

The Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary (Volume 1) concludes by saying that the proposed Southern Bypass will be visible in some views to and from the Cathedral, particularly middle distance views from the countryside to the south and south east of the city, this view is considered an important part of the setting for Ely and its Cathedral. This document goes on to state that the scheme would affect part of Ely City Centre and its conservation area, again this is largely from middle distance views to the south and south east. In addition the Non-Technical Summary concludes that the scale, massing and height of the scheme are likely to have a significant effect on the high landscape value and townscape and affect views from public rights of way and open space to the south east of Ely.

Conclusion

9.5 In conclusion it is agreed that the proposed Southern Bypass, by virtue of its rural location, its scale, height, associated infrastructure and mass will have a long-term and significant impact on the setting of Ely Cathedral, its conservation area and upon the relationship that the Isle of Ely has with the surrounding fenland landscape. Whilst the visual impact of the proposed scheme on the landscape can be mitigated to some extent by planting and landscaping proposals, the fact remains that this infrastructure project will have a significant impact.

The proposed Southern Bypass will have a significant and long-term impact on the local landscape, the historical core of Ely and the Cathedral. However the scheme will deliver the following public benefits:

 Reduce journey times between the A10 and Stuntney Causeway;  Reduce delays and congestion along the A142, particularly to either side of the level crossing;  Reduce the potential for rear end shunts as a result of queuing traffic;  Reduce the strike rate on the railway underpass and on the level crossing;  Reduce the levels of traffic travelling along the A142, Station Road and Angel Drove;  Contribute towards the attractiveness of the Station Gateway area by providing a safer environment and reducing pollution levels;  Result in the permanent closure of the level crossing;  Reduce accidents;  Allow freight and public rail traffic to increase through Ely;

Agenda Item 5 – page 10  Offering increased opportunities for walkers and cycling through traffic calming on Station Road, pedestrian and cycle links to the bypass and to either side of the River Great Ouse, widening of the pedestrian footway along the underpass and improved reliability of bus services.

Taking into account the bullet points above it is considered that the public benefits (sustainable transport proposal) of the scheme outweigh the harm to the designated heritage assets in this case. Therefore it is recommended that the Planning Committee supports the planning application in principle.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDATION: Support the planning application proposals in principle, subject to any additional comments/conditions recommended by the Planning Committee Members.

Background Documents Location(s) Contact Officer(s) Application File- Scott Jackson Scott Jackson 13/03005/CCA Room No.11 Planning Officer The Grange 01353 665555 Ely [email protected]

Agenda Item 5 – page 11