AGENDA ITEM NO. 14 TITLE: NORTH ELY DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT

Committee: Development & Transport Committee

Date: 14th January 2014

Author: Shirley Blake, Principal Sustainable Development Officer [N190]

1.0 ISSUE

1.1 To consider the responses to the public consultation on the draft North Ely Supplementary Planning Document and approve amendments to the document.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 Members are recommended to:

i) approve the proposed amendments to the Draft North Ely Supplementary Planning Document as set out in Appendix 2, and

ii) approve the Draft North Ely Supplementary Planning Document for use as a material consideration in the assessment of appropriate planning applications.

3.0 BACKGROUND

3.1 The submission draft of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan proposes an allocation for an urban extension of approximately 3,000 houses to the North of Ely. This is a part of its wider long term vision for the future development of the City over the next 20 years.

3.2 The draft North Ely Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) has been developed by the District Council to provide further supporting detail to help guide the development of the urban extension. It builds on the ideas set out in the North Ely Development Framework 2011, and the developers Joint Strategic Masterplan July 2013, prepared following a series of workshops with the developers, District Council officers and key stakeholders such as the County Council and Environment Agency.

3.3 The aim of the SPD is to provide a clear policy guidance to ensure that a quality development is delivered in North Ely, together with the best possible outcomes for the local community.

Agenda Item 14 - page 1 4.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION RESPONSES

4.1 A public consultation on the draft North Ely SPD was held from 28th October to 6th December 2013. This included two public exhibitions staged at the Ely Beet Club on Lynn Road, attended by 134 people, as well as a questionnaire form, returned by 81 people. In addition a further 27 individual written responses were received from local people or statutory organisations.

4.2 Responses to the questionnaire are attached as Appendix 1 to this report. A summary of the written responses is attached as Appendix 2 together with officer responses to the points raised.

4.3 The most common concerns to be raised about the development related to traffic impacts and provision of adequate infrastructure. A range of concerns were expressed about the impact of additional traffic on Lynn Road, Cam Drive and on the A10. There were also several comments about the location of the proposed new roundabout on the A10 which was considered to be too close to the Downham Road roundabout, and these have been referred to Cambridgeshire County Council for further comment.

4.4 The SPD requires a joint strategic transport strategy to be prepared by the developers setting out the extent of the traffic impacts on the area and mitigation measures proposed to offset this. The landowners/developers have been working closely with Cambridgeshire County Council in producing this document, which, it is understood, is nearing completion. This is expected to propose junction improvements on the A10/A142 Witchford and A10 Coveney junctions to increase capacity in these areas, as well as a proposed new roundabout providing access from the development to the A10. Officers have also requested that this strategy cover Lynn Road improvements, as well as public transport and cycleways improvements. Cambridgeshire County Council are also reviewing the proposed roundabout on the A10, and the need and timing of its provision.

4.5 The questionnaire results provide useful information on what people would like to see included in the development. This feedback will be used to help inform the current study which is underway to identify what should be provided in the Country Park extension, and also in the further development of proposals for the community facilities. There was also clear public support for items such as live work and home working (56% considered this important or very important), self build housing (45.3% thought this of interest), and a work hub (62.2%).

4.6 The Church Commissioners, land owners of the area to the east of Lynn Road, have highlighted their concern that the SPD has some very ambitious targets in respect of infrastructure, exemplar development and community facilities(see section 4 of Appendix 2):

“Whilst the aspiration to develop sustainable high quality neighbourhood is very much supported, we do have considerable concerns that the weight of infrastructure

Agenda Item 14 - page 2 requirements falling upon developers of North Ely set in the draft SPD raise aspirations that will be difficult to meet.”

A range of other respondents however, in particular local residents, have flagged up the need for infrastructure to be in place before or alongside the provision of new housing.

4.7 As a result of the consultation a number of minor changes are proposed to the text in the SPD and these are detailed in the final column of Appendix 2.

5.0 EXEMPLAR DEVELOPMENT

5.1 A number of respondents requested greater clarification of the meaning of ‘exemplar development’. One of the questions in the consultation questionnaire asked people to indicate what they understood by exemplar. Responses included excellent quality of architecture and urban design, sensitivity to its context, sustainability in construction and in use. References were also made to good quality houses that people enjoy living in, minimum space requirements per person/room, enough room in houses, flexible space, adequate gardens. (See appendix 1 Question 15).

5.2 Members may wish to consider incorporation of the following definition for exemplar development for North Ely into the ‘vision’ chapter of the SPD:

To be ‘exemplar’ means to create a development model which people will want to copy or imitate elsewhere. The District Council defines exemplar development for North Ely as that which incorporates all aspects of best practice:  developing a variety of attractive, spacious homes which incorporate the latest green technologies to make sustainable living easy and appealing,  safeguarding and enhancing the natural biodiversity of the site and reflecting the current development pattern of central Ely that brings a countryside feel into urban areas through ample provision of green space, sports facilities, and a country park,  providing locally based jobs to reduce the need for out commuting,  incorporating measures to positively promote walking, cycling and bus use over the use of cars, with good connections by these modes to key local destinations.  providing schools, a community centre, local shops, a business hub and other meeting spaces at the heart of the development to help foster the development of a genuine local community.  providing a benchmark in high quality development, delivering design excellence in all elements, with distinctive, innovative formats of modern homes with high living space standards, generous levels of amenity space, and family friendly streets and spaces.  reflecting the traditional development patterns and features of Ely with its people focussed design, layout and walkability, but with a contemporary interpretation. All development should be of exceptional good quality to make North Ely a destination of choice for prospective residents and businesses.

6.0 NEXT STEPS

6.1 The North Ely Supplementary Planning Document cannot be adopted as statutory planning policy until after the forthcoming Examination in Public and Adoption of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan. The next steps will therefore be as follows: Agenda Item 14 - page 3 a) Incorporation of amendments from the public consultation, as identified in Appendix 2, into the SPD. b) Use of the document as a material consideration in assessment of relevant planning applications. c) Review of the document following the adoption of the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan, and d) Formal adoption as statutory planning policy, anticipated in mid 2014.

7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS/EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

7.1 There are no additional financial implications arising from this report.

7.2 Equality Impact Assessment (INRA) not required at this stage.

8.0 APPENDICES

8.1 Appendix 1 – Questionnaire responses to the Draft North Ely Supplementary Planning Document. Appendix 2 – Written responses to the Draft North Ely Supplementary Planning Document.

Background Documents Location Contact Officer None The Grange, Shirley Blake, Principal Sustainable Ely Development Officer (01353) 665555 E-mail: @eastcambs.gov.uk

Agenda Item 14 - page 4 APPENDIX 1

Draft North Ely SPD – Public Consultation Questionnaire Results and Analysis

Consultation Activity

A 6 week consultation period ran from 28th October 2013 to 6th December 2013. A public exhibition was held on Wednesday 13th November and Saturday 16th November at Ely Beet Club and 134 people attended over the two days. Presentations about the draft SPD were given to City of Ely Council and the Ely Neighbourhood Panel.

Copies of the draft document and questionnaire were available from the District Council Offices and on-line during the consultation period. The exhibition display panels, the draft SPD document and a link to the on-line questionnaire were available on the North Ely Development pages of District Council website. A link to the above was also posted on Shape Your Place.

Information about the consultation and a summary of the draft SPD was sent to the database of stakeholders, interested parties and local residents (over 1,200 contacts). The District Council has a consultee register. 33 people on the register were identified as having an interest in the draft North Ely SPD and were sent details of the Consultation.

Posters were displayed around Ely and surrounding villages and leaflets promoting the exhibition and the consultation were delivered to all homes adjacent to the North Ely site. Press releases were issued before and during the consultation period.

In addition a presentation on the SPD was made to the Cambridgeshire Quality Panel, a panel of experts who are able to give independent advice on design proposals. Their comments are attached at the end of this consultation report.

Respondent Profile

81 questionnaires were completed and returned, either at the exhibition or on-line via the East Cambridgeshire District Council website.

84% of respondents were a resident of Ely, 11% were a resident of Chettisham or Queen Adelaide, 8% were a local business. 1% (1 respondent) was a developer of local landowner and 7% were a representative of an organisation.

12 people answered ‘other’ and gave the following details:

 Agent for Grovemere Property Limited  Area resident  Cambridge City Council CDO  District Councillor but I am answering this questionnaire as a private citizen  Local person  Resident local to Ely  Resident of East Cambridgeshire  Resident of Haddenham  Resident of Prickwillow  Resident of Soham

Agenda Item 14 – page 5  Resident of Stretham, user of Ely and commuter on the A10  Self employed resident of East Cambs

2% of respondents were aged under 25, 14% aged 25-39, 27% aged 40-49, 13% aged 50-59, 40% aged 60-74 and 5% aged 75+.

84% (68 respondents) responded that they would like to be notified of the adoption of the Supplementary Planning Document.

Responses

Question 4: What features would you like to see in the new Country Park?

What features would you like to see in the new Country Park? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count A network of paths 82.7% 62 Wilder areas that promote biodiversity 64.0% 48 Wild flower meadows 77.3% 58 Areas of grazing for animals 34.7% 26 More formal areas including children's play 49.3% 37 facilities A picnic area 45.3% 34 Car and cycle parking 52.0% 39 Other (please specify) 34 answered question 75 skipped question 6

Other features suggested:

 Cycle paths (wide/segregated) – 6 respondents  Cycle parking – 4 respondents  Dog waste bins – 3 respondents  Educational facilities for schools/children – 3 respondents  Management of environmentally diverse areas within the country park to ensure a wide range of habitats/ Facilities to encourage rare/lost species e.g. bat boxes, nest boxes etc – 3 respondents  Suitable walking/cycling routes TO the Country Park – 3 respondents  Car parking – 2 respondents  Car parking only – 2 respondents  Community allotments and orchards – 2 respondents  No car parking – 2 respondents  Public Transport Links - 2 respondents  Trim trail - 2 respondents  Avoidance of acres of mown grass/playing fields masquerading as green spaces - 1 respondent

Agenda Item 14 – page 6  Balance between wild areas such as a wild flower meadow and more formal areas for children's play equipment -1 respondent  Dogs on leads -1 respondent  Grazing - extent of demand - what animals? -1 respondent  Grazing for animals would work providing dogs/walkers were kept apart -1 respondent  I am totally against this development -1 respondent  Little or no car parking, apart from blue badge -1 respondent  More challenging play area for teenagers with larger swings, climbing frames etc -1 respondent  Natural pathways - don't cover it in concrete -1 respondent  No people - any development will destroy habitat for wildlife -1 respondent  Off lead dog walking -1 respondent  Outdoor swimming or splash pools for kids – swimming pond -1 respondent  Picnic facilities -1 respondent  Ponds -1 respondent  Refreshment facilities -1 respondent  Rubbish bins -1 respondent

Question 5: How important is it for the development to provide live/work or working from home units?

How important is it for the development to provide live/work or working from home units? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Very important 32.4% 24 Important 24.3% 18 Quite important 20.3% 15 Not important 16.2% 12 Don't know 6.8% 5 answered question 74 skipped question 7

Question 6: Do you think there will be interest in self-build housing?

Do you think there will be interest in self-build housing? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Yes 45.3% 34 No 14.7% 11 Don't know 40.0% 30 answered question 75 skipped question 6

Agenda Item 14 – page 7 Question 7: How can we encourage business people and entrepreneurs to move to North Ely?

General transport related suggestions:

 Need to offer good/improve transport links (A10, A1, A11) – 16 respondents  Improve public transport - 5 respondents  Good public transport and cycle networks connecting to train station – 2 respondents  Better road route out of the site -1 respondent  Bypass -1 respondent  Improved access to the city -1 respondent  No toll roads to be included -1 respondent  Provide park and ride facilities -1 respondent

Rail related suggestions:

 Better/more Rail links – 4 respondents  Open Chettisham Railway Station – 4 respondents  Improve transport/parking facilities at Ely Railway Station – 2 respondents  Open Queen Adelaide Station -1 respondent

Parking related suggestions:

 Provide ample car parking – 8 respondents  Ensure sufficient off road parking to keep traffic and delivery lorries/couriers free flowing at all times -1 respondent  Make sure there's enough cycle parking -1 respondent

Business premises suggestions:

 More live work units– 3 respondents  Better recycling facilities – 2 respondents  Encourage business facility providers in - Regis or similar for meeting rooms – 2 respondents  e-space type facility – 2 respondents  Flexible small business units within the housing – 2 respondents  Flexible studio spaces - mixture of business and artist/makers - 2 respondents  More office space – 2 respondents  Provide some secure lockup/storage space for small businesses – 2 respondents  Purpose built accommodation - 2 respondents  The two local centres seem too small. Suggest one larger one - to help achieve critical mass and increased footfall, thereby creating further retail and service opportunities -2 respondents  Wifi cafes where people can hold meetings whilst working from home – 2 respondents  Work hub – 2 respondents  Make it attractive, mix with communal spaces and community facilities and places where people will want to be -1 respondent Agenda Item 14 – page 8  More space allotted for a business park in the North -1 respondent  Provide 'industrial' and business parks -1 respondent  Provide other services such as a post office, coffee shop, banking facilities, dentist etc to help avoid the area becoming a dormitory estate -1 respondent  Residential nature of North Ely makes it an inappropriate location for B2 and B8 uses and should be restricted to B1 Uses (those capable of being undertaken in a residential area). Employment focus should be at Lancaster Way Business Park. Any work hub should be focused at Lancaster Way Business park with improved links between the residential area proposed for North Ely and the business park encouraged -1 respondent  Use the local shopping area to promote individual units such as a bakery/newsagent/small grocer not a big supermarket -1 respondent

Other suggestions:

 More comprehensive range of shops and facilities in Ely – 11 respondents  Low business rates - 9 respondents  Make sure super fast broadband is available – 6 respondents  Cannot build 3000 more houses in Ely until you know the answer to this – 2 respondents  Ensure the city is a delightful place to live – 2 respondents  Good standard of housing to attract families to re-locate – 2 respondents  Strengthen the historic centre of Ely – 2 respondents  Tax breaks – 2 respondents  Training opportunities to up the skill of the local community – 2 respondents  Availability of staff – 1 respondent  Better use of local community websites to provide information to customers about businesses there – 1 respondent  By giving a good return on their money on all business that want to come in – 1 respondent  Cambridge business and Science Parks will absorb the highly skilled professionals who will find Cambridge house prices too expensive and that commuting from Ely is an attractive proposition – 1 respondent  Develop the Maltings as a strong arts centre and support the cinema – 1 respondent  Do not believe your target for jobs to be achievable – 1 respondent  Growing local demand for products (depending on what these are) due to expanding city – 1 respondent  Good network infrastructure – 1 respondent  Highly unlikely based on present economic circumstances – 1 respondent  It will be very difficult to attract businesses to Ely as there is a huge advantage built in to the enterprise zone for businesses to Alconbury – 1 respondent  Live/work units and working from home will increase the number of delivery vans going through housing estates and parking on paths to make deliveries – 1 respondent  Make the planning process easier and faster – 1 respondent  Provide grants – 1 respondent  Shout from the roof tops that parking in Ely is free!! – 1 respondent  The damage that this development will cause will be irreversible; it will have an adverse impact on what is a unique city – 1 respondent  The development needs to be an integrated part of Ely rather than a purely local centre – 1 respondent

Agenda Item 14 – page 9 Question 8: Do you think that a workhub, providing facilities for home workers, is a good idea to stimulate local business initiative?

Do you think that a workhub, providing facilities for home workers, is a good idea to stimulate local business initiative? Response Answer Options Response Count Percent Yes 62.2% 46 No 21.6% 16 Don't know 16.2% 12 answered question 74 skipped question 7

Question 9: What activities should the new community centre provide?

Sports activities:

 Swimming pool – 6 respondents  Facilities for sports – 5 respondents  Fitness classes – 3 respondents  Football pitches – 3 respondents  Gym – 3 respondents  Indoor sports facilities – 3 respondents  Athletic facilities – 2 respondents  BMX tracks etc – 1 respondent  Children’s dance classes – 1 respondent  Cricket pitch – 1 respondent  Golf facilities – 1 respondent  Ice rink – 1 respondent  Sites for rollerblading – 1 respondent  Trim trail – 1 respondent

Youth activities:

 Children’s clubs and activities – 7 respondents  Parent and baby/toddler groups – 7 respondents  Youth club/activities for teenagers – 5 respondents  Cubs, scouts, beavers, rainbows, brownies, guides etc – 4 respondents  Youth groups - places to hang out - informal and independent - 3 respondents  Children’s play area – 2 respondents  Pre and after school clubs – 1 respondent  Schools – 1 respondent  Teenage play area – 1 respondent  Youth centres – 1 respondent

Agenda Item 14 – page 10 Meeting/event space:

 Range of rooms which can be hired for multi-use, with kitchen/refreshments - 26 respondents

Educational activities:

 Adult education – 7 respondents  Educational facilities for all ages – 1 respondent  Language classes e.g. ESOL – 1 respondent

Activities for adults:

 Social groups/activities for older residents – 6 respondents  Groups/social clubs for adults – 4 respondents  Community lunches – 1 respondents

Other activities suggested:

 Facilities for all age groups – 6 respondents  Community pub/bar providing a social environment, with restaurant, function room, suitable for all ages – 5 respondents  Café – 4 respondents  Core facilities as already identified within Ely – 4 respondents  Healthcare facilities incorporated - 3 respondents  Access point to local Council facilities/information – 2 respondents  Ballroom/dance floor – 2 respondents  Entertainment - theatre/cinema – 2 respondents  Have car and bike parking – 2 respondents  Library facilities- 2 respondents  Arts provision – 1 respondent  Church – 1 respondent  Community involvement in its running and management – 1 respondent  Computer facilities for those not able to afford their own – 1 respondent  Covered tennis courts at Downham Road site – 1 respondent  Cycle routes – 1 respondent  Dial-a-Ride access point – 1 respondent  Facilities around it e.g. doctors, shops, post office, chemist, schools – 1 respondent  Local community needs to decide – 1 respondent  Notice boards – 1 respondent  Public art with community involvement to enhance the site – 1 respondent  Secure parcel drop off service for delivery firms to use when recipients cannot be at home – 1 respondent  Urban farm – 1 respondent

Agenda Item 14 – page 11 Question 10: Should the existing Downham Road sports facility be developed rather than require separate outdoor sports facilities to be provided on the North Ely site itself?

Should the existing Downham Road sports facility be developed rather than require separate outdoor sports facilities to be provided on the North Ely site itself? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Yes 47.9% 34 No 32.4% 23 Don't know 19.7% 14 answered question 71 skipped question 10

Question 11: What other community facilities and outdoor spaces should we be considering?

Sports activities:  Children's play areas – 5 respondents  Skatepark – 5 respondents  Tennis courts – 4 respondents  Football – 3 respondents  New swimming pool – 3 respondents  On site sports facilities – 3 respondents  Downham Road facilities are not accessible – 2 respondents  MUGA – 2 respondents  Netball courts – 2 respondents  Outdoor basketball – 2 respondents  Teenage play area – 2 respondents  Adult outdoor fitness equipment – 1 respondent  Better to have smaller, local sports facilities rather than one huge white elephant that young people can't afford, because it is too expensive to run – 1 respondent  Boule, Petanque, hard surface area that enables wet weather activity – 1 respondent  Cricket – 1 respondent  Downham Road sports facilities would need to be developed before the North is developed as there are already insufficient facilities for the rest of Ely – 1 respondent  Existing city centre and Downham Road facilities should be maintained and upgraded and a new facility should also be developed as part of Ely North – 1 respondent  Golf – 1 respondent  Gym – 1 respondent  Indoor/outdoor sports facilities – 1 respondent  Keep the sports pitches shown in the plans – 1 respondent  Outdoor bowls facilities – 1 respondent  Outdoor gym for use by adults – 1 respondent  Running track – 1 respondent  Velodrome – 1 respondent

Agenda Item 14 – page 12 Community facilities:

 Cinema – 4 respondents  Pubs – 3 respondents  Shops – 3 respondents  Adult education – 2 respondents  Community centre – 2 respondents  Community pub – 2 respondents  Doctors – 2 respondents  Informal areas for teenagers – 2 Informal areas for teenagers - 2  Library – 2 respondents  Post office – 2 respondents  Activities for children – 1 respondent  Café – 1 respondent  Chemists – 1 respondent  Community/church centre – 1 respondent  Community hall with stage and audience seating – 1 respondent  Dial-a-Ride access point – 1 respondent Drop in/advice service – 1 respondent  Educational facilities for all ages – 1 respondent  Evening activities for Young people – 1 respondent  Health care centre – 1 respondent  Land retained by ECDC for Council use – 1 respondent  More employment areas – 1 respondent  Public toilets – 1 respondent  Restaurant – 1 respondent  Scouting facility maybe a hall with outdoor camping facility – 1 respondent  Secondary school – 1 respondent  Supermarket is too small – 1 respondent

Open spaces:

 Allotments/community orchards – 7  Open spaces for dog walking – 3  Picnic areas - 2  Green/open spaces – 3 respondents  Allotments not a suitable a green buffer for Chettisham – 1 respondent  Areas left truly wild and inaccessible to help wildlife – 1 respondent  Areas for local primary schools to use for nature/wildlife studies – 1 respondent  Community farm – 1 respondent  Decent public green spaces around the houses – 1 respondent  Good landscaping – 1 respondent

Agenda Item 14 – page 13  Grazing area – 1 respondent  Interpretation facilities showing history of the area, the Fens in general etc – 1 respondent  Is there any way of imposing a minimum garden size for the size of each house? – 1 respondent  Open spaces free from dogs – 1 respondent  Ponds and streams – 1 respondent  Purpose built BBQs in the country park – 1 respondent  Rustic woodland for walking and enjoyment of trees and perhaps natural pond stream – 1 respondent  Wildlife area or gardens – 1 respondent

Cycling/transport infrastructure:

 Cycle paths – 5 respondents  Good cycle networks – in and beyond development with separation from busy roads – 5 respondents  Footpaths/walks – 4 respondents  Bridleway – 1 respondent  Covered bus stops – 1 respondent  Cycle parks – 1 respondent  Heliport until roads improve – 1 respondent  Zebra crossings – 1 respondent

Other suggestions

 Provision for Gypsy Site pitches to ensure future pitch targets are met and positioned in sustainable areas – 1 respondent

Question12: The Strategic Transport Plan has identified key pressure points on the road network for mitigating measures - are there other junctions/areas that should also be considered?

 The A10 - 9 respondents  Add an extra junction to the A10 at the north end of the development – 8 respondents  Kings Avenue/Lynn Road junction – 8 respondents  Cycle/pedestrian routes from new development into city centre and station– 7 respondents  Railway station area - 6 respondents  Design of the spine road will encourage traffic from the north and east side of the development to use Lynn Road or through the middle of the west side of the development – 5 respondents  Lynn Road – 4 respondents  Pedestrian crossings on Cam Drive – 3 respondents

Agenda Item 14 – page 14  Pedestrian crossings on Lynn Road -3 respondents  Traffic calming on Cam Drive – 3 respondents  20mph limit in city centre – 2 respondents  A10/A142/Witchford Road junction – 2 respondents  Any new large scale residential/retail/light industrial development should be designed with the A10 as the main route in and out – 2 respondents  One-way system in city centre -2 respondents  Pedestrian crossings on school routes – 2 respondents  Rail station at Chettisham - 2 respondents  Roundabout at Stretham – 2 respondents  Stop HGVs using Ely as a through route – especially Kings Avenue, Lynn Road, Cam Drive – 2 respondents  Traffic calming measures – 2 respondents  3 roundabouts on Lynn Road are essential at Kings Avenue and 2 junctions to north off Lynn Road – 1 respondent  7.5 tonne weight limit 8am-7pm within Ely – 1 respondent  A10/A142/ Angel Drove junction – 1 respondent  A142/Lancaster Way Roundabout – 1 respondent  Attractive, sensibly priced service bus service – 1 respondent  Broad Street – 1 respondent  Cam Drive/Stour Green roundabout too high needs lowering – 1 respondent  Centre of Ely should receive similar treatment to the Gallery, to emphasise that this is a busy pedestrian area rather than a through route to the south of Ely – 1 respondent  Davidson Road/ Lynn Road junction (hospital access) – 1 respondent  Grange Lane/Lynn Road junction – 1 respondent  'Highflyer' link road could be constructed to join the A10 fully on Phase 1 – 1 respondent  Improvements at the junction with Queen Adelaide Way - 1 respondent  Kings Avenue / High Barns junction – 1 respondent  Lisle Lane /Prickwillow Road roundabout – 1 respondent  Prickwillow Road – 1 respondent  Stop on-street parking on Lynn road, the bottom of Kings Avenue, St Mary's Street – 1 respondent  The proposed new A10 junction should be nearer Chettisham to allow better access to the new development and will reduce congestion and vehicle hold-ups at two close by roundabouts – 1 respondent  The current new roundabout is too close to the existing Downham Road junction, and is the fed by too large a proportion of the new development. You are almost designing in congestion on the new High Flyer avenue – 1 respondent  Traffic calming measures in Queen Adelaide - 1 respondent

Question13: How could residents of North Ely be encouraged to use public transport?

 Improved bus service (reliable, affordable, frequent) – 33 respondents  Better Bus timetable information – 10 respondents  Open Chettisham rail station – 8 respondents  Regular and frequent buses to and from Ely station – 8 respondents

Agenda Item 14 – page 15  More direct routes – 6 respondents  Bus stops need to be covered, lit, prominent, safe feeling and contain journey/timetable information – 5 respondents  Difficult to persuade people out of their cars – 5 respondents  Segregated cycle lanes not just in North Ely but the rest of the city as well – 5 respondents  Evening bus service/ until midnight – 4 respondents  Buses need to be properly integrated with other bus and rail services - timetables, tickets etc – 3 respondents  Expand parking at Ely Railway Station – 3 respondents  Extending the existing round-city routes – 2 respondents  Make better use of Dial a Ride – 2 respondents  Make sure every bus is an accessible/low level bus – 2 respondents  Make using bus more convenient, easier/cheaper than car – 2 respondents  non-stop bus to the Science Park, Chesterton and the Centre of Cambridge that ran every 15 minutes from 7am - 10am – 2 respondents  Restricted lanes to make bus journeys more efficient than car journeys – 2 respondents  Will be difficult to operate on a commercially sustainable basis – 2 respondents  20mph speed limit – 1 respondent  A better Sunday service – 1 respondent  A bus that passes through Prickwillow and Queen Adelaide – 1 respondent  A larger local centre with a larger anchor supermarket in the north to reduce number of journeys to other Ely stores – 1 respondent  A loyalty scheme – 1 respondent  An Oyster car type system to improve rapidity of access, egress – 1 respondent  Angel Drove car park should take phone parking payments – 1 respondent  A robust regime of parking control – 1 respondent  Better rail service to Cambridge and London – 1 respondent  Buses should have wifi – 1 respondent  Bus service to Littleport Station – 1 respondent  Charge pensioners for their bus pass and charge for parking and use money to reduce fairs for others – 1 respondent  Distances are hardly worth the bother waiting for a bus! This is where making cycling more attractive and safe would be a better strategy – 1 respondent  Ensure it goes to Princess of Wales Hospital and community activity hubs – 1 respondent  Free transport – 1 respondent  Free travel for the first month as part of their staff pack – 1 respondent  Improved station parking for bikes – 1 respondent  More light controlled crossings on roads needed for safety of pedestrians – 1 respondent  New bus station once Tesco moves – 1 respondent  New rail station at Queen Adelaide – 1 respondent  North Ely rail station – 1 respondent  Paradise car park would be an ideal place for a city centre transport hub once the Leisure Centre has moved – 1 respondent  Park and ride - 1 respondent

Agenda Item 14 – page 16  People need cars to drive to work, often far away from Ely. Also shopping in large supermarkets on edge of town – 1 respondent  Provide a bus service 24 hours a day 7 days a week – 1 respondent  Provide a proper transport interchange at Ely Rail Station – 1 respondent  Reduce the need to travel long distances by providing alternative locally in the areas of employment, schooling, shopping and entertainment – 1 respondent  Season tickets for frequent users – 1 respondent  Strengthened route 9 via Lynn Road might be useful – 1 respondent  Unrealistic aim. Buses are unreliable, infrequent. Train station is in south Ely – 1 respondent

Question14: What key destinations should cycle, pedestrian and bus links from the development be provided to?

What key destinations should cycle, pedestrian and bus links from the development be provided to? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count City Centre 94.3% 66 Train station 98.6% 69 Market Street (for bus stops) 64.3% 45 Downham Road Leisure site 65.7% 46 Cambridgeshire Business Park 47.1% 33 Lancaster Way Business Park 55.7% 39 Other (please specify) 26 answered question 70 skipped question 11

Other suggestions:

 Medical Centres/hospitals – 5 respondents  Local villages – 3 respondents  Cambridge – 2 respondents  Chettisham rail station – 2 respondents  Cycle paths away from roads where possible – 2 respondents  Schools - 2 respondents  Ask residents – 1 respondent  Build a bus station at the train station and link with both in one go – 1 respondent  Bus routes all over the new housing development – 1 respondent  Cycleways are essential, but their continuation beyond the North Ely area is essential also – 1 respondent  Dedicated cycle paths – not dual use – 1 respondent  Don’t want cycle ways with long indirect routes with breaks – 1 respondent  Everywhere – 1 respondent  I have a car - why would I use them – 1 respondent

Agenda Item 14 – page 17  I have not ticked Downham Road Leisure Park at this point as I would like to see sports facilities in North Ely – 1 respondent  I have not ticked Market Street as I would like to see the buses interchange by the station – 1 respondent I have not ticked Lancaster Way as I am not sure how many people would use it – 1 respondent  Littleport - village centre and train station – 1 respondent  Maintain footpaths and pavements for safe walking – 1 respondent  North Ely Sports site – 1 respondent  Proposed new Tesco site – 1 respondent  Safe crossing on A10 if Leisure site goes ahead – 1 respondent  Safe road crossing for pedestrian’s cyclists – 1 respondent  Sainsbury’s – 1 respondent  Tesco – 1 respondent Waitrose – 1 respondent  What is wrong with leaving Ely as it is please? – 1 respondent

Question15: Exemplar development is defined as development that demonstrates a high quality of architectural design and sustainable construction/living. Do you agree with this definition?

Exemplar development is defined as development that demonstrates a high quality of architectural design and sustainable construction/living. Do you agree with this definition? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Yes 59.4% 41 No 14.5% 10 Don't know 26.1% 18 If you do not agree, how would you define it? 24 answered question 69 skipped question 12

 Definition should include sustainability in terms of energy, water and waste e.g. water and energy neutral sustainable construction/living – 5 respondents  Also - design reflecting the spirit of the place – 1 respondent  At this point in history, any new buildings that are not utilising the knowledge we have is a waste of time and money. Build houses as much as possible with south facing roofs so they can fit solar panels (or fit them from the start). Don't completely finish a house - leave the attic with a staircase but let the new occupants decide how they use it. Offer houses where the garden and kitchen are not complete at an affordable price so young couples yet to have kids can experience creating their own home, put together their house themselves. Self build plots - there must be enough people, especially baby boomers round here with the money who would love to give it a go. Make cars guests, make it hard for them to go fast, park where they shouldn't (trees, planters etc) and yet

Agenda Item 14 – page 18 provide obvious, well appointed visitor parking so when you have your family over to see your new baby, they can actually park without causing the neighbourhood to grind to a halt. The worst thing you can do is not provide proper parking, this doesn't discourage cars, and it encourages bad habits and dangerous behaviour. To summarise, it should be about living, and living well but not having to be rich, feeling proud of your street, feeling safe and secure – 1 respondent  Definition OK but proposals don't line up to it. Where is the promised green buffer between North Ely and Chettisham? Messy allotments have now appeared instead. Also new is an extension to the industrial estate at Chettisham creating more noise disturbance and lorry traffic – 1 respondent  Developments should be of good quality houses that people enjoy living in – 1 respondent  Does this question apply to this site or the word definition? If the site we have yet to see finalised detail – 1 respondent  High density is good and green - think Cambridge Acordis development. Don't understand why green housing is low density – 1 respondent  I am fed up with housing developments of higgled de piggledy up and down heights of houses. Too many 3 storey houses blocking light into smaller houses. Variety needed more self build – 1 respondent  I am not convinced that this development will meet this definition – 1 respondent  I don't think that they are looking at the bigger picture – 1 respondent  I hope this time 3 storey houses are not used at high points – 1 respondent  It should also include for each development zone ( urban village, suburbia, arcadia etc) minimum space requirements per person, minimum inhabitable room sizes, requirements for space to be flexible in its use to 'future proof' its use by inhabitants, a garden area (communal or private) for every housing unit, and agreed maximum housing density – 1 respondent  It should demonstrate excellent quality of architectural and urban design, sensitivity to its context and sustainability in construction and in use – 1 respondent  I would also add providing privacy, good cycle access, enough room inside houses (which does not mean a toilet on every floor plus en-suites!), Decent gardens, decent communal parks, access to shops, libraries, leisure facilities (e.g. cinema, ice-rink, skate park, community rooms etc). AND organising roads so that there's no rat runs, and that there are zebra crossings - i.e. people and cycles come first, then cars. AND during construction, making sure that existing residents are not put at risk through increased traffic or noise or pollution – 1 respondent  That may be its definition but how many people would understand it without it being explained? Better to use more words to describe what it means so it's clear – 1 respondent  The houses on the hospital site were designed to create the maximum number of houses. Maintenance of the houses has been very difficult and therefore costly to the owner because of poor design - and placement of equipment, so that access of some areas has been very problematic – 1 respondent  The new Tesco development is an example of the council not being aware of what good individual design is - they need to take lots of advice – 1 respondent

Agenda Item 14 – page 19  The usual rhetoric is being used as a means of justifying damage that will be done to the community – 1 respondent  This is too narrow, there has got to be a high weight to the relevance of the development, sticking more houses in Ely for people who work in Cambridge just because housing in Ely is more affordable makes no sense – 1 respondent  Wish to add the statement that it also includes provision of ample and imaginatively presented green space, open to all – 1 respondent  Worthy of imitation – 1 respondent

Question 16: Should public art or other landmarks be used to give local identity to each different neighbourhood?

Should public art or other landmarks be used to give local identity to each different neighbourhood? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Yes 46.4% 32 No 39.1% 27 Don't know 14.5% 10 answered question 69 skipped question 12

Question 17: How can we avoid streets being blocked by parked cars?

How can we avoid streets being blocked by parked cars? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count On-plot parking 92.1% 58 Parking courts limited to 8 spaces 20.6% 13 Visitor parking on street 25.4% 16 Adequate width streets 60.3% 38 Other (please specify) 42 answered question 63 skipped question 18

Other suggestions:

 Adequate on-plot spaces and garages (at least 2-3 spaces) – 10 respondents  Double yellow lines/parking restrictions – 8 respondents  The current state of parking on various estates around Ely clearly demonstrate the failure of the model whereby people are expected to park at the back of their houses in parking courts to leave the street in front free – 5 respondents  Wider roads – 5 respondents  Do not limit parking courts to only 8 spaces – 3 respondents  Enforcement of restrictions – 4 respondents Agenda Item 14 – page 20  Some main routes already have parked cars both sides of roadway. Deacons Lane, Broad Street and Lynn Road – 3 respondents  Link on-plot parking spaces to the size of property i.e. At least 1 off street car space per bedroom – 2 respondents  15 min spaces for deliveries – 1 respondent  A more extensive one way system around the town centre, to include Newnham Street, parts of Prickwillow road, High/New Barns, Deacons Lane area – 1 respondent  Adequate sized garaging – ensure garages are large enough for cars – 1 respondent  Adequate width streets encourages excessive speed – 1 respondent  Allowing Endurance to amend direct access to the A10 to sending 2,000 extra cars through a winding route through the housing estates won't help, it will cause chaos – 1 respondent  Bollards might mitigate the problem – 1 respondent  Build in 4 cycle parking places per house, maybe even lockable, covered spaces – 1 respondent  By designing it with enough capacity to be fit for purpose not only for now but for future levels – 1 respondent  Clamping system or impound – 1 respondent  Does every house really need its own garage? – 1 respondent  Don't allow on street parking – 1 respondent  Don't assume that everyone will walk/cycle even if the shop is 5 minutes walk – 1 respondent  Don't build the houses – 1 respondent  Encourage public transport with good bus and rail services plus high quality and safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists - fewer cars result – 1 respondent  If people might park on the roads, set aside room for them – 1 respondent  Limit the number of houses built – 1 respondent  Make the main roads red routes – 1 respondent  Mixture of the above would allow for fluctuating car numbers and visitors – 1 respondent  No parking on street, except for blue badge spaces, robustly monitored for non-blue badge vehicles – 1 respondent  Park-and-ride service – 1 respondent  Parking courts and garages are usually quite ugly – 1 respondent  Parking courts are counterproductive – 1 respondent  Parking courts specifically for vans – 1 respondent  Parking permits for residents and essential medical/nursing visitors provided care – 1 respondent  Parking restriction on overnight and long term parking – 1 respondent  Provide a generous amount of visitor parking – 1 respondent  Provide lay-bys – 1 respondent  Provide proper car parking for everyone - including residents without garage or parking space at their residence – 1 respondent  Provide proper streets with pavements and cycle ways – 1 respondent

Agenda Item 14 – page 21  Stop limiting the number of parking spaces for new developments it is unrealistic and counterproductive as it causes the exact problem you are seeking to address here – 1 respondent  The overuse of garages for personal storage space results in owners vehicles being parked on drives and on roads – 1 respondent – 1 respondent  Visitor parking on street cannot be managed effectively – 1 respondent

Question 18: The SPD aims to ensure the new development has a good overall balance between housing, business, retail, open space and community facilities. Do you think this has been achieved?

The SPD aims to ensure the new development has a good overall balance between housing, business, retail, open space and community facilities. Do you think this has been achieved? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Yes 35.7% 25 No 25.7% 18 Don't know 38.6% 27 If not, what changes would you like to see that would improve 30 this balance? answered question 70 skipped question 11

 Not convinced balance will be achieved. 'aims to' does not mean 'will'. Time will tell, but this balance is vital and needs 100% commitment to it written into the plan – 4 respondents  I would like to see far more concrete plans to attract more jobs to the North Ely area – 2 respondents  Vehicular access and solid alternatives to driving need to be looked at again as it is clear insufficient provisions have been made in the current plan – 2 respondents  A shop and business units are very important.  A food retail outlet to include a chemist would be useful to residents in this development. This would also provide jobs.  As long as you remain in strict control of the building  Business Park at Chettisham adjacent to railway  Concerned that some of the designated open space - especially on the north-east edges of the site - might in the far future be under pressure for further development – 1 respondent  Don’t think the retail centre will provide adequate facilities – 1 respondent  Doubt whether the jobs target is realisable under the present plans – 1 respondent  Drs, hospital site inadequate parking, Post Office, Library – 1 respondent  Except for large houses – 1 respondent  Existing hopes to attract jobs to the Ely area have not succeeded, and there is no reason to think that this development will do anything other than appeal, on a price basis, to

Agenda Item 14 – page 22 commuters to Cambridge or London, as experienced in the estates in the west of Ely – 1 respondent  I do not approve this development going ahead and think it will spoil Ely further, and increase congestion on the A10 to Cambridge – 1 respondent  Is there any/enough provision made for the gypsy or travelling community accommodation, space, plots? – 1 respondent  I wonder how much business use will be permitted or taken up – 1 respondent  Little Downham sports facilities need to be developed first – 1 respondent  More info needed to decide – 1 respondent  More space should be designated as an Employment area in the very north against the railway line, possibly including land the other side of the railway line, and Ely North Business/Research Park. – 1 respondent  My fear is that infrastructure will lag behind and that insufficient jobs will follow the new homes.  Need far more places to work – 1 respondent  Negotiate with railways re trains on bikes, otherwise people will use cars and drive to out of town centres – 1 respondent  North Ely is a wasteland, crying out for community and retail infrastructure – 1 respondent  North Ely could take a much bigger supermarket than 600sqft as an anchor to the new larger local centre in the north. Too many of these new people in the very north will be travelling all the way to the other side of Ely to access shops, Tesco and rail services otherwise - 1 respondent  Not enough retail space – 1 respondent  Not in Chettisham, we get no green buffer as promised. We get messy allotments instead. We get more industrial, creating more lorry traffic and noise – 1 respondent  Not sure that the only 'business use' are stuck on the edge of the development and an existing industrial estate will deliver jobs – 1 respondent  Not sure that the Princess of Wales is capable of delivering adequate level of facilities – 1 respondent  Not yet, I've not seen any evidence of it in Ely, the opposite. It is rapidly turning into a dormitory town and is in dire need of more shops and community facilities outside of the centre (just not the other side of the A10) – 1 respondent  Really concerned that there is no cycling infrastructure in Ely – 1 respondent  The best way to encourage better designed houses is to allow smaller developers and self builders to build houses – 1 respondent  The Local centres should be merged into one larger one (probably at the northernmost site) to allow greater critical mass and footfall to make it more viable – 1 respondent  The residential nature of North Ely makes it an inappropriate location for B2 employment uses and employment should be restricted to B1 Uses. Employment focus should be at Lancaster Way Business Park in an effort to encourage further development of this regionally important employment hub, which is increasingly widening the diversity of job opportunities it offers. Disbursed employment provision risks the loss of cross fertilization opportunities and sharing of staff. Any work hub focus should be Lancaster Way focused with improved links between the residential area and the business park encouraged – 1 respondent  There is too much development devoted to 'affordable housing' – 1 respondent

Agenda Item 14 – page 23  There needs to be a major supermarket to attract other outlets and provide an attractive enough retail offer to be of use to the area – 1 respondent  There seems to be a reliance on attracting people who work from home – 1 respondent  Too much 'suburbia' development at Lynn Road/Cam Drive – 1 respondent  We need more large shops in the station. Will bring more people to Ely and jobs too – 1 respondent  Where are the 'business spaces'? What businesses will want to be based in a housing estate? – 1 respondent

Question 19: Additional Comments

Character of Ely:

 Combined with the other planned developments around Ely, I am really not sure that I want to remain here - the beautiful medieval city which I moved here for surrounded by acres of new development and less and less convenient facilities on its outskirts – 1 respondent  Ely Council has shown itself remarkably open to removing the historic character of Ely and blighting what little scope for independent business (especially shops) exists so far, so it would be nice if the promises here materialise – 1 respondent  Ely has already grown rapidly and changed for the worse in the 13 years we've lived close to it – 1 respondent  Ely is expanding too quickly and becoming too large. Will not retain its character – 1 respondent  Overall this seems a poorly considered plan lacking in architectural merit and ignoring the vernacular architectural styles of Ely. The impression is that this will be yet another off the peg uninspiring development as produced by the national developers all over Britain. Ely deserves better if it is to attract and retain the sort of people that are needed to stimulate the local economy – 1 respondent  The Cathedral is by far the most important central focus for this area and it is vital that sightlines are preserved, and even emphasised, by the layout of buildings and roads/paths – 1 respondent

Employment:

 B1 (b and c), B2 and B8 employment should be focused towards Lancaster Way Business Park with B1a provision only at North Ely to ensure the success of the Council's district-wide employment strategy – 1 respondent  Be mindful that a large proportion of the new residents will not be able to find a job in Ely and will end up commuting to Cambridge using an oversubscribed transport network on all modes – 1 respondent  Bigger Business Park next to railway in north, possibly look at new station there in longer term "Ely Parkway", plus additional business area on other side of railway line – 1 respondent  Employment potential is unlikely to be achieved.  Put stronger emphasis on creating local jobs before creating more houses – 1 respondent

Housing:

Agenda Item 14 – page 24  It would be good to have dormer type housing architecturally designed for older people, e.g.  Millbrook House in Soham – 3 respondents  Self build should be actively encouraged – 2 respondents  Don't make houses face each other directly, stagger the windows and the design, so a) people can't look from one house to the next and (b) so that the whole estate isn't homogeneous – 1 respondent  Local people should be given absolute priority for social housing on this development – 1 respondent  The affordable housing should be delivered and maintained by a Community Land Trust – 1 respondent  The shortage of all housing is in the 1 bedroom – 1 respondent  The new development has too many large houses, between 7-14% is proposed 5 (and more) bedroom houses but only 3-5% is proposed 1 bed houses. There will be greater demand for smaller, more affordable homes than the larger houses – 1 respondent  We should not build a single house anywhere in Britain, let alone an already overcrowded county like Cambridgeshire. The good quality arable land is needed for growing food to feed an out of control population – 1 respondent  Why not use existing empty properties/factory units as cheap housing for poorer workers or as retirement apartments for older generations who struggle with their high council tax bill which in most cases costs (can't read) their annual heating bill – 1 respondent  Your stated aim is for 3,000 extra houses. Endurance have 1,200 planned and Church Commissioners 800 planned totalling 2,000. Where do you intend to put the extra 1,000 houses? – 1 respondent

Infrastructure:

 There should be on site healthcare facilities – 4 respondents  Proposed supermarket needs to be bigger – 3 respondents  Are there enough spaces for children at Ely College in 10 years time?  Broadband link - 1 respondent  Could the area allotted for a place of worship be multifaith? 1 respondent  Is Ely also getting a cinema? 1 respondent  Need more water, more electricity supply, before this is built - 1 respondent  Plot northwest of second primary school to be allocated for health provision – 1 respondent  Princess of Wales needs to expand to provide next level of health care - 1 respondent  Should the allotments be in amongst the houses not on the outskirts? 1 respondent  The site should include Post Office facilities - 1 respondent

Open spaces:

 ECDC should not be persuaded by money hungry developers into giving over more green space – 1 respondent  Footpaths/bridleways onto droves need gates to prevent four by fours using them – 1 respondent  Put in trees – 1 respondent

Agenda Item 14 – page 25  The previous inclusion of a 'greenway' between the development and Morton close seems to be in doubt now. This is an essential requirement to mitigate the loss of the green view enjoyed at present by residents who chose to live on the city boundary precisely for this reason. The greenway barrier/screen needs to be planned early and planted up - as plants take time to grow! 1 respondent  The extension of the Country Park will do nothing for the everyday quality of life for those residents who will not even be able to see the Country Park from their houses – 1 respondent

Public Art/Landmarks

 Bigger priorities exist than that to spend your money on – 2 respondents  Not if expensive – 2 respondents  Some public art fine, but only if very high quality/appropriate with agreement of people living nearby  trees, green spaces, shelters, seats etc should all be used to give local identity as in the Garden Cities - needs to be high quality – 1 respondent  We have seen too many inappropriately placed totem poles. This question epitomises my concern about the whole development: that it will be bland - rather like when seeing Ely from the bypass travelling north and there will be very little local identity - and that areas with identity will be at risk of swamping by anodyne new growth. People's lack of concern about this can be seen in the reluctance to defend the Cathedrals prospect from the east – 1 respondent  Yes to public art but not at the expense of facilities – 1 respondent  You cannot create 'a local identity' to a neighbourhood. This is false - as residents/business will make their own neighbourhoods – 1 respondent

Sports facilities:

 Re question 10 - both Downham Road and separate sports facilities in North Ely should be developed – 1 respondent  Re question 10 - prime sports facility should be central – 1 respondent  The proposed underpass to Downham Road cinema site should be a foot bridge over the road for safety and security – 1 respondent  The Downham Road Leisure site is scheduled solely for outdoor recreation, and I do not consider sports halls, cinemas, swimming pools and restaurants to be in this category. This sort of development should be in the area south of Ely, within walking distance of the town centre, and served by transport calling at the station and retail/employment areas beyond – 1 respondent  We’ve seen nothing about the proposed DR site, which I fear will be another expensive monthly subscription gym and a flume-based play pool. Bring on the flumes for the kids, but for the general health and wellbeing of residents, more plain and functional facilities are needed, again before the population increases - and then there's leisure facilities for the doubtless bored teenage contingent.....please, please can these elements be addressed before building starts in earnest! 1 respondent

Transport:

 Worried about the extra traffic on the A10 – 2 respondents  Concerns re farm vehicles accessing High Flyer Farm via Kings Avenue – 1 respondent

Agenda Item 14 – page 26  Could you make all the new development 20mph? 1 respondent  Cycling routes to the city centre and railway station must be put in place from Ely North – 1 respondent  Ensure sufficient off-street parking to reduce or even eliminate on-street parking e.g. new through road from Lynn Road to Queen Adelaide blighted by on-street parking – 1 respondent  However hard the planners try at the end of the day people need cars to get around so adequate parking must be provided – 1 respondent  I don't see how the timings on this will not lead to a horrific effect on the infrastructure, especially the station area. Already there are no parking places by 7am, and with the best will in the world, most of the new residents will doubtless use their cars rather than cycle or walk to the station. Parking provision, both in terms of number of spaces and facilities (pay and park at Angel Drove, probably another public loo) surely needs to be addressed before more houses are built? 1 respondent  I live in North Ely and every day I battle with HGVs, bad drivers and poor cycle infrastructure. We know that once you have built these 3000 homes, there will be more cars than ever and any attempts at public transport will be half hearted unsuccessful. I know that you will get away with putting in shared pedestrian/cycle provision that will still end just when you needed the reassurance and we will be left waiting to cross busy roads, being splashed in the face by speeding lorries – 1 respondent  I welcome many aspects of this development in providing a pleasant and sustainable environment for North Ely residents but the harsh economic reality I have already mentioned will create an unpleasant and congested road and public transport network not just for North Ely but for all Ely residents – 1 respondent  If you put in speed humps, leave spaces for bikes – 1 respondent  Improve the ease of access to and from the road network to the new development, access to A10 is insufficient, access towards the A142 is near inexistent, currently relying on residential roads that have too many cars parked on them to be effective – 1 respondent  In the more detailed planning of developments, limit the routes used by construction traffic to cause as little disruption as possible – 1 respondent  It is vital that construction vehicles are not allowed into Ely during school run times - they are the most dangerous type of vehicle – 1 respondent  Make it easy for kids to cross the roads – 1 respondent  Most of Lynn Road already feels unsafe to cyclists and there is nothing in the plans to improve it – 1 respondent  Please add zebra crossings to Lynn Road (and Cam drive). Notably at the crossing point to get to the path from Lynn Road to High Barns – 1 respondent  Please design first for people and cycles, then the car – 1 respondent  Put a proper public transport system in place, the Norfolk Green service is a start, but its single route tries to address too much and does it badly – 1 respondent  The relief bridge is a priority – 1 respondent  There is no benefit to the existing residents of Ely in this development. Instead, we will have more traffic and congestion in the cramped and ancient streets of the city centre – 1 respondent  This proposal consequently puts too great a reliance on the A10 Bypass as the access route, AND on the one new junction to serve the whole new development. Move this junction further north about 1/3rd of the way up the new High Flyer Avenue, and allow existing Cam Drive/Downham Rd junction to serve the South Eastern segment of the new area, via the lower 1/3rd of the new High Flyer Avenue – 1 respondent

Agenda Item 14 – page 27  This whole development has got to be relentlessly focussing on sustainability. That means taking steps at every turn to reduce car use – 1 respondent  Traffic noise will equally be even more of a problem than it already is. I hope that the promised remedial works to Lynn road will also include some more tree planting to ameliorate the noise, and will take place at the beginning of the development period before the new houses are occupied – 1 respondent

Comments on SPD document and previous plans:

 I am pleased that the latest plan has removed the proposed side road along our boundary and has put in Woodland/community orchard instead. Will there be another plan or is this now it? 1 respondent  I hope the pub at the cam drive roundabout is no longer on the plan – 1 respondent  Legal agreements with the developers need to be scrutinised meticulously so that roads and services are adopted with maximum speed – 1 respondent  Plan was 1,200 + 700 houses, now 3,000 – 1 respondent  The SPD is premature as it pre-dates the conclusion of the Local Plan Examination in Public – 1 respondent  This planned development will only work if planning permission is granted for ALL PHASES and not completed in pieces. Has all areas of land identified been agreed/approved for release i.e. have all farmers agreed to sell? 1 respondent  We went to view plans (in fields behind Orchard Estate) shown was a green wide border behind our gardens. This is now illustrated as brown development area, alongside road (why is this?) 1 respondent

Other

 Anything that serves to increase the permanent population will inevitably degrade the quality of life of the individuals in that population. Already we have suffered a strain on our healthcare services and greatly increased traffic congestion as a result of migration – 1 respondent  Deeply concerned for the wildlife protection – 1 respondent  I personally feel that we should get what we have right before we create Ely North – 1 respondent  I would also like to point out the many problems that still exist in newer developments in Ely where roads and some open spaces remain unadopted with inconvenient and unpleasant consequences for the residents – 1 respondent  If people want to live in densely populated areas let them move to the cities and leave the more rural areas to those who prefer a quieter existence – 1 respondent  Some people only move to the regions to capitalise on massive rises in property values in London and the South. Why pander to them at the expense of the rest – 1 respondent  The new road leading from Thistle Corner (Highflyer Avenue) will increase the traffic through Queen Adelaide. The opening of King's Avenue also increased traffic through the village. NO investment in Queen Adelaide was received from the Cathedral View development. Some must be put into the village from this development (not just the development of sports facilities at Downham Road). The Village Hall is the only public/community facility that Queen Adelaide has left and money to improve the village hall at least should be received from what was S106 funding – 1 respondent  This questionnaire is laid out with questions relevant to people who would support a housing expansion - not for people like myself who are opposed to it! 1 respondent

Agenda Item 14 – page 28  Whilst the attempt to create a balanced community is very laudable, I feel it will be largely unsuccessful,and this area will be another dormitory estate with a fringe of trees around it – 1 respondent  Will any of this be read? 1 respondent  You will not listen to considered views about this development as you have already made up your minds – 1 respondent  You'd be better off spending the money on regenerating the centre of town, improving the Paradise Sports Centre, creating more parking at the station and better bus links to it, and supporting small shops and businesses to attract shoppers – 1 respondent  You do not have my approval of this ill considered development – 1 respondent

Agenda Item 14 – page 29 CAMBRIDGESHIRE QUALITY PANEL

REPORT OF PANEL MEETING

Scheme: North Ely Supplementary Planning Document

Date: 4th November 2013 Venue: Council Chamber, East Cambridgeshire District Council, Ely Time: 9:45 -12:50

Quality Panel Members John Worthington (Chair) Simon Carne Lynne Sullivan David Prichard Meredith Bowles David Birkbeck

Panel secretariat and support Judit Carballo – Cambridgeshire County Council Stuart Clarke – Cambridgeshire County Council Local Authority Attendees Giles Hughes – Head of Planning, East Cambridgeshire District Council Shirley Blake – Principal Sustainable Development Officer, East Cambridgeshire District Council Jane Thompson – Special Projects Officer, North Ely, East Cambridgeshire District Council Sue Wheatley – Principal Development Management Officer, East Cambridgeshire District Council Sue Finlayson – Team Leader, Development Control, and case officer for the Endurance application. East Cambridgeshire District Council Wendy Hague – Forward Planning Officer, East Cambridgeshire District Council Sarah Ratcliffe – Forward Planning Officer, East Cambridgeshire District Council

Agenda Item 14 – page 30 1. Scheme description and presentation Local Authority East Cambridgeshire District Council Planning status Draft SPD

2. Overview The draft North Ely Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was approved for public consultation by East Cambridgeshire District Council in September 2013. It sets out the planning requirements for the development of a new community in North Ely for up to 3,000 houses, indicating the design and development principles which must be met to enable a high quality extension to a special City. The draft SPD is currently out for consultation and will close on the 6th December 2013. The SPD brings together the council’s and developers’ vision from the original North Ely Development Framework and the landowner’s Joint Strategic Masterplan.

The draft Local Plan is programmed for examination in public in February 2014 and it is expected to be adopted in July 2014. The local plan sets out the longer term policy requirements to manage growth in Ely.

The proposed development site is currently in agricultural use and covers approximately 200 hectares. It is bound to the north-east by a railway line, to the south by the existing built up area of Ely, to the west by the A10 and to the north-west by the small hamlet of Chettisham. The overall site is divided into two main parcels of land with Lynn Road traversing north- south between the two. The Council anticipates that the development may involve up to 4 separate planning applications.

Outline planning applications have already been submitted by the Church Commissioners for Phase 1 of their development of 800 dwellings, and from Endurance Estates for 1200 dwellings. It is anticipated that these will be considered for determination in March 2014. A planning application is also anticipated shortly from Cambridgeshire County Council for the first primary school, off Cam Drive, scheduled to open in September 2015.

The timescale for North Ely development is over a 20 year period.

Agenda Item 14 – page 31 3. Cambridgeshire Quality Panel views Introduction The Panel welcomed being able to review the North Ely SPD and the opportunity to visit the site which was very helpful in providing context for this review. The Panel also praised the council’s high aspirations for the development and emphasised the need to manage quality throughout the whole delivery process and implementation.

The Panel’s advice reflects the issues associated with each of the four ‘C’s’ in the Cambridgeshire Quality Charter. The comments below include both those raised in the open and closed session discussions.

Community The Panel were supportive of the community strategy set out in the North Ely SPD and welcomed the council’s approach in seeking a mixed and balanced community. They noted the requirement for self build options and possibly community-led housing. The Panel recognised the need for the right community facilities, and that these need to be provided at the right time; therefore the Panel welcomed the council’s keenness, along with members and senior officers, to ensure community facilities are operational from day one providing cluster facilities where possible in conjunction with a community hub and other community group uses.

The Panel noted that securing funds for facilities in the early years of development and for affordable housing will be fundamental for its success. It was also welcomed that there will be a Community Development Worker at the development.

Even at this stage of the planning process it is important that active potential ”changemakers” are identified in the surrounding communities and special interest groups to contribute to developing ideas for the future development and starting a process of community building.

Tourism was recognised as a successful part of Ely. The promotion of local facilities in the development was discussed and the Panel suggested organising Ely tours (once in a lifetime experience of Ely Cathedral for example) by establishing a bus route with departure on site, providing parking at North Ely. People using these buses could use the local facilities such as cafes and other shops before going on tour. Examples of this approach can be seen in places like Carcassonne (France) and other European cities.

Agenda Item 14 – page 32 It was suggested to the Panel that a Community Forum could be set up, similar to the model used for the Cambridge growth sites. The Panel supported this but felt it needed to be more than a participatory event; it needs to capture and energise the right people, the “change makers”, to take forward and development ideas.

Connectivity The Panel noted the council’s stated ambition on sustainable development for a city that largely relies on cars. The Panel welcomed that both site promoters are currently working on a transport strategy, but it will require behavioural change and comprehensive approach with the rest of Ely to make this work effectively.

The Panel challenged the perceived lack of promotion of public transport, especially buses, and although the Panel noted that there is no great historic use of buses in Ely, behavioural patterns will need to change if they want to achieve a sustainable development and reduce car usage. Therefore, it was suggested that the council should encourage bus support measures as these are one of the best modes of sustainable transport but it was recognised that the development is a challenging scheme and that s106 support will probably needed as an initial catalyst.

Council officers responded that incentivising public transport is one of the options that the council has considered. The Panel recommended exploring the route from Lynn Road towards the City Centre and the railway station and investigating links to the wider network.

The Panel also recommended being more specific on how to incentivise public transport and being more assertive to influence behaviour change. Ideas such as season tickets or other type of discounts when people first move into the site were raised during the meeting. The Panel suggested that pump-priming a bus route could be a good starting point and later deciding whether to create a new bus route or not if financially viable.

The Panel also discussed the semi-public or informal transport sector (e.g. dial-a-bus, community transport etc). It was suggested to work with the community to try to get them to organise themselves for getting the services that they will use. Such projects are valuable in building local community identity and developing social capital.

The impact of HS2 was mentioned by the Panel and its’ potential wider impact on Ely as a railway junction in the East of England.

Agenda Item 14 – page 33 Other issues discussed during the meeting were:

 Simplistic design of the Spine Road.  Better permeability to the hospital, MOD site and towards Ely city centre.  More northerly A10 connection and alternatives through Lynn Road.

There were a number of issues that the Panel considered that should be reinforced:

 How to move around the site.  Sustainability.  Long term strategy to build up on opportunities.

Character

The Panel highlighted the importance of green infrastructure; green space is important for the interface between the rural and the urban environments. The Panel welcomed the SUDs provision along with the multifunctional use of the space and provision of a community orchard and allotments. The Council suggested it may be beneficial to have the allotments in other parts of the development.

The Panel questioned who is managing the country park, would it be a Community Land Trust or a body such as the Woodland Trust. Is the term Country Park right for what is really Fen Edge? Perhaps call the space Fen Drove. The Panel also noted that the Country Park will be delivered in later phases of the development and questioned what will be provided from the outset of development. There seemed to be a lack of vision for the Country Park.

The Panel suggested use of green spaces to include mature trees and even the growing of young trees for a woodland - and even future use as timber. To ensure maintenance and management not becoming an undue burden on council revenue, semi public uses should be considered which retain the green character, allow controlled public access and create opportunities for local employment.

Agenda Item 14 – page 34 The design needs to make sure that it reflects the character of Ely – ‘Elyness’. The Panel suggested that allowing the unknown ‘messiness’ on the edges would provide as much character as, or even more than a controlled edge.

Climate As previously stated, the Panel welcomed the council’s goal of reducing car usage and were supportive of the job target ambition and its approach for a work hub that could reduce the use of cars.

The Panel considered transportation a key element in achieving a sustainable development. However, the Panel questioned whether people will travel to the city centre or just to the station and how many people will be using public transport facilities.

The Panel noted that code for sustainable homes level 4 and BREEAM ‘very good’ for non- domestic buildings will be applied. However, the Panel questioned how the SPD will achieve sustainability in the context of Zero Carbon buildings. The Panel reminded all that there needs to be a philosophy for achieving Zero Carbon and questioned how this will be achieved. The Panel suggested that developers should be using Zero carbon standards for community buildings.

The Panel recognised that flexible housing types could allow for other uses within the development. Therefore, designing live work homes would be essential as more people may be working from home in the future and/or setting up businesses from home.

4. Conclusion The Panel recognised the complexity of the site in having two promoters rather than one over- arching masterplanner. The Panel highlighted the importance of creating an exemplar environment that would set the standard for Ely North and Ely as a whole. The site needs to be planned holistically. The Panel also recognised the huge amount of work already undertaken, with all the documentation produced, but emphasised the need for quality to embedded through- out the process to ensure it is implemented in the final output.

Agenda Item 14 – page 35 The Panel made the following specific recommendations (further details of which can be found above):

 Facilitate a community forum to help identify specific groups that could lead, contribute and participate in the local community.  Keep ATLAS as a critical friend.  Use design coding, supported by an on-going Quality Team to provide a continuous process of review. The London Borough of Lewisham is using such an approach  Use “Experian Mosaic” which is a company that can look at the Ely area and analyse its demography as a comparator to similar areas and put forward ideas character areas.  Zero Carbon target for community buildings.

Agenda Item 14 – page 36 Appendix 2 - Summary of individual letters/emails received.

Index

1. English Heritage 2. Sustrans 3. Environment Agency 4. WYG Planning and Environment (on behalf of the Church Commissioners) 5. Cambridgeshire County Council 6. Gladman Developments Ltd 7. Indigo Planning (on behalf of Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd) 8. ECDC Conservation Officer 9. Natural England 10. Individual 11. Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) Cambridgeshire and Peterborough 12. Marine Management Organisation 13. Individual 14. The Ely Society 15. City of Ely Council 16. Anglian Water 17. Individual 18. Witcham Parish council 19. Mepal Parish Council 20. Individual 21. Individual 22. Councillor Ian Allen 23. Individual 24. Ely Cycling Campaign 25. Individual 26. Individual 27. Individual

Agenda Item 14 – page 37 No Organisation Comment Officer Response Amendment 1 English Heritage Development lies outside the conservation area but has implications for views of the cathedral and the setting of the historic city. See EH comments on the local plan on the location of the retail and community facilities that we would hope to see located in or adjoining the historic city centre in a complementary, supporting fashion. North Ely should be integrated into the historic city not just visually but functionally too. Welcome the statement Noted – officers consider that in Chapter 1 to this effect; the question is whether the SPD sets out this requirement SPD achieves this ambition. for integration

Note that the Ely Environmental Capacity Study (LDA Noted – but also aware that 2001) should figure strongly as key evidence. this document is over 10 years old. Section 2: Appreciating the Context Landscape Character – reference is made to the Natural England description as Character Area 46: The Fens. This is very broad-brush and neither Ely, nor this site, are Fen. Rather it offers views over the surrounding Fen. The Railway line also defines the Fen Edge. The 2001 Study could be referred to here. It should provide part of the landscape baseline.

Heritage As well as impacting on the 3 listed buildings (including Conservation aspects will be the cathedral) the development could impact on the taken into account through the

Agenda Item 14 – page 38 conservation area Environmental Statements accompanying each planning The site appraisal map (P 24/25) identifies 3 views of application. The SPD makes the Cathedral, two of which are “Quintessential Views” clear that Cathedral views (ref 2001 Study) which have greater significance. must be protected.

Section 3: Setting the Vision The Vision is aspirational but a bit ambiguous. Eg A definition of best practice Include additional text to reference to best practice but not what type of best and exemplar would be useful clarify definition of practice eg contemporary architecture, traditional to include in the document to exemplar/best practice design, sustainable construction, public realm. clarify expectations in section 3

Section 4: Key Structuring Principles This principle is already Principle 1a identifies as the unique rural setting to illustrated in the document in create a special place. Does this refer to the current site Diagram 2 (p17) which or the rural setting of Ely? Suggest a principle that expands on the “new interface requires the development to define a new edge to Ely, integrating urban and rural” that exploits the site’s relationship to the surrounding and the accompanying text rural landscape and the adjacent Cathedral city to describes “green linkage create a special place. between the development and the surrounding fen”

1a (vi) – discusses orientation of buildings, walkways The two are not necessarily etc to provide views however 2e refers to high exclusive. environmental standards which may require orientation of buildings to maximise solar gains.

1a (vii) – would be helpful for the SPD to define a See p22/23 of the SPD “Traditional Fen Manner” more clearly.

2a and 2a (1) consideration should be given to a range See section 4 p 60 which deals

Agenda Item 14 – page 39 of densities across the site – higher in and around the with density issues in more local centres. detail. Section 2 refers to achieving a balanced community.

2c – More consideration should be given to the local Agree. Section 2c (vi) refers to centres and the opportunity for positive public realm. the need for schools to be focal Important for schools not to become isolated and points of the community and fenced off areas divorced from other community section 4b refers to public facilities. The SPD should refer to potential views of the realm. cathedral from both local centres.

2e and 2e (vi) - refer to innovative and sustainable The two approaches are not building forms. This may sit uncomfortably alongside necessarily incompatible, local vernacular architecture. depending upon detailed design.

3a – Opportunity to create a strong spine for busses The focus should be on Lynn and cyclists along Lynn Rd and on to the station. While Road as a public transport the station may be seen as the anchor to the southern spine, as set out in 3 (f). The end of such a spine, it would be good to have another impact of traffic generation by anchor at the northern end eg the multi screen cinema ‘anchors’ needs to be development. considered.

4 – Some confusion in the document in references to The SPD section 2 p 20 refers the built traditions of the Fens and the historic built to both the townscape forms of Ely. They are not the same. While some of character of Ely and the built Amend section 2 p 20 to these differences are subtle, the document should be character of the surrounding. clarify more strongly that clearer. The development form should respond to Fens. Wording can be townscape character of

Agenda Item 14 – page 40 traditions found within the Island, especially where introduced to clarify that they Ely is different to built buildings are located on sloping ground. are not the same. However it traditions of Fens. should be noted that North Ely needs to act as an interface between the two.

4a – suggests that the second sentence should read “ Covered by 4a (ii). The built form should respond to and draw references from, the rich townscape traditions of historic Ely”

4a (i)– would be helpful to explain, with examples, the Design coding work will existing character and urban form of Ely. incorporate these details.

Welcome references to Ely’s finer grain, walkability and views of the cathedral and wider landscape.

4d (i)- Lynn Road should be considered for See 3a above enhancement as the spine into Ely.

Strategic Masterplan (before section 1) Plan shows 3 views to the Cathedral which broadly Agree – the glimpses of the Amend Strategic correlate with pages 24/25. However one key difference Cathedral from the A10 will be Masterplan to concerns the western most view arrow. On the site important to retain incorporate view from appraisal map this view is from the A10 (quintessential A10. view). On the Strategic Masterplan the viewpoint is the western edge of the local centre and views from the A10 could be blocked by development. Further work is required here to ensure this quintessential view is retained.

Agenda Item 14 – page 41 2 Sustrans Suggests a new foot/cycle bridge across the railway, A useful suggestion, which will allowing people to cycle from the development to be dependent upon viability Littleport. and priorities identified for available developer Suggests closing the old Ely- Littleport road to motor contribution funding. The traffic. Littleport Masterplan suggested provision of a cycleway running alongside the old Ely – Littleport road.

Need for good access to sports facilities via well Agree designed cycle and footways. Need for cycle routes to be included in the Strategic Transport Plan.

Design communities which make walking cycling and Incorporated into Masterplan public transport the obvious, easy ways to travel, so that residents will not be car dependent.

We support the proposal that the Spine Road will cede priority to pedestrians and cyclists at green link crossings. Other roads should also be the same.

Recommends a Highways Design Forum for N Ely To be investigated by officers Review need for a similar to that for Northstowe. Highways Design Forum

The SPD has too many vague phrases such as “where Reflects the areas where possible “ and “should/could” suggesting that the principles are required, and principles are optional. other areas where there may be flexibility. (Unable to read full comments on survey monkey

Agenda Item 14 – page 42 response – original text has been requested from respondent) 3 Environment The EA welcomes the SPD and overall agrees with the Agency principles. Pleased to see reference to sustainable urban drainage systems (SUD’s) but consider this should be expanded. Paragraph 1b(iii) We support in principle, however the SPD should provide guidance on overcoming related safety issues associated with the use of SUDS features in public open spaces (e.g. steep sided ponds or swales). We recommend that a sentence is added to paragraph 1b(iii) requiring applicants to demonstrate Agree Amend para 1b (iii) how SUDS features will be designed to avoid any safety risks associated with these, such as using shallow gradients and not fencing. We recommend that a statement is added to Principle The implications of this for the Review impact of this 1d to demonstrate that attenuation ponds will be wider development need to be suggestion with EA and designed to accommodate wildlife and enhance considered. incorporate into SPD if biodiversity. Requiring a retained water level in appropriate. attenuation ponds would add very significantly to the public realm of the open space through amenity and visible biodiversity. In Principle 2e (iii), we advise flexibility in the use of Amend para 2 e (iii) to pipework to accommodate rainwater or grey water Agree reflect example of retro harvesting as part of ‘retro-ready’ adaptability to climate ready connections change – can this be added as an explicit example? Whilst developers typically resist providing the full (but not cost preclusive) installation of rainwater harvesting, the house buyer who actually benefits from it could easily do so – either during construction through ‘fit to order’ or retro-fit some time after. However if connection

Agenda Item 14 – page 43 pipes are not retro-ready, the cost and inconvenience are usually preclusive to owners. The costs of making related pipe work retro-ready is small, but enormously significant in our view. We recommend that the following amendment is made to principle 2e (iv): ‘The use of a range of Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) techniques must be maximised and fully integrated into the street layout so that it is Agree – minor wording Amend para 2e (iv) aesthetically pleasing, effectively manages water and variation reduces flood risk, enhances biodiversity, provides a high standard of amenity for local residents and is a safe environment.’ As the development of North Ely is to take place in phases, we consider that a paragraph should be added Agree Add para 2e (viii) to to principle 2e which identifies the need for surface reflect surface water water drainage proposals to fit in with the overall drainage issues surface water drainage strategy, both temporarily during identified by the construction [to reduce flood risk plus manage pollution comment. from sediment, spills and mobilised nutrients], and upon completion.

We support reference to ‘drainage and flood prevention’ in the list of items for developer contributions.

In part 5 we recommend that the second paragraph under the heading ‘Future Management and Agree Add ‘’sustainable Maintenance’ is revised to include ‘sustainable drainage drainage features’ features’.

4 WYG Planning The Commissioners continue to support and are and Environment investing heavily in the development of the North Ely

Agenda Item 14 – page 44 (on behalf of the community. The SPD summarises much of the work Church that has already been undertaken through the Commissioners) development of a Joint Masterplan working in partnership with the Commissioners. We therefore support much of the SPD. The SPD seeks to set out a framework that seeks to positively shape the development of a sustainable community in North Ely. These are objectives which the Commissioners’ fully support. In setting out future aspirations and objectives, it’s critical that a balance is struck between providing certainty to future developers and decision makers as to what is expected, whilst not being overly prescriptive and setting out onerous requirements that could negatively impact on the future delivery of North Ely. There are occasions in the SPD where we consider a re-balance is required. In particular, it’s essential that future developers have the opportunity to respond to changing markets and Noted – review mechanisms therefore flexibility must be built into the implementation within the s106 agreements will and delivery mechanisms. In this light, we have set out provide this flexibility. below a summary of our key points. Whilst the aspiration to develop sustainable high quality neighbourhood is very much supported, we do have considerable concerns that the weight of infrastructure requirements falling upon developers of North Ely set in This concern will be addressed the draft SPD raise aspirations that will be difficult to through the S106 process meet.

In particular, there are some requirements that stand out and beyond that which we would usually expect or we consider reasonable to apply. We have included these below.

Agenda Item 14 – page 45 Key Structuring Principles These are requirements which 2a (iii) Requirements for self build and custom homes ECDC consider necessary to (5%), and flexible live work units (20%) enable North Ely to be a 2b (i) (ii) (iii) job generation targets and live work units sustainable community, one 2b vi) – The provision of fibre broadband as a condition which promotes conditions for of planning approval. home working and employment. The policy is due to be discussed at the local plan examination

We support the principle of mixed use communities, but the application of these requirements through the SPD and their implications require further thought. For example, how will custom homes be brought forward where they fall within a phase of development being constructed by a house builder? We do not consider the jobs target of 43-50 jobs per 100 dwellings to be realistic. North Ely is not, and we consider it unlikely to become, a strong employment location. These targets are very unlikely to be achieved. We also consider that there has been a Disagree. The respondents misinterpretation of the SQW report. In our view, it have not understood the assessed the potential demand for home working, difference in definition between which should not be automatically translated into a live work and flexible home demand for live-work units. Advances in technology working, as set out on p 4 of now provide the electronic communications necessary the SPD. for home working without the need to change and redefine space within domestic properties. We support the principle of active frontages in key locations, but these requirements do need to be balanced with viable.

Agenda Item 14 – page 46 2c ii) Providing a range of community facilities to meet ‘First houses’ means local needs. This section requires the provision of occupation of the first temporary community facilities from completion of the residential dwellings to be built first houses. It’s not clear what the ‘first houses’ actually on the site. Precise triggers means, but there should be more flexibility in applying will be discussed through the this requirement. S106 process, taking into account viability and cash flow considerations.

2f iv) Providing mixed use Local Centres. Assume that respondents refer We support the principle of developing mixed uses in to retail development. The the local centres. However, we consider that the objective is to avoid the requirement for residential development to be at least provision of retail sheds in this two storeys in height is insufficiently flexible. location.

3c (ii) iii) This section requires a design code for the The objective of this spine road for the whole site, prior to the approval of requirement is to ensure that reserved matters applications. It is not practical and will the spine road acts as a co- not be possible to deliver on this objective. The detailed ordinating feature across the design of the spine road will need to be developed in development. The design tandem with individual phases, not up front. code will set the principles for the design of the road, rather than the detail. Agree that detailed design needs to be developed in tandem with individual phases.

We agree that it is important to influence travel SPD notes opportunities to behaviour early however, providing a bus service before build on existing bus services,

Agenda Item 14 – page 47 a critical mass of development is in place can be as development progresses. counter-productive. Encouraging a shift to non car transport modes is an important objective for the North Ely development, and applicants will be required to explore all options to deliver this, taking viability into account.

Implementation and Delivery It is critical that design codes evolve with individual The objective of a design code No change to SPD but phases. It is not appropriate or practical to require a is to set the design parameters explore suggestions design code for the entire site prior to the submission of for the development and from Cambridgeshire reserved matters for individual phases. The flow ensure that a comprehensive Design Panel for diagram should be amended accordingly. approach is taken across the alternative mechanisms Similarly, a code for the local centre should take site. As such the design code such as a Design Quality account of and be responsive to individual needs to be site wide. ECDC Panels, and review developments being taken forward in the two different is aware that the Lynn Road design code approaches land ownerships, rather than being based on an area Local Centre is in two different used in the Cambridge code. land ownerships, which, in the developments such as Council’s view, increases the Trumpington Meadows need for a design code to help to ensure that effective co-ordinate the development and efficient and create a sense of place in mechanisms are used to the local centre, rather than control design. see a disjointed development with no cohesive character.

Agenda Item 14 – page 48 We do not consider it necessary for a scheme of this This is required because the size to require a reconciliation statement with each development is likely to be built reserved matters application. This places an out over a number of phases unnecessary burden on reserved matters submission. and years, and it will be necessary to ensure that it is built in accordance with the outline approval.

In a number of areas, the SPD refers to policies Agree. The North Ely SPD will emerging through the new Local Plan. As a general not be formally adopted until comment, we would usually expect an SPD to support after adoption of the Local adopted policies and therefore come forward Plan, and will be updated as following the adoption of the Local Plan. As can be seen required should the draft Local in this document, there are a number of cross Plan policies be changed. In references to emerging polices that are yet to be tested the meantime, however, the at Examination and may change. Some of the SPD will be a material detail in the SPD may therefore conflict with the policies consideration in the that are adopted through the Local Plan policy process. assessment of planning There is reference to housing mix requirements in the applications. SPD for example. We understand that this policy detail will be subject to modification prior to the Examination of the Local Plan. Should there be substantive changes in the emerging policies, will the SPD be reviewed or updated?

There are also areas in the SPD where there is some This is a requirement, and Review wording to clarify inconsistency in the wording. For example, Principle based on the North Ely Principle 1b as a 1b requires 30-40% of the North Ely site area to be Strategic Masterplan put requirement.

Agenda Item 14 – page 49 green space. Not only do we consider this to be forward by the landowners unnecessarily prescriptive at this stage, this statement then goes on to express this as a target not a requirement.

Furthermore, references to housing mix and types of Principle 2A makes clear that Amend wording to clarify residential development at Principle 2A use the terms housing mix and type will be these are targets, and ‘requirements’ and ‘targets’. Clarity is needed on agreed at each reserved will be assessed at each whether these proposals are targets or requirements. In matters stage based on the individual reserved line with the above comments on viability, we are of the demand and affordability data matters application view that these should be targets to ensure appropriate available at the time of the stage. flexibility for future applications. detailed application.

Other examples of where further clarity is needed The SPD indicates that include 2b ii) which states “an innovative approach to employment provision should job delivery will be required..” It’s not clear what this not compete with other means. employment sites in Ely. It notes that a different approach is required, as set out in the SQW study carried out on behalf of the landowners.

Moreover, Table 7 sets out items which may See Principle 2b (vi) in SPD require developer contributions, but includes “utility services such as electricity, gas, water, foul drainage, telecoms including broadband provision if not provided by the developer.” Again, it’s not clear from this description how this element applies to house builders.

It is important that applications are not unduly burdened and that submission requests are appropriate to each

Agenda Item 14 – page 50 planning stage. In addition to some of the examples set out in the table above, we do not consider it necessary It is unclear how planning or practical for individual applications to be applicants will demonstrate accompanied by phasing and infrastructure delivery that “earlier phases will not plans for the whole site, as set out under ‘Delivery prejudice delivery of later Mechanisms – A Partnership Approach’. The phases” without an initial clear information needed to inform such a strategy will simply understanding of the not be known in early phases and this appears to be infrastructure requirements and acknowledged in later sections of the SPD, where phasing for the whole references are made to phasing and infrastructure plans development. for individual phases, supported by confirmation that earlier phases will not prejudice delivery of later phases. This is a more reasonable and appropriate requirement.

Similarly, whilst we fully support and consider it valuable The design code will impact on to consult local communities in preparing applications, the appearance of the the specific requirement to consult on a design code, as development, and it is opposed to an outline or reserved matters application therefore reasonable to obtain appears unduly prescriptive. the views of the local community on this key element of the development. 5 Cambridgeshire Cambridgeshire County Council welcomes the draft County Council North Ely SPD. The document covers a number of principles which this Council is supportive of. Some aspects of the draft SPD require further clarification, which are raised within the following response.

Transport The draft SPD sets out the existing transport infrastructure within the vicinity of the site, including Public Rights of Way, public transport routes and cycle infrastructure which is welcomed. The draft SPD vision

Agenda Item 14 – page 51 which looks to create a sustainable community providing range of local facilities and employment is supported. Connections’. ‘Making the Connections’ It is very important that connections from North Ely are provided to the Station, the City Centre and the proposed leisure centre on Downham Road. The masterplan shows the pedestrian / cycle route emerging on Downham Road close to the A10 roundabout, this will be unsafe and Noted Amend masterplan map lead to people crossing the A10 where no safe at-grade to indicate requirement facility is possible. The arrangement of how North Ely for safe access to residents conveniently access the underpass for the Downham Road Leisure Leisure Centre needs to be given much more thought. Centre The connection of the existing path to Downham Road should be stopped up and this should be shown as being stopped up on the Masterplan.

Section 3f outlines the improvements required to Joint Transport Strategy still mitigate the development traffic, these measures are awaited from welcomed, although further details are still to be agreed landowners/planning on some of the measures outlined. The County Council applicants. SPD sets out the has previously requested that a Joint Transport Strategy requirement for this to be is prepared for the North Ely development. It is submitted. understood that this strategy is currently being prepared and will be submitted for comment shortly. The Joint Transport Strategy should outline the impact the North Ely development has on the transport network, and identify the highway measures required to mitigate the impact of the development including the A10/A142 Witchford Road Roundabout. In addition the Joint Transport Strategy should also cover the key principles with regard to walking, cycling and public

Agenda Item 14 – page 52 transport connections to and from the site, including Lynn Road. The Joint Transport Strategy should also detail funding mechanisms and timings for delivery of the appropriate mitigation which will form part of s106/s278 discussions.

The draft SPD makes reference to the proposed new roundabout on the A10 to the west of North Ely. The Noted County Council has recently commissioned a study to identify if the A10 roundabout is required and if it is required, what stage it needs to be delivered.

The County Council also welcomes the provision of an overarching Phasing and Infrastructure Delivery Noted – see also response to Plan or similar mechanism agreed between the relevant Church Commissioners landowners. This will enable a review of the required submission. infrastructure and ensure that each development phase contributes to the wider infrastructure costs, allowing required infrastructure to be delivered and later phases to remain viable.

The draft SPD states that surface water attenuation features will be located adjacent to major road and rail Noted links; this could lead to disruption of transport links due to flooding. Therefore careful design will be needed.

The County Council is generally supportive of the wording of Principle 4e. However Table 4 makes The emphasis needs to be on reference to the provision of garages. Garages are minimising on street parking. rarely used for car parking the provision of fewer Detailed provision will be garages would be preferred. If they are provided, then, considered at reserved matters if ECDC want to minimise on-street parking by stages

Agenda Item 14 – page 53 residents, the garages should not be counted as parking spaces.

The County Council is supportive of the need for identifying long term maintenance arrangements and is pleased to see that phasing will consider how construction traffic will be kept away from residential areas.

Education The education provision appears to be adequately addressed through the draft SPD. Importantly the Noted Phasing and Infrastructure Delivery Strategy Principles and Developers Contribution sections are included. The District Council should ensure that the delivery mechanisms (specifically Table 6 & 7) are not weakened. Indeed, they should be strengthened were possible.

Flood risk and water quality Flood risk and water quality has been considered during the construction phases identified within the current planning applications (i.e. Endurance Estates and Church Commissioners). However further consideration is needed in terms of likely impacts of built development. Any proposed development of the site should be consistent with guidance provided by the Environment Agency and other key stakeholders and if necessary should require engagement with these stakeholders. Add text to reflect need Reference should be made to the need of Flood Risk for applications to be Assessments being undertaken (prior to submission of Agree accompanied by Flood

Agenda Item 14 – page 54 planning applications) which should ensure that the site Risk Assessments to is developed in a sustainable way using SuDs to control Principle 2e flows on site. Account should be taken of section '3.5.7 EN7 - Flood risk' in East Cambridgeshire District Council's adopted Core Strategy that states "new development being located and designed to minimise resource and energy use and reduce the risk of flooding" and that "all applications for new development must demonstrate that appropriate surface water drainage arrangements for dealing with surface water run-off can be accommodated within the site". Regard should be had to any emerging legislation related to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/29/contents.

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs) The incorporation of SuDs within the draft SPD is Noted welcomed as being consistent with policy EN7 of the adopted East Cambridgeshire Core Strategy. The final design of the SUDs to be used as part of this development should be identified in consultation with the Environment Agency, Anglian Water, Internal Drainage Board and Cambridgeshire County Council. It is important to ensure that attenuation run off from this site should be carefully managed. Also that the SuDs are adopted and provision is made for its maintenance, in perpetuity.

Ecology We support principle 1 for developing an integrated urban and rural character which creates a special place, particularly 1(d) for the enhancement of biodiversity and

Agenda Item 14 – page 55 creation of new habitats for wildlife. The A10 corridor provides an excellent opportunity to create a wildlife corridor along the western section of The Masterplan requires 30- the site that provides strong links into the wider 40% of the site area to be landscape. Disappointingly, this has not been achieved provided as green space, as part of the proposed Structural Masterplan /Green together with green corridors. Infrastructure plan. Human pressure on the natural The areas to the east and environment is greatest nearest to urban development north of the site provide the (e.g. next to residential dwellings) and therefore, it is greatest opportunities for important for any green spaces are sufficiently wide wildlife corridor links. The enough to mitigate these impacts and provide a potential for widening the A10 functioning wildlife corridor connecting into the wider corridor is being explored in landscape. It is considered that the proposed green conjunction with requirements space is too narrow and therefore, we recommend that to reduce noise impacts on the width of the green buffer along the A10 be widened. residential development plots In addition, adjacent residential development plots in this area with the should also be sympathetically designed to complement landowners agents. the open space (e.g. inclusion of wildlife features, use of native planting).

Archaeology Little is known of the archaeological significance of this part of the Isle of Ely, however, it is understood that fieldwork has been carried out as part of the outline planning applications from Endurance Estates and Church Commissioners. In addition to this, archaeology records currently available include finds of prehistoric date (HER 07207), and evidence for Iron Age and Roman settlement (HER 10942, 06141, 06137). Recent archaeological work has also identified evidence for previously unknown settlement of Iron Age and Roman date. The evaluations that have (and have yet to be)

Agenda Item 14 – page 56 been carried out could also feed into development proposals, making use of opportunities to contribute to the developing character of new communities in proximity to the historic City. For example, page 7 of the Amend text in section 4 draft SPD makes reference to an ‘Iron Age settlement’ to reflect incorporation of and ‘Roman period enclosure’ (as well as other archaeological heritage archaeological findings). Accordingly, the design in design principles as principles (Principle 4) could incorporate the appropriate archaeological heritage as well as the ‘character’ of Ely. Agree Rights of Way I wish to reiterate that within the current proposal that the definitive line for public footpath number 10 has not been accommodated within the development. Should this not be possible footpath 10 will need to be diverted Check and amend using Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning definitive line of footpath Act 1990. It is noted with some concern that the 10 as appropriate definitive line of footpath 10 is not shown correctly on the strategic master plan. It is noted that there seems to be considerable provision for new cycleways and public footpaths which is to be welcomed. The correct legal procedure must be followed to ensure that these rights are correctly recorded and at the works are completed to the correct standard. However, it is important that applicants will be expected to provide a Phasing and Infrastructure Delivery Plan with their planning applications. It is reassuring that the ‘Plan’ will cover matters such as delivery of both local and strategic infrastructure to support each phase of the development. In addition, this Council supports the ‘Developer Contributions’ section of the draft SPD, specifically table 7 and the reference to on and off site

Agenda Item 14 – page 57 pedestrian, bridleways and cycleway infrastructure.

Sports and recreational It is good to see that cycleway and footpaths are a priority. The draft SPD should clearly indicate that cycleways and footpaths are fully integrated and linked to the sports facilities, school and neighbourhood centre. It is not clear whether the ‘Green Infrastructure’ includes sports and recreational space/facilities. Green Infrastructure should be clearly defined within the draft SPD. The sporting facilities outlined within the total development (all phases included) should be guided by local sports facility standards and designed to meet the Sports provision will be guided whole population requirements. The draft SPD by ECDC sports facility should take into account that a phased development of standards with provision either North Ely could lead to a disjointed provision of sports on site or at the Downham facilities that is hard to manage and maintain. Road Leisure Centre, funded Positioning is also important for access, car parking, through S106/CIL provision. cycle way link up and the social aspects a larger, more integrated sports facility can bring. It is not clear whether the provision will meet the formal outdoor sport pitch standards laid down by East Cambs DC. Again, this may require clarification through the draft SPD. Clarification should also be made as to the management and maintenance of these open spaces, specifically the sports pitches. See principle 1e(v) A Community centre is referred to within Principle 2c (i) It is not clear if this will be designed for sporting use. With foresight it could be a very important indoor sports

Agenda Item 14 – page 58 space, especially if it met sport England’s guidelines for a four badminton court hall (33m x 18 m x 7.6m, plus approx 12% storage space).

Minerals & Waste Waste Water Treatment Works The proposed Ely North development lies partially within the Ely Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) The Environment Agency have (Area of Search) and associated WWTW Safeguarding indicated that a new waste Area, which are designated by Policies W6A and W7N water treatment works will not Amend text for Principle respectively of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough be required in the foreseeable 4 to reflect the Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan. future. However it is noted that provisions in the The housing developments of Arcadia and Green Living this site is in the Cambridgeshire and (in the north of the proposed site) are within W6A, and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals significantly reduce the Area of Search which would be Peterborough Minerals and and Waste Site Specific available for a new WWTW. This area could be further Waste Site Specific Proposals Proposals Plan reduced if a 400m buffer were maintained from the new Plan, and the SPD text should development which would be occupied by people to the reflect this. site for a new WWTW, consistent with the principles of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Policy CS31. As development comes forward in Ely North it must therefore demonstrate that proposals do not prejudice the provision of a new WWTW on the remaining part of the Area of Search. In this context they must meet the requirements set out in the Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Policy CS 31. The North Ely Supplementary Planning Document should make this clear.

Core Strategy Policy CS28 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Policy CS28 requires

Agenda Item 14 – page 59 all major development sites to have temporary inert waste recycling facilities in place throughout the construction phases of the development, have a waste management audit and submit a RECAP Waste Management Design Guide Toolkit Assessment.

Lifetime Homes & Community Infrastructure 100% of new housing throughout the developments A requirement for all homes to identified within the draft SPD should meet Lifetime be designed to Lifetime Homes Homes standards. Although ‘Principle 2a (iv) goes standard is likely to have cost some way in the provision of Lifetime Homes and implications, and is not adaptability, this does not go far enough in our view. considered to be a The aspirations of ‘Principle 2a (iv) are also reflected proportionate approach. within Policy HOU1 (Housing Mix) of East Await outcome of Local Plan Cambridgeshire District Council’s ‘submitted Local Plan’ examination in public identifies a ‘proportion’ of dwellings will be Lifetime consideration of this objection. Homes, something this Authority has raised as an objection through the Local Plan consultation.

By 2031, 25% of the population of East Cambridgeshire This has not previously been a will be over 65. Enabling people to stay in their homes standard requirement by longer is a vital part of the strategy for meeting the ECDC. This will be taken into needs of an aging population. Prospective developers account at each reserved should be asked to prepare a Demographic Change matters stages when the Impact Assessment to demonstrate how the demand for housing mix at that development will address the needs of an ageing particular point in time is population and people with physical disabilities, learning assessed. disabilities, age-related frailties and mental health problems.

Agenda Item 14 – page 60 We would expect development of this scale, as Amend SPD text to identified within the draft SPD, to include new extra reflect need to consider care/sheltered accommodation and/or additional extra care and residential/nursing accommodation to help meet the residential nursing needs of an ageing population. It is noted that the places Endurance Estates application has included a 75 unit extra Care facility, which is welcomed. Based on the prevailing rates of Extra Care/sheltered accommodation and residential/nursing accommodation in the County, and the expected increase in the proportion of people aged over 65 in East Cambridgeshire, we would expect a development of 3,000 homes plus to generate a need for additional places (98 additional extra care places and 61 additional residential/nursing places by 2031)

The need for, type and extent of the accommodation to be provided should be articulated in the Demographic Change Impact Assessment. These types of facilities are typically developed and operated by private sector organisations or Registered Social Landlords. Sufficient C2 (residential institution) land should therefore be available for this purpose as part of the draft SPD.

A development of this size would not require the Can be served by the inclusion of a dedicated Children’s Centre. proposed community facilities However, it would generate additional demand for the nearest centre requiring outreach activities (when the centre operates groups away from the main site using community facilities). Therefore suitable space for

Agenda Item 14 – page 61 outreach work in a community space would be expected in a development of this size.

Accommodation within the site to enable the delivery of SPD requires provision of Officers to discuss with early core community services such as Health and community space from the Cambridgeshire County Community Development is required, but it is also development of the first houses Council their Community essential that a place for the new residents to meet on on the site. Hub approach and the an informal and social basis to begin forming essential opportunities for North social support and community networks is provided. Ely. Community space should be provided in keeping with Cambridgeshire County Council’s Community Hub approach with shared facilities and services being co located. The size of the space would be determined by the services provided from it and should be designed in relation to the size of the development. This hub should also encompass space for providing provision for young people to access youth activities.

Libraries We are pleased to see the need for a library provision in It is anticipated that in the early North Ely is recognised and that it is felt it should be co stages of development – located within either the Community hall or the work community facilities will be hub. However, we are unclear as to where it is based at Highflyer Green, and suggested that the micro library is sited as there seems in later stages potentially in the to be a contradiction between the map of Community Lynn Road Local Centre. Uses and Employment on page 54 which shows the There may also be Community Hall as being with the place of worship in opportunities for community the Highflyer Green area and Table 3 pages 64 -65 facilities at the primary schools, which lists either Lynn Road local centre or the depending upon the primary Southwest area as potential sites for the micro library. school operators policies on The Southwest area includes the Cam Drive local community use. The micro centre and the work hub. This needs clarification. library can be located at any of

Agenda Item 14 – page 62 We commented on the possibility of the Community hall these facilities. The County being situated away from the local centres in June 2013 Council’s preference for the in a response to the Highflyer Farm Revised design and Lynn Road Local Centre is access statement as follows:“The vision for Highflyer noted. Farm. It is disappointing to see that in this revision, the Community facilities are moved away from the Local centre area and are re-sited in The Greens area with the place of worship. Although it is mentioned on Page 3 that “ the Community building will help draw people to these central locations and create local points of activity”, it is felt that having a community facility in the same place as retail spaces is mutually beneficial Noted and that residents will visit both in one visit.” The library service feels it is essential that the ‘micro- library’ is located within one of the local centres.

We are pleased to see the following paragraph in Chapter 5, page 79 under ‘Delivery objectives’ developer contributions for both the provision of a small micro library within the development and also the enhancement of the main Ely library. We asked that the expansion of the main Ely library be added to the draft Ely town vision in our response to the draft East Cambridgeshire Local Plan in March 2013.

Broadband Infrastructure This Authority supports the inclusion of Principle 2b (i) Noted and (vi), and the provision of ‘superfast broadband’ infrastructure across the development. The rollout of superfast broadband throughout Cambridgeshire is a key priority for the County Council with ‘Connecting Cambridgeshire’ looking to deliver

Agenda Item 14 – page 63 some of the best broadband coverage in the country by 2015.

Section 106 agreement contributions and CIL Agree. The S106 process To ensure that funding is focussed in the right areas a should develop this phasing robust prioritisation process needs to and infrastructure prioritisation be in place. The current infrastructure plan doesn’t and strategy. prioritise infrastructure requirements and so gives no indication of what the critical pieces of infrastructure are needed to deliver growth. Iterative processes which identify infrastructure need and prioritise infrastructure should be put in place. This will ensure that the infrastructure list is up-to-date. The ‘Phasing and Infrastructure Delivery Strategy Principles’ (Table 6) and ‘Developer Contributions’ (Table 7) set out within the draft SPD provides a clear and coherent mechanism for delivering the required infrastructure. 6 Gladman In principle, Gladman support the type and scale of The trajectory shown reflects Developments development that Sustainable Urban Extensions that in the draft Local Plan. It Ltd (SUE’s) can offer. However when including SUE’s will be updated if required within the Local Plan, the Council needs to ensure that following the Local Plan they are applying realistic assumptions in terms of Examination in public. capacity, lead-in times and delivery rates. They raise concerns about the housing trajectory proposed in part 5 table 3. The assumptions made are unrealistic and misleading due to the significant up front infrastructure requirements required. Suggest a delivery rate of 36 dwellings per year is more realistic. Also suggests that the scale of delivery is unlikely to be achieved. 7 Indigo Planning Re Principle 2: Providing mixed use Local Centres at

Agenda Item 14 – page 64 (on behalf of spatial nodes of the Development Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Reference is made to the scale of retail provision, A store of 280 sq m equates to Review proposed Ltd) noting that it would be primarily ‘top up’ shopping to a Tesco Express size store. convenience store size serve local needs. In our view, a more modest food The Budgens store in Soham when information from store of up to 280 sqm would be more appropriate. A is approx 700 sq m. the latest retail studies store up to this size would provide adequate ‘top up’ The SPD allows for a modest for Ely is available. shopping and would be in line with Sunday trading store of up to 600 sq m, and hours. additional corner shop provision, bearing in mind the A food store in excess of this (i.e. up to 600 sqm) would 3,000 dwellings proposed for compete with the existing nearby food store provision North Ely in the longer term. which would contradict the principles of the SPD which The Church Commissioners states that the vision for this area is to complement have applied for a store of up rather than compete with Ely’s city centre. to 400 sq m in their outline planning application for their site. Endurance have indicated a food retail store of between 200 – 400 sq m in their application. However, this can be reviewed in the light of the more recent retail impact studies which are currently being carried out in connection with other developments in Ely when these are available.. 8 ECDC p.20 – Views Conservation  This is more focussed on views of the site: if it is Officer to include in/out of the site then the final sentence should be expanded.

p.20 – Heritage

Agenda Item 14 – page 65  1st paragraph – change to “Whist there are no Agree Amend 1st paragraph to designated heritage assets (SAMs, LB, CA, reflect suggested HP&G) in the boundary of the site, there are a change number present within the wider context; LBs and Ely Conservation Area. The site is also likely to have potential to include undesignated assets, such as unknown archaeological remains”.  2nd paragraph – What heritage appraisal – when Appraisal carried out by was this done (recently/years ago) landowners in the preparation of their Joint Strategic Masterplan July 2013  Archaeology – again what archaeological investigation  Need to have reference to the Historic As above Environment Record here – is there anything on it that should be included? See Cambridgeshire County Council comments from p.29 – Vision archaeology section and  Do we still want to use the word ‘exemplar’ – it is proposed amendments a vague word – could we clarify what we mean by this more clearly – for example is it exemplar in terms of design or sustainability or both? See response in section 1 p.32-33 – spine road above – both design and  Not sure about this concept – A spine road is sustainability normally a straight line from A to B (i.e. Lynn Road – should we look at re-naming it or re- aligning it. What is it we are trying to create – is The spine road seeks to it a traffic route or a key street for

Agenda Item 14 – page 66 function/activity? integrate the development as a connector route, with local p.37 community and commercial  Concern that we will end up with another ‘west facilities grouped in hubs along ely’ with large areas of green space that have no the route – see description p function 31  Is it worth putting some mention here of Agree that this is to be integration of buffer zone/country park being avoided. Principle 1b (iii) in organic rather than a hard line? SPD sets out requirement for each space to have a clear p.44 – Affordable housing function. Principle 1a (vii)  It states here about grouping affordable housing discusses need for soft in areas – should we not be trying more to feathered treatment to built integrate it into the development? These are development edge. often developments that can push boundaries in terms of design and sustainability – e.g. Radian: The text refers to clusters of Sunfield Cls, Andover and Linden Homes: 15-30 dwellings, seeking to Northfields, Colchester achieve a balance between management considerations p.45 – Jobs and integration.  How does this figure fit in light of the vision for the Station Gateway area – it needs to pull out more the type of employment we are looking for – we should be targeting more precisely for start up units/artisan centres/business hubs for small firms (arts & crafts space/web based/etc The East Cambridgeshire Jobs Growth Strategy set out the proposals for employment growth taking into account the station gateway proposals.

Agenda Item 14 – page 67 The SPD text notes that an p.49 – Reference to Design Guide Appendix A innovative approach to job somewhere in here. creation is required rather than the standard employment site allocation. p.52 – Design Codes Amend text to refer to  Code 4 – should we add ‘or higher’ – is it not East Cambridgeshire worth still having aspirations for better Agree Design Guidance Appendix A p.54 – Should some reference be included for ‘Streets for All’ or similar The SPD indicates that dwellings should reflect the national sustainable homes p.60 standards, which are currently  Problems with how this is presented – currently Code 4 Amend Principle 3b to include reference to you go from Historic Core (15th onwards) – Lynn Agree ‘Streets for All’ guidance Road/Deacons Lane (interwar) – New Barns (1900s) – Cathedral View (2000s) – Chettisham (mix of traditional/modern – good/poor quality design)  If you try and design for historic centre you will Clarification of comment needed end up with pastiche and bog standard ‘traditional style’ housing stock. It is probably more important that it reflects the scale/grain/density of historic Ely rather than materials/detailing

Agree – Principle 4a (ii) details the need for focus on grain and

Agenda Item 14 – page 68 development pattern. Design Coding requirement will also address this point

9 Natural England We are aware that this masterplan is based on the North Ely Framework which has been the subject of several previous consultations and workshops, as such the SPD raises no additional issues that Natural England would wish to comment on.

Natural England supports the proposed extension to Ely Country Park to provide a green edge to the development. This will also be important in helping to absorb additional recreational pressures from the development and diverting this away from more sensitive areas of the existing Country Park, including Ely Pits and Meadows SSSI. Detailed proposals will need to demonstrate that green infrastructure is Noted sufficient to ensure that development will not have an adverse effect on the SSSI.

We welcome that the green infrastructure (GI) strategy must be a leading structuring element in the masterplanning of North Ely, incorporated as an integral part of the design and layout of the development. Green infrastructure should be used to create an appropriate green linkage between the development and the surrounding fen, provide a green setting for the development and to perpetuate the existing green and vegetated character of Ely.

Agenda Item 14 – page 69 The overall vision is for the creation of a ‘multifunctional greenspace network’ which should draw heavily on the Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy, the Cambridgeshire Landscape Guidelines, the Ely Environmental Capacity Study and the Ely Masterplan; this is welcomed.

We support the requirement that green spaces that link through the development should be multifunctional. They should reinforce the character of Ely, help to protect the character of Chettisham, provide an important resource through the enhancement of the Country Park and provide ecological and recreational facilities for Ely as a whole.

We welcome proposals to enhance biodiversity and create new habitats; these should aim to contribute to local BAP targets. Existing habitats should be protected wherever possible.

Natural England supports proposals to implement high environmental standards and to prioritise green transport within the development. Natural England also supports incorporation of multi-functional SUDS.

10 Individual Objects to the N Ely development due to: The principle of development in  not being able to meet its employment targets. this location is set out in the The development is likely to increase the levels draft Local Plan, which is due of out-commuting. to go to an examination in  Lack of local infrastructure including shops, public in February 2014. cycle lanes and bus services. The SPD sets out the objective

Agenda Item 14 – page 70  Volume of traffic on Lynn Rd and increase in for North Ely to be a traffic, noise and pollution and reduced safety. sustainable development, with  Code 4 for housing means the development will an emphasis on home working be a long way from being carbon neutral and encouraging the use of  The development is in the wrong place and will alternative transport modes to result in higher car ownership. the car. It also makes provision for local infrastructure including shops, cycle lanes and bus services. Applicants will be required to carry out site highway improvements to ensure that the wider road network has the capacity to accommodate increased traffic from the development. 11 Campaign for We are concerned to note in Key Structure Principles 4, The SPD makes provision for the Protection of Principle 2a(i) The development will provide for a lower densities than 30dph. Rural England low/medium density development of up to 3,000 homes. This is to reflect the more (CPRE) 'Low/medium' density is not defined. traditional ‘fen village Cambridgeshire character’ in the area, enabling and CPRE advocate that the aim should be 30 dph as low a gradual transition to Peterborough density housing encourages car use and discourages surrounding Greenfield rather the creation of local services, requires further greenfield than an abrupt termination of land to be developed to compensate and sets a the building line. The SPD precedent for future urban extensions. requires 30-40% of the site to be allocated as green space, Therefore, CPRE believe that the area of built as well as provision of local development should be confined to a smaller area in services and facilities. order for more open space and landscaping to be allocated towards the outer edges and thus improve the setting of the development and limit the impact on the countryside.

Agenda Item 14 – page 71 12 Marine No comment. Management Organisation 13 Individual Objects to more Greenfield development. Agree that the Country Park Country Park – such areas tend to urbanise natural areas needs to focus on integration so needs to be integrated with agriculture and wildlife with agriculture and wildlife, including a network of paths, wildflower meadows, and a study is currently areas for grazing and an athletics track. underway to further define the Self Build – should only be available on brownfield vision for this area. Public art can be used to reflect this sites. vision and does not necessarily Downham Road Sports Field – is a cold wind location have to be urban features. and not ideal for sports use. Applicants will be required to Concerns about additional traffic on local roads carry out site highway Public art – has no place in the rural landscape improvements to ensure that the wider road network has the capacity to accommodate increased traffic from the development. 14 The Ely Society While we do have concerns that such a large Noted development will alter the character of the city, we consider that the plan does provide the potential for a well balanced development of this area of Ely. We are particularly pleased to note the attention paid to the provision of allotments, schools, church hall, playing fields and a cycle way and also to the consideration given to green spaces and natural habitat

1. The architectural style and detail of the housing should take cognisance of, and be compatible with the paraphernalia employed in modern living; e.g.

Agenda Item 14 – page 72 solar panels, meter boxes and wheelie bins. 2. It is noted that the proposed developments are divided into areas for each of which distinctive features or facilities are envisaged. These features and facilities, whether they consist of artwork, play areas, or planting, should be made prominent and eye-catching to form a well recognised focal point in a similar way to that of a mediaeval market cross. 3. Arrangements should be made to adopt streets and street furniture as soon as residents move into an area. Completion of local roads, street lighting and other associated works should not be left in abeyance to await the final completion of an entire development. 4. We emphasise a previous comment that the developments on the east and the west sides of Lynn Road should be coordinated and phased to minimise disruption to local residents, both existing residents and those moving into the various phases of the developments. 5. The speed of the developments should be controlled to ensure that the enhancement of health services, roads, and utilities and other local services and infrastructure keep pace with the growing number of residents. 6. The provision of a railway station on the north side of the development should be reconsidered.

15 City of Ely The Council would wish to highlight and explore the Noted Officers to liaise with the Council potential of the Council, maybe via a Community Land City of Ely Council in Trust, owning some of the assets for the benefit of the respect of management community. In particular, but not exclusively with regard of facilities and assets.

Agenda Item 14 – page 73 to open spaces.

16 Anglian Water ‘North Ely will be an exemplar development showcasing Noted – these items are best practice of a quality that would be recognised included in Principle 2e nationally and that stands comparison with the City’s existing heritage.’

With this in mind would recommend the inclusion of a high standard of climate change mitigation including water efficiency design, flood risk and surface water drainage methods will be implemented.

17 Individual Concerned that the additional traffic the development Applicants will be required to will create will exacerbate the existing traffic problems in carry out site highway Ely. improvements to ensure that the wider road network has the Doubts this issue will be resolved simply by saying that capacity to accommodate the proposed bypass will alleviate all of the traffic increased traffic from the issues. development.

18 Witcham Parish Any further development in the East Cambs District Noted Council must be supported with improved infrastructure. This includes doctors, dentists, hospitals, schools, roads and public transport, plus better parking facilities in Ely.

19 Mepal Parish No comment. Council 20 Individual Opposed to High Flyer Farm remaining in situ as this Refer to Highways will result in agricultural traffic driving through the new Authority for discussion development to access the farm. Concerned that the during consideration of farm is used as a storage/distribution point. The existing outline planning track to High Flyer farm from Kings Avenue (shown in application for the site.

Agenda Item 14 – page 74 SPD as a bridleway/footpath) carries huge amounts of farm traffic, including juggernaut tri-axle lorries. The size and weight of this traffic has displaced and damaged kerb-stones.

Suggests redeveloping the farm for housing, thereby reducing the amount of farm traffic on Ely’s streets.

21 Individual With regard to provision of Sporting Facilities:

Ely suffers from inadequate, disparate sporting facilities The SPD requires sports that are disproportionate to its population and strategic facility provision/contributions plan. Cites the benefits to the community of sporting by developers in accordance programmes and gives the example of Ely Swimming with ECDC policies. It club who saw increase in membership following the proposes that facilities are Olympics, but lack of adequate facilities and funding concentrated at the proposed has resulted in membership falling away again. Leisure Village on Downham Road, with indoor facilities Concerned that the Council appears not to have the provided through CIL and drive, personal commitment or vision to improve the outdoor facilities through S106 facilities. The strategic plans for Ely (whether Ely North payments. Principle 1e sets or Development of Commercial space in Angel Drove) out the SPD requirements. lack the commercial vision to exploit the opportunity to ensure that long-term, lucrative commercial deals are incorporating responsible and appropriate community legacies.

Believes North Ely firmly tips the balance toward insufficient/inadequate sporting/well-being facilities and must allocate provision within its plans for a proportionate contribution. 22 Councillor Ian Asks for a clarification on the Councils definition of See item 1 above

Agenda Item 14 – page 75 Allen ‘exemplar development’ in order to be able to judge whether it has been delivered.

23 Individual Residents of Orchard Estate and of Ely for the past 25 The principle of development in years this location is set out in the draft Local Plan, which is due Opposed to a development of this size; feels Ely is seen to go to an examination in as a rural city and this development will change the size public in February 2014. and character of Ely irrevocably. Will have a detrimental The SPD sets out the objective effect on the existing local community, as well as for North Ely to be a changing the perception of Ely as a tourist destination. sustainable development, with an emphasis on home working Believes the development will lead to an increase in and encouraging the use of anti-social behaviour and crime in an otherwise safe alternative transport modes to area. Concerned about increased, traffic, noise and the car. Development will be congestion, given the existing high level and speed of required to work towards traffic, using Lynn Road. ‘designing out’ crime. It also makes provision for local Concerned at loss of views for residents of Orchard infrastructure including shops, Estate and loss of habitat for wildlife. cycle lanes and bus services. Applicants will be required to Thinks more thought needs to be given to the carry out site highway infrastructure prior to a development of this size - traffic improvements to ensure that and parking are already major issues, as are schooling the wider road network has the (secondary as well as primary), leisure, doctors & capacity to accommodate dentist surgeries. Believes Ely is simply not big enough increased traffic from the to support a population of the intended size. development. This will need to consider Lynn Road improvements. 24 Ely Cycling Welcome the integration of cycle and walking from an Campaign early stage. However a number of improvements are needed to encourage people to walk or cycle rather

Agenda Item 14 – page 76 than using their cars.

Connecting with the rest of Ely - The document states A Joint Strategic Transport there is already a good level of existing pedestrian and Strategy from the developers is cycle access eg Downham Rd Sustrans route. We currently awaited. This will set strongly disagree. Downham Rd and Lynn rd have no out proposals for cycle route cycle paths, are fast roads and have high levels of improvements and ECC traffic. The plans should therefore include segregated comments will be considered in cycle paths on both roads. the context of this.

Access to the development – need for safe controlled access points to and from the development including at Cam Drive and Lynn Rd.

Shared space for residential streets – concerned these These concerns will be will be dominated by parked cars and motor traffic. addressed through the Design Need for segregated pavements and cycle paths. Code stages

Primary and secondary roads – Shared use pavements The SPD requires segregated are not acceptable. Need for segregated pedestrian and cycleways along the primary cycle paths. connecting routes. 25 Individual Writing to voice concerns over the proposed development

Compares North Ely to Mereham, stating that the area is still devoid of decent facilities to accommodate a project of this size.

Asks how Council and Developers will tackle problem of A Joint Strategic Transport transport and in particular extra traffic on the A10, and Strategy from the developers is how the Council/Developer will overcome the lack of the currently awaited. This will set following facilities: out proposals for off site

Agenda Item 14 – page 77 transport improvements. The SPD sets out the requirement  A fully manned 24/7 police station. for proposals to align with a  A secondary school strategic transport strategy for  Adequate Fire & Ambulance cover the wider development.  Inadequate medical facilities as the additional traffic will make getting to hospital in an emergency more It is understood that the police difficult. authority have no expansion plans at present. A new Seeks reassurance that developers will deliver the secondary school is due to be infrastructure identified in their plans and not just the provided at Littleport – this will housing. also free up capacity at the City of Ely College. The site Concerned that Central Government is imposing can accommodate additional increasing amounts of housing on Cambridgeshire, yet fire/ambulance provision not providing sufficient funding for infrastructure in the should the relevant authorities County. consider this appropriate – no requests for this have been received to date. The Princess of Wales Hospital is proposing expansion of the facilities on their site. Delivery of necessary, relevant and essential infrastructure will be part of the S106 negotiations as set out in section 5 of the SPD.

26 Individual Living in the current 'new housing' in west Ely along the The District Council is aware of bypass, it can get very noisy at times. For North Ely, noise concerns regarding please provide a wider buffer zone or other measures to recent development in west reduce the traffic noise for the new residents. Ely, and Environmental Health

Agenda Item 14 – page 78 officers are currently advising on both buffer zone and noise reduction measures required for North Ely. 27 Individual I have read the plan with great interest. On the whole I agree with the main recommendations. Makes points:

 Although the main part of the area is in Zone The advice from the EA and 1 when defining flood risk, I assume you AW will take this issue into have based your calculations on existing account O.D. whereas by the time projected development is in full flow the world sea level will be rising following the expected gradual thawing of the arctic ice. Would North Ely plan area really be well protected?  Ensure that there is sufficient provision for Noted, and should be the age group 13-18 apart from formal incorporated into the play sporting facilities. strategies requested as part of the planning applications.  Segregated cycle routes will be important. In urban areas around Stockholm, Sweden I have seen combined cycle and pedestrian paths both safely away from motor traffic.  Is County Council transport section happy No objections have been with tree-lined avenues? Roots from riparian raised by CCC. trees disrupt footpaths and roads.  The 30% affordable housing should be built alongside and at the same time as larger private dwellings.

Agenda Item 14 – page 79  Car parking for disabled should be generous and planned with accessibility to nearby venues. Some spaces could be dual-use with parent and young children.  Allotments should not be placed too far from the centres – make accessible to older people as well as the young.  Youngsters will want a ‘last bus’ service after events like films or concerts have finished. Most of the above comments are not strong criticisms but hopes for re-assurance. It is a good report, I hope it succeeds.

Agenda Item 14 – page 80