Cambridge Architecture Gazette CA65

CAMBRIDGE ARCHITECTURE

Spring 2013

CA

65 Cambridge Association of Architects

www.architecture.com/cambridgegazette

your local plan needs you LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION

Cambridge Association of Architects - Open letter to the council Opinions of planners, politicians, consultants and community groups Planning policy case studies What could a visionary plan look like?

Business in the city Consulting techniques Neighbourhood plans Green fingers and belt

news

AWARDS

The Sainsbury Laboratory, near the Botanic Gardens, was winner of the RIBA Stirling Prize in 2012. The client was the University of Cambridge, the architect was Stanton Williams and the contractor was Kier Regional. Other consultants included Hannah–Reed, Gardiner and Theobald, Arup and Adams Kara Taylor.

5th Studio were awarded Building Design’s Masterplanning Architect of the Year 2012. They beat shortlisted practices Allies and Morrison, Maccreanor Lavington and Studio Egret West, amongst others, to win the award. The entry was based on a body of work in the lower Lea Valley.

Two projects by Mole Architects were awarded 2012 RIBA East Awards. The Spirit of Ingenuity Regional Sustainability Award, for a private house on Madingley Road (featured in CA63) and Regional Client of the Year Award, for the Dune House, Suffolk.

Stowe Landscape Gardens Visitor Centre for the National Trust, designed by Cowper Griffith Architects, was announced commercial and public access winner of The Wood Awards 2012. The judges praised the use of a green larch structure with a modern twist.

Freeland Rees Roberts Architects won Best Technical Innovation and DPA Architects Best Small Housing Project at the East Anglia Local Authority Building Control Awards 2012.

Entries have been submitted for the 2012 Cambridge City Council’s Awards for Excellence in the Built Environment previously known as the David Urwin Awards.

A shortlist will be announced March 2013.

WORKSHOPS

Members of Cambridge Association of Architects volunteered in January 2013 to help Cambridge City Council’s Mill Road coordinator, Ceri Littlechild, gather ideas for the area from local residents and businesses.

In December 2012, Anne Cooper of AC Architects Cambridge Ltd assisted students participating in the University of Cambridge’s Interdisciplinary Design for the Built Environment (IDBE), part time Masters Degree.

A local design project brief was used to produce alternative designs for the redevelopment of Mitcham’s Corner. Proposals replaced the current gyratory road with a simpler crossroad.

REGIONAL DESIGN SUPPORT

Shape East has appointed Kent Architecture Centre to manage its design review / design support service to local authorities and developers. Shape East’s review panel includes an impressive array of architects and built environment professionals. Shape and Kent are both member of the Design Network, affiliated to me Design Council Cabe.

EVENTS

Cambridge Forum for the Construction Industry events for Spring 2013 include: Annual dinner (March 22), annual debate: ‘This house believes Cambridge is bursting at the seams’ (8th April) and two other events ‘Northwest Cambridge’ (29th April), ‘The Cambridge Science Park 40 years on’ (20th May). For further information contact secretary@cfci.org.uk.

A new self-guided tour of Cambridge has been devised by Shape East’s Hollie McNish and poetry organisation Page to Performance. Walking with Women combines architecture, spoken word, illustration and history - providing a guide to tales locked in the city.

Cambridge Women in Construction has plans for 2013 - including meet-ups, networking, talks and debates. For additional information see the CWIC blog.

NATIONAL POLICY

The Community Infrastructure Levy is a new system of planning obligations, proposed as a more transparent and simple method of collecting funds for infrastructure to support development than the current system (S.106).

To encourage local planning authorities to introduce the CIL regulations will restrict the use of Section 106 post 2014. Cambridge City Council are outlining a suggested approach and timescale to bring forward the introduction of CIL in Cambridge.

DESIGN

Cambridge based architects RH Partnership and Mole Architects were selected, amongst others, to work on Phase 1 of the North West Cambridge masterplan.

Correction: On page 2 of CA64 Cowper Griffith should have been mentioned in their own right, alongside RH Partnership, as being shortlisted for submission of tenders for Phase 1 of the development planned for the North West Cambridge site.

Images from top left: Sainsbury Centre. Photo: Hufton + Crow. Lea Valley Masterplan. Image: 5th Studio. Dune House. Photo: Living Architecture-Chris Wright. Castle Street Methodist Church stair. Photo: Harry Freeland. Visitor centre at Stowe Landscape Gardens. Photo: Peter Cook. Sketch design for Mitcham’s Corner. Image: Interdisciplinary Design for the Built Environment (IDBE).

2

a clearer vision…

VER

SITY

y Cit

.

tre cen

,U NW

v

UNI

M M i

il ll l

w

i

n

L, GSM d oa y tt Ro a s Ea th W e ce ab Pla Eliz e ll

W all

WII W W CCKK IC KE EENN NF FFEE EN NNVV VIIIS SSIIOO IONN N

New CEN CITY TRE

Ci ty

...fu area Outs The A The co The ...an We cent on th defin cent thre posi coun exis rege parts plan care acce relia of th and of its to en dive (and with inten live amo -enci land con after rega acco Opp city sites adap in (incl -of wit imp surr (as of a high centr dens theth prov area thei land situa or e deve to supp tha Alon issue the fabr of The deve deve wes cycl spac forthi park area of Com ofpa th stati acce part inten be m site. boul netw dens arou neig Roa pote alon on a The confi pref East mast dive appr belt help adop Roa city to ac spec enh cong facil and, to th acce of re busw realm new n mora‘ n.b. thes netwo exists for d devel led b n.b westne addi conne

NxN

E / rk ad a Ro ail PNaorth t e et Wor rk ks ma dge R w Ne mbri aW NC E Central Park m

E

R R ooaad d

TRU

ubur

bs

t

h

CHRomsey Rh e r nBeach s

sout

HIL

G

vi on

e

BA R

r

Coton Coton Coton Country Country Country Park Park Park

4)

IL

HIS

to U N I V E R MArD SITY

r

e

(A 1

s rb

d r o ac M

: Gi

s

u ub

M rn Cor t hitech a n o rn er ms

N

n,

ires

Sp Three

S

G G O O OG

TT H HE E G G G

R R III D D G G E E S S R D G E S

HU

of To w er s

W W E E S S T E R R N N W E S TT E E R N

TTTH T HHHE EEEF FFFE EEEN NNNS SSS

Scie Par nce k Pl us

W ift

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012, as mentioned in our last issue, with its ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’, has meant that our current Local Plan (2006) will become defunct within the next year.

The current Local Plan has on the whole been successful, as explored in our ‘interviews with..” but we are also bequeathed below standard, unimaginative developments.

Brian Human, who in this magazine in 2008 looked at the plans for growth in Cambridge returns to give us an update on national policy and examines two case studies of upcoming developments which were part of the 2006 plan. A new Local Plan is an opportunity to guide the ‘presumption in favour’ in Cambridge’s own favour.

A part of the plan we feel will be especially important is a city-wide three dimensional spatial plan, and similar but more detailed smaller scale plans for particular areas. The area plans would give requirements for; mixed use ratios, for maximum and minimum densities, for heights and plot build ratios allowing for quality public open space, and for sustainable infrastructure. Planning guidance is needed, particularly in areas that are vulnerable to ‘low grade’ development such as Mitchum’s corner. The City have assured us that spatial and three dimensional planning will be part of the new Local Plan, but to what extent must be budget dependent. Kieran Perkins illustrates these ideals.

We are of the opinion that, alongside a robust framework for planning, it is imperative that all the local Planning Councils promote good design in all aspects of the built environment to enhance all areas of the city, not merely conservation areas.

An ideal planning control for Cambridge would see existing design review panels

N

Dr

Cambridge’s Local Plan is currently under review and this issue weaves through the complex context of city planning – taking on board national policy changes, approaches to the greenbelt, promoting mixed use, strategic visions for our city and how to consult on planning. We explore the careful balance between promoting economic development and controlling the quality of the physical environment in Cambridge.

M M A MA G AG GO O OG G GSSS Wandlebury Wandlebury Wandlebury Wandlebury

Potential strategic plans. See pages 8 and 9 for a clearer vision. Image - Kieran Perkins

evaluating proposals which have the design quality to inspire ownership and pride, (which engage the public using innovative consultation techniques as Nuala Flood and Angela Koch explore); which encourage a 24 hour life, on entrepreneurial and creative spirit, and are wonderful places to live, as Adam Peavoy extols; proposals which increase density in our brownfield sites allowing growth without further release of what Sahiba Chadha describes as that which ‘preserves our city’s unique character’, the Green Belt.

As the Cambridge Association of Architects, we reviewed and commented on the Issues and Options – Part 1, the Local Plan consultation document, and met with the City Council to discuss both the detail of the 2103 Local Plan and the consultation for its production. This process led to an open letter in which we detailed our concerns and hopes for the plan, printed, with its response, overleaf.

The consultation on your Local Plan continues in the timeframe detailed here – we are all doing our best to ensure its excellence, but everyone must help, so please – GET INVOLVED! The Editors - Ann Bassett - Cowper Griffith Architects, February Phillips - 5th Studio, Zoë Skelding - Purcell.

DEVELOPMENT OF EVIDENCE BASE AND PREPARATION OF ISSUES AND OPTIONS REPORT Spring 2011 - June 2012

CONSULTATION ON ISSUES AND OPTIONS REPORT AND INTERIM SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL June - July 2012

CONSULTATION ON SITE OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT Autumn/Winter 2012

CONSULTATION ON SUBMISSION DRAFT LOCAL PLAN AND SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL June - July 2013

SUBMISSION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE July 2013

INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION November 2013 - January 2014

ADOPTION OF THE LOCAL PLAN April 2014

Timescale for Cambridge City Council’s new Local Plan

3

Cambridge Association of Architects Chairman: Richard Owers NRAP Architects 13-15 Covent Garden Cambridge, CB1 2HS

Cllr Tim Bick Cllr Tim Bick Leader of Cambridge City Council Leader of Cambridge City Council 10th th January, 2013 10 January, 2013 Dear Cllr. Bick, Dear Cllr. Bick, RE: OPEN LETTER FROM CAA ABOUT PLANNING POLICY ISSUES Re: OPEN LETTER FROM CAA ABOUT PLANNING POLICY ISSUES At the outset of 2013, as we look ahead to the forthcoming first draft of the Plan, the Cambridge At the outset of 2013, as we look ahead to the forthcoming first draft of the Local Local Plan, CAAofwould Association of Architects (CAA) would like to summarise three aspects of planning for thethe future the like to summarise three aspects of planning for the future of the city that we hope the council will focus on in the next stages. city that we hope the council will focus on in the next stages.

Some of these aspects may already be Some of these aspects may already be embedded in the Council’s thinking. The purpose of this letter is for us to be embedded in thewe Council’s thinking. of with this letter clear is for about what us to be al clear about what – as a group - as ato architectur of The localpurpose residents specific profession competenc e in we relation e, group of and localurban planning residents withand specific professional design, a keen in relation interest incompetence to architecture, planning the future success andour own of the City – perceive, through processes of consultatio urban design, n and discussion and a keen interest , to besuccess in the future the keyofchallenges the City - perceive, that the renewed through our own processes Local Plan needs toofaddress. consultation and discussion, to be the key challenges that the renewed Local Plan needs to address.

Challenge 1 - Producing a coherent city-wide spatial plan.

Challenge - Producing a coherent city-wide spatial plan.

We think it is1vitally important that the City is able to clearly describe a spatial strategy that deals not only with the We think is vitally important that developme the City is able to clearly describe a spatial strategy that deals not only with location of it‘green fingers’ and new nt areas on the periphery, but also with the existing built-up areas of the the location ‘green fingers’ and anew development city. areas A spatialofplan on the periphery, but could also with support thelocations existing built-up framework for making positive decisions about suitable for intensification ofareas use and of the city. A spatial increased planItcould density. support a framework would for making also critically positive address about the provision suitable locations of decisions infrastructu re - in particular transport infrastructu re. It isofcurrently for intensification use andextremely the joined-up, increased unclear density. how It would city-wide also critically addressinfrastructu the provision re –ofrequired infrastructure to support - in and make sustainable the scale of growth – is planned to be particular transport accommod infrastructure. ated. city-wide infrastructure It is envisaged currently extremely unclear how the joined-up, required to support and make sustainable the scale of growth envisaged - is planned to be accommodated.

Challenge 2 – Making the most of the land we have.

Challenge 2 - Making the most of the land we have.

Many locations within the city – most often areas that are in any case in desperate need of improvement – are capable locations within the city -intensificat ofMany accommod most oftenion areas ating that including are in anytaller a significant casebuildings, in desperate ofareas improvement of use, - are capable andneed these should be developed orofintensified ahead aofsignificant accommodating any further intensification green-belt release. of use, including Many of taller thesebuildings, these locationsand should beprivate would developed be areas or difficult for the sector tointensified bring forward onoftheir in agreen-belt way that release. would maximise ahead anyown further Many of their City thesepotential. locationsThe would beCouncil difficult is fortherefore uniquely the private sector to bring placed to take anown active ensuring such opportunity areas and Council forward on there are their in arole wayinthat wouldthat currently maximise their potential. identified, The– City is several thereforenot uniquely placed to take including perhaps the retail parks along Newmarket Road – are developed intensified further an active role in ensuring that such opportunity areas - and there are severalornot greenfield currentlybefore identified, perhaps including release is considered. the retail parks along Newmarket Road - are developed or intensified before further greenfield release is considered.

This approach would also be appropriate for the northern fringe east site, which is the only major growth site that is not This approach either well advanced, would or also appropriate onbe hold, northern and one for fringe east site, thatthe whichleader. does is the only not have growth should a natural site thattake this project The major City Council leading role, initially through or is not either planning well advanced, to ensure on hold,policy, and one thatnot that does thehave bestapossible natural project location leader. and layout The City for Council a new transport interchang e isthis brought forward and the potential of thispolicy, site istofully should take realised. leading role, initially Webest alsopossible through encourage planning the City ensure that the location and to undertake a detailed reappraisal of existing brownfield sites and sites previously released from the layout for a new transport interchange is brought forward and the potential of this site is fully green belt asWe wealso believe realised. higher densities should be made possible by better transport links. encourage the City to undertake a detailed reappraisal of existing brownfield sites and sites previously released from the green belt as we believe higher densities should be made possible by better transport links.

Challenge 3 – World-class environments for living and working Challenge 3 - World-class environments for living and working While Whilemuch muchgood goodwork workhas to deliver hasbeen deliver some been done done in some very in the the last last 15 veryhigh 15 years years to highquality qualitynew newdevelopments developments in Cambridge – perhaps most notably within thethe university andand a handful of residential in Cambridge developme - perhaps most notably nts – there within universities a handful of residential developments - therehave been an awful lot of missed opportunities. Now is not a time for complacen cy in aiming to achieve the very best built have been an awful lot of missed opportunities. Now is not a time for complacency in aiming to achieve the environment for the city. In order to cement a reputation for producing new developme nts of great character and very best built needs environment for thetocity.

In order to cement a reputation for producing new developments quality the City to continue champion the appointment of good designers, and be extremely critical of of great character quality City needs to continue schemes to champion that do notand meet highthe standards – right across Cambridge . the appointment of good designers, and be extremely critical of schemes that do not meet high standards - right across Cambridge.

Furthermore the City should be encouraging the creation of the sort of environments that businesses and employees are attracted tothe – dense, mixed, walk-able, urban situations, Furthermore withsort public City should facilities andthat be encouraging excellent public transport the creation of the of environments connections nearby - rather than bland, mono-functional big-box office parks and housingbusinesses and employees are attracted to - dense, mixed, walk-able, urban situations, with public facilities and excellent public estates.

This isconnections best transport achieved by encouraging the creative re-use of city centre environments, the transformation or retro-fitting of suburban nearby rather than bland, mono-functional big-box office parks and housing estates. This is best achieved by business parks, or the insistence on properly urban, car-free, town centre type environments in the new growth areas. encouraging the creative re-use of city centre environments, the transformation or retro-fitting of suburban business parks, or the insistence on properly urban, car-free, town centre type environments in the new growth areas.

Yours sincerely, Richard Owers Chairman of Cambridge Association of Architects 404737 ARCH GAZ 30X193 31/01/2013 11:08 Page 1 An edited version of the letter sent to Cambridge City Council

Expertise on call.

Your kind of law 4

In case of enquiry contact Councillor Tim Bick 13 Warkworth Terrace, Cambridge, CB1 1EG Telephone: 07720 413173 Email tim.bick@btinternet.com

Richard Cllr Tim Bick Owers, Chairman Leader of Cambridge City Council of Architects Cambridge Association 10th13 January, 2013 - 15 Covent Garden

Leader of the Council

Cambridge

DearCB1 Richard, 2HS

OPEN LETTER FROM CAA ABOUT PLANNING POLICY ISSUES Thank you th for your letter and for meeting with Simon Payne before Christmas.

24 January 2013

Clearly members of your organisation play an important professional role in shaping this City and Richard, thoseDear who live and work here also care passionately about how the planning of Cambridge is taken forward. On that note let me immediately reassure you that the planning and development activities that the council isFROM responsible forABOUT are one of PLANNING the key prioritiesPOLICY of this administration.

OPEN LETTER CAA ISSUES The Council is focussed on delivering a new Local Plan and the key issues that you have identified chime Thank you for your letter and for meeting with Simon Payne before Christmas. closely with our own thinking. As you will know, South Cambridgeshire and the City are currently jointly consulting on the second stage of issues and options for our local plan including possible new sites on the Clearly members your organisation an important professional in shaping fringes of the City.

The new of plan will be out in draft forplay consultation in the summer and I hope role your organisation this City and those who live and work here also care passionately about how the will engage fully in all stages of the consultations that take place between now and then. I know that officers Cambridge isbrief taken that note let me have planning met with theofCAA previously to yourforward. members On and receive feedback on immediately your aspirations.reassure

you that the planning and development activities that the council is responsible for

In responding points: I don’t thinkadministration. there is any difference between us on the key are onetoofyour thedetailed key priorities of this issues the local plan needs to address and the relationship of its strategies with the infrastructure and transport that are central to their All of athe sitesLocal you mention Theneeds Council is focussed ondelivery. delivering new Plan are andunder the consideration key issues that and where appropriate the City Local Plan, in concert with the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan will have identified chime closely with our own thinking. As you will know, South provide detailed guidance on the development expectations of the local planning authorities.

you

Cambridgeshire and the City are currently jointly consulting on the second stage of issues and options for our local plan including possible new sites on the fringes of Your comments reflect our own aspirations for the quality of new development in the City. Our priority has been the City. The new plan will be out in draft for consultation in the summer and I hope to put resources into activities where we can gain the best outcome for the future of the City, where we may yourone organisation fully allyou stages of the thatunlike takeother place only have opportunity towill get engage things right.

I’m in sure will know but itconsultations bears repeating that between now and then.

I know that officers have met with the CAA previously to councils we have not reduced our planning and urban design staff resources. We continue to use independent brief yourpanels, members receive feedback on your design advisory we runand and enter design award schemes andaspirations. promote a range of mechanisms through the planning process such as master planning, development briefs, design guidance and design coding to support delivery of quality outcomes for new development in the City. resource is going into In the responding to your detailed points: I don't think thereSignificant is any difference between ensuring thatthe the new Planthe alsolocal reflects these ambitions.

These are all important elements inofdelivering us on keyLocal issues plan needs to address and the relationship its quality in new development I would suggest thattransport this is evidence of a that continued pro-activetoapproach. strategies with theand infrastructure and needs are central their

delivery. All of the sites you mention are under consideration and where appropriate Local Plan will provide detailed guidance on the development expectations of the local planning authorities.

Yours sincerely I hope this has been helpful in response to your letter and to our the City Local Plan, in concert with the South Cambridgeshire continued relationship as custodians of this great city.

Councillor Tim Bick Your comments Leader

reflect our own aspirations for the quality of new development in the City. Our priority has been to put resources into activities where we can gain the best outcome for the future of the City, where we may only have one opportunity to get things right. I'm sure you will know but it bears repeating that unlike other

Cambridge City Council, PO Box 700, Cambridge, CB1 0JH,

404737 ARCH GAZ 30X193 31/01/2013 11:08 Page 2

Call us to find out more about our expert team of planning, environmental, property and construction lawyers.

Contact Colin Jones on 01223 532731 (colinjones@hewitsons.com) Cambridge | Milton Keynes | Northampton

www.hewitsons.com

Your kind of law 5

process - plan - policy

Crown copyright and database right 2012. Ordnance Survey License number 100019730

Strategic Development Options Cambridge City Council From issues and options June 2012

Location of Proposed Chesterton Station

THE NATIONAL PICTURE

change was the winding up of Cambridgeshire Horizons in September 2011. New structures for cooperation have been put in place.

Cambridge City Council is reviewing the 2006 Local Plan to take it through to 2031.

Consultation on policy issues and options in June-July 2012 included a spatial approach that stressed the importance of the Green Belt, building homes close to Cambridge and promoting more sustainable travel. Overall the slower rate of development has resulted in existing unimplemented commitments for around 10,600 dwellings. Consultation on the plan, strategy and site options envisages an additional 2,610 dwellings.

The world of planning has changed since 2008, when Cambridge Architecture 57 reviewed the growth of Cambridge. The economy has been in recession and this has impacted adversely on new development.

Since 2010 this has coincided with a new government that is sceptical about the value of planning. Aspects of the government’s change in approach are included in the Localism Act (2011) - in particular the abolition of regional strategies, the duty for neighbouring planning authorities to cooperate and the introduction of neighbourhood planning.

Introduction of this legislation was followed by the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in 2012. The NPPF has a strongly pro-development stance, emphasises the viability of development and seeks to ‘boost significantly the supply of housing’. The NPPF will become increasingly important in decision making in the absence of an up-to-date Local plan.

LOCAL CHANGES

The Cambridge Local Plan (2006) has been successful in facilitating significant development, often of high quality. However, the recession and other factors mean that the rate of development has been slower than expected. New planning issues have emerged since 2006, for example, the loss of public houses. Organisationally, a significant

Planning

Colin Campbell

01223 347068 ccampbell@savills.com

savills.co.uk/planning 6

THE VISION

The past four years have been turbulent times economically and politically, with planning a focus of attention because of its perceived adverse impact on economic growth. The national importance of the Cambridge area makes it a centre of attention that calls for sound planning.

The 2006 Local Plan set out a vision, policies and a spatial strategy focusing growth on the city, with major development proposed north, south, east, west and the station area, promoting an increasingly multi nodal city.

In the south, major transport infrastructure has been built, houses are going up on Clay Farm and Trumpington Meadows and there are moves forward with Glebe Farm and

Cambridgeshire County Council

the Bell Land. Consent has been given for development at Addenbrooke’s Medipark and major steps have been taken in planning for North West Cambridge. In the north, building is progressing on NIAB and Orchard Park is largely complete. There has been no progress on the East Cambridge Development. The station area is taking shape and individual developments such as the ‘Kaleidoscope’ and ‘Brunswick Riverside’ are nearing completion.

CHESTERTON STATION

The 2006 Local Plan identifies the Northern Fringe East for a high density mixed use development around a new main line railway station and transport interchange at Chesterton Sidings. The future of the Waste Water Treatment Works was explored at that time but economic studies concluded that relocation and redevelopment would not be viable. It is an area identified as a possible site for a household waste recycling centre and as a location for inert waste recycling.

The 2012 Issues and Options Report consultation sought views on the proposals.

It is a moot point as to whether these latter uses are consistent with the more visionary ideas of high density mixed use development.

Central to this vision must be the Chesterton railway station. Plans envisage links to the Guided Busway; with vehicle access only from Cowley Road. The County Council are to bring forward proposals for a foot

responding to the challenge

The 2006 Local Plan heralded a changing vision for Cambridge releasing significant areas of Green Belt for development. In 2008 Cambridge Architecture explored the proposed major development sites and urban extensions. Four years on Brian Human examines the shifting circumstances influencing the future shape of Cambridge.

Where in Cambridge would benefit the most from investment?

An effective but environmentally sound transport system for the whole of Cambridge would benefit all areas of our city. Having a mobile work force would do wonders for our economy, and would hopefully help to increase employment, improving access into the city centre, and to London where more jobs are available. Chesterton Station would be instrumental in achieving this - it’s something I’ve campaigned for for over a decade, and I am glad to see it included in the Issues and Options Report for the 2012 Local Plan.

Building in the green belt - your views?

Cambridge East, Marshalls North Works

and cycle bridge over the river next to the railway bridge, creating a new link to east Cambridge. The Government confirms it is likely the Cambridge Science Park Station will be included in forthcoming train operating franchises. Funding for construction is being put into place, with 2015 the earliest date of operation.

CAMBRIDGE EAST

The development of a new urban quarter at Cambridge East is a key part of the spatial strategy in the current Local Plan and South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework. The site north of Newmarket Road was identified in the Cambridge East Area Action plan for development of 1,500 to 2,000 new homes whilst the airport remained in operation. Marshall has looked actively into relocation options for the airport activities since 2006.

Marshall announced in April 2010 that, following failure to find an alternative location, it intended to remain at Cambridge Airport.

However, the land north of Newmarket Road is still available for development and Marshall has recently announced a renewed intention to submit a planning application for 1,500 new homes on this land. Such a scheme will not benefit from a close association with the originally proposed airfield development; and integration with existing communities in east Cambridge will be a considerable challenge.

Terry Holloway, Marshall Group

MOVING FORWARD

There are lessons to be learned from the experience of trying to develop these two major brown field opportunity sites.

• External national and local factors can prevent proposals being carried through; hence plans need to be flexible enough to weather such storms.

• Where the changes affect strategic sites, can the spatial strategy still be carried through in the longer term, or do shorter, medium term objectives take over? It might be argued that in the case of these sites the longterm is being sacrificed for the immediate.

• Bringing important sites forward, especially where there are strong vested interests, requires strategic leadership and partnership building. The duty to cooperate notwithstanding, the Cambridge area lacks an effective layer of strategic planning.

If Cambridge is growing more slowly than originally intended or expected, this is due more to a failure of the economy than of planning. There is a case to be made that sound planning in Cambridge has contributed to the City bucking the development trend.

It might also be argued that slow growth is not a bad thing – the qualities we value in Cambridge are in many ways a product of measured growth over many years. Short term expedient decisions should not be allowed to distort future vision.

Brian Human, Planning Consultant, Cambridge

delivering solutions

Building on the green belt should be avoided as much as possible. Cambridge is an historic and unique city, with great natural beauty. But because of these qualities, our population is growing rapidly, and most land available to develop has already been used.

Controlled release may be necessary but it should be done carefully. We need to strike a careful balance between providing enough housing and services for our city whilst not sacrificing our green belt without careful consideration.

Who do you think should define the future of Cambridge?

I believe the future of Cambridge should be led first and foremost by residents, because they know Cambridge best. We need people from all levels to think strategically about the future needs of the city, its population and the important environmental issues of today.

A healthy combination of residents’ voices being heard and professionals thinking ahead towards 2030 and beyond should ensure Cambridge has a bright future.

Are ‘neighbourhood plans’ viable?

The devolution of powers back to Local Authorities rather than central Government can only be a positive thing. Neighbourhood plans are a new way for communities to decide the future of the places where they live and work, giving them a say on what new homes, shops and offices should be built and where. Planning is set to become a bottom up process, driven by the communities it effects, rather than a top down process controlled from afar.

Dr Julian Huppert – MP for Cambridge & Lib Dem spokesperson on Home Affairs, Justice and Equalities

Urban Design & Heritage James Rennie

01223 347260 jrennie@savills.com

savills.co.uk/urbandesign 7

S G E

c

S

EN VIS IO

S

W

D

G

E

NE

Kieran Perkins, Architect and Urban Designer, 5th Studio

Coton Country Park

R

I

w

N R E T E

S

T S E

MAGO

THE G

W

OG

TH

EF

GS

W

BA

CHR

E

R

N

R

R

I

t o

Coton Country Park

5

We should enhance the existing, varied qualities of the main arterial roads, with new or renewed soft landscaping + sensitive adaptation and improvement of the streetscape to improve their appearance and to support better pedestrian, cycling and public transport access...

Wandlebury

8

EN

New CIT CE Y NT RE

S

E

Nor Wo th rks

M Co i rn

G I D R S T

E

R

N

R

I D

G

E

S

The area around the new parkway station would be particularly suitable for highdensity development, and this potential should be realised in preference to additional green belt release...

E

S

NxN

OG

MAGO

GS

W E

Support and enable a programme of local engagement and design - concentrating on local issues and opportunities - resulting in a mini-masterplan for each residential neighourhood.

N

S

KE NF

.

D

G

E

MAD

7

W

EN

N

Neighbourhood Plans

R T E S E

THE G

S

N

Repair and intensify

Catalyse - through infrastructural investment and the release of land from highway or other low density use - the improvement and more intensive inhabitation of underutilised areas previously damaged by insensitive highway infrastructure.

N

r

e

h

HU

Sci e Par nce k Plu s

Centred on a new transport interchange at the heart of the potential busway network, this is a key opportunity to accommodate significant development without incursions into the greenbelt. A vision and masterplan for the area stretching from CRC to Newmarket Road is needed.

Coton Country Park

R

I

i

D

v

G E D I R N R

EF

Cambridge North

Together these plans give an overview of the components of a potential strategic spatial plan for the city.

8

TH

R

9

4

GS

E

8

Building on the designated growth areas (and their citywide busway connections). Develop these areas as higher density quarters, each with its own character, and identify a strong three-dimensional urban plan to guide growth.

MAGO

S T

7

Edge Cities

rbs

HIL

6

subu

OG

Civilise the city’s busiest roads with landscaping and greater priority to pedestrians, cyclists and local buses.

Complete a network of off-road busways - including a city centre access loop using the latent boulevards of Newmarket Road and Hills Road - linking transport hubs and the Park and Ride sites with the city centre.

hern

WIC

Busway Network

sout

THE G

5

Road

IL

City Roads

ill

d r o a M

4

e

n

A plan each for the historic core, Mill Road, and the university district west of Kings Parade - seeking to preserve and enhance the specific qualities of each.

m

HIS

Three Civic Plans

s

SITY

U

3

Plan to extend and complete a network of green spaces that penetrate the city, connect town and country and, in the tradition of the Backs and Pieces, provide a foreground for the city’s built form.

rb

a

r

TR

Green Grid

bu

A complex city - set between three different landscapes

S

t

2

VER

he

su

M

T E

Start planning from what’s good; the river, characterful city ‘centres’ and compact suburbs surrounded by three diverse landscapes.

UNI

rt

rn

2

EN

S

City Assets

no

W E

1

EF

E

These thumbnail images were produced by Kieran Perkins as part of the CAA’s submission to the Issues and Options stage of the Local Plan review.

Full version available at: http://tinyurl.com/ahnn37w

TH

W

camplan

1

Ea e- W ac eth l P b ille za nv Eli Go ad Ro

EN

3

The city should preserve and positively plan a network of accessible open space - of diverse character and use - to encircle and criss-cross the city - connecting with the surrounding landscapes and rn he providing a foreground for rt no development in the tradition of the Backs and the city’s UNI VER Commons and Pieces.

SITY

TH

Get the balance right.

EF

su

bu

rb

EN

S

s

S

WIC KE NF

EN VIS IO N

S

EN VIS IO N

EF

WIC KE NF

TH

G E

UNI

VER

SITY

R R ooaad d

en yc tre

sout

hern

subu

Who do you think should define the future of Cambridge?

T E E

S

n.b ‘Romsey Beach’ included as part of this ‘greengrid’ rather than as an opporunity area

W

OG

Wandlebury

WIC

KE NF

6

...and supplement this with a counter-network of rapid and reliable off-street busways (and related foot/cycleways) - connecting to park+ride sites, the major growth areas (as already established) and areas of major employment to the north, south, east and west - with a new parkway s: G irt withofthe station at...and the heart thelatent boulevards of Newmarket network...

Road and Hills Road reconfigured as tree-lined Coton Country Park approaches to the historic city centre providing a congestion-free access loop to the city centre from the busway system.

N

EF

(A

Dr

W

TH

EN

14

)C

ity

W al

of Tow er

E

T

E

R

N

R

UL, GSM

S

W

Alongside the on-going redevelopment of the station area, proative planning for intensification of the areas around Mitcham’s Corner, and along Newmarket Road and East Road would potentially help to break down barriers to accessing the city centre, facilitate better public transport access, improve the the public realm and provide significant new development through better, more intensive, land-use. Again, these areas should be a priortiy for development - if necessary led by the city council - ahead of additional green-belt release.

S

OG

TH

EF

MAGO

GS

Wandlebury

EN

S

How can the plans for the County, the City and South Cambridgeshire be best integrated?

Has the current Local Plan had any significant successes?

The current city Local Plan’s greatest successes were to recognise that if you want to retain the historic core, then you need to promote development elsewhere, such as the careful release of land from the Green Belt and promoting the redevelopment of the Outside of the areas highlighted areaslides around on the previous - i.e. thethe Station.

What could the Cambridge Association of Architects address in a future workshop?

E G S T

E

R

N

R

t as - E ay e W ac h Pl et le ab vil Eliz n Go ad Ro

to ensure that the maximum amount of development is accommodated in these areas - with the aim of producing Thereurban should be a ‘Greater Cambridge Plan’ dense, mixed-use, situations in direct contrast to covering the City and South Cambridgeshire, the adjacent network of green spaces. incorporating a transport and infrastructure

parts of the city where most of its inhabitants currently live - more detailed questions regarding local facilities CAA should run workshops for planning (includingThe protection of local centres), conservation c o m m i tissues, tee members and residents’ landscape and environmental associations increasing their knowledge of issues/improvements, and development regeneration theor pressures and issues facing developers of particular sites, might better increasing skills and confidence in dealing be made through a process of neighbourhood - based withplanning difficult and contentious decisions. on a series of neighbourhood masterplans facilitated and adopted by the city council with specialist urban design input and, critically, the involvement of residents.

S

/ ad ark Ro il P et eta k r R a e wm idg Ne mbr Ca

s

Spire

I D

M Co itch rn am er s

9

...furthermore, there are several areas at the edge of the city centre that are in need of regeneration and renewal and would benefit from more intensive occupation (generally after the previous imposition of inappropriate/over-scaled highway infrastructure).

EN

Three

THE G

OG

MAGO

Wandlebury

GS

OG

THE G

EF

Wandlebury

W E

TH

S

THE G

S

n.b. about half of the but hypothetical network shown here already exists or will be delivered through developement of the NIAB or Northwest sites, with the rest relating to new connections to the parkway station E

THE G

MAGO G OG

Like it or not, the future of Cambridge can ultimately be defined by Central Government. The NPPF is pro-development and the city is a driver of national economic growth and it is hard to see how the ‘localism agenda’ is going to be allowed to get in the way. The warning shots have already been sounded with Eric Pickles threatening to allow developers to by-pass slowThe major growth sites (as defined in performing the previous local local authorities (Cambridge is plan) should be re-/appraised currently in the top 10).

strategy and a combined CIL charging schedule. This would then be subject to a single ‘examination in public’ leading to a formally adopted comprehensive and coordinated plan for the wider Cambridge area. All that would be needed is a unitary authority to oversee its implementation!

Central Park

W, ,N

D

on

G

E

S

S

l

ift

I

Wandlebury

N

EN VIS IO

N

S

GS

EN VIS IO

EN

MAGO

KE NF

EF

GS

WIC

TH

MAGO

THE G

THE G

OG

proud of the quality of everything is precious.

If you stifle development in the historic core Opportunities further andto the extensive conservation areas and do improve and intensify use of notwhile release land in the Green Belt or allow the city centre preserving or enhancing historic urban where is development going tallthebuildings fabric should be considered tothego?

Cambridge does not have a legacy for instance redevelopement of the University’s Mill Lane of obsolete industrial land. If we cannot site. carefully balance these factors and agree the The character, grain, scale and best sitesMillfor new development, then Central diversity of use along Road should be preserved andundoubtedly will.

Government enhanced.

rbs

R

N

Romsey Beach

il ll l

Cit

R

I

D

M M i

Coton Country Park

The best qualities of the city are be rightly centre andPeople Mill Road should carefully maintained.

Cambridge but not

MAGO

Wandlebury

GS

n.b neighbourhoods are indicative

Dr. Jon Burgess Director, Beacon Planning Ltd

9

green belt – buckle up

Inner Green Belt boundary to the City as aerial image.

Source: GoogleMaps

‘Areas of Major Change’ denoted in orange.

Source: GoogleMaps & CCC Local Plan 2006

‘Areas of Major Change’ cut out of green belt boundary Source: GoogleMaps

The Green Belt is renowned for inflaming heated debate – with landowners and developers keen to cash in on its release; and conservationists keen to preserve rural and urban character. Sahiba Chadha explores this national obsession and the impact of a changing Green Belt on a city and surroundings – asking; should we tighten our Green Belts to stop our outskirts slipping?

The terms ‘openness’ and ‘permanence’ are fundamental characteristics that define the Green Belt. Yet many believe the latter to be under threat by the recent consolidation of planning policy in the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in March 2012. In the case of Cambridge this may have fundamental implications for the city’s urban fabric.

The country’s fourteen Green Belts make up 13% of England’s total land area,1.6 million hectares. Since the 1950s, these designations have been a means of preserving both the countryside and the character of English towns and cities, preventing unrestricted growth into urban sprawl and assisting urban regeneration. They provide local access to open countryside for urban-dwellers and outdoor recreational space, together with being vital to nature conservation and retaining agricultural or forestry land.

‘...the Green Belt is of great importance in preserving England’s urban fabric.’

NEW PLANNING POLICY

The NPPF definition does not deviate far from this, and to its credit it underlines that the Green Belt is of great importance in preserving England’s urban fabric. Closer scrutiny reveals any real threat to the Green Belt is found in the Framework’s subtext. For example take the sentence, “At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development”, which demonstrates the notion that development will stimulate economic growth. Whilst some effort is made to define the term

‘sustainable’ there remains an ambiguity to what exactly is classified as such. The idea that “sustainable development” can speed through decision-making “without delay” as the NPPF encourages, is alarming. This point is contentious among protectors of the Green Belt. Perhaps the most vocal of these is volunteer organisation Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), who published its own study of threatened Green Belts in August 2012. Cambridge was shown to be relatively better off compared to areas such as Birmingham, whose council is described as more sympathetic to release of the Green Belt. CPRE list the Cambridge Green Belt boundaries around the City and in South Cambridgeshire as under threat from 12,350 dwellings as part of its current review of the 2006 Local Plan.

While Cambridge Green Belt is relatively small at 26,340 hectares, a mere 1.6% of the national Green Belt area, its boundary and release has been a hot topic in the last decade. Cambridge’s designation has its own operative bias; to preserve the city’s unique dynamic character as compact with a relatively large historic centre, to maintain and enhance the quality of the city’s setting and to prevent merging of local ‘necklace’ communities.

SPACE FOR DEVELOPMENT

Established in 1954, perhaps the greatest boundary changes were sparked by Cambridge City Council’s Green Belt appraisal in 2002.

This has resulted in large developments such as the Biomedical Campus, the North West Cambridge expansion, Trumpington Meadows and Clay Farm on the city’s periphery. Michael Monk, Chairman of CPRE

WWW.KJTAIT.COM

10

Cambridgeshire & Peterborough, believes this recent re-designation allows plenty of space to accommodate Cambridge’s share of required nationwide development. Monk is most concerned by the suggestion of a ‘Green Belt swap’ which would continue to allow development so long as proportionate increase is accommodated elsewhere. He notes, “any erosion of Green Belt close to the city of Cambridge would undermine character and setting and could not be compensated for by land some eight to ten miles out.” As such,

‘...the city’s unique dynamic character is compact with a relatively large historic centre.’ he believes the current revised boundary must remain untouched over the next thirty years.

In the spirit of the Government’s 2011 Localism Bill, the NPPF suggests planning authorities should work with their local communities to establish opportunities for sustainable development in their region.

Workshop consultation on the Cambridge Local Plan, completed in February 2012, involved councillors, stakeholders, developers, agents and residents’ associations. The workshop was deeply critical of the current Local Plan Green Belt approach (Clause 4/1), deeming it the Plan’s least successful policy.

It also revealed that despite a common desire for high quality design within development, there was no consensus on where growth should be. Options suggested by participants included increased density and height in the City (something CPRE have consistently argued for) or, conversely, dividing Cambridge into a city of multiple hubs.

 

Where in Cambridge would benefit most from investment?

The north-east of Cambridge with development of the new Chesterton train station (from Milton Road, to the river, Old Chesterton and Fen Road). A master plan, regenerating older housing stock and business park areas integrating sustainable transport linkages, community facilities (including a stadium/ shared business building) and green spaces, with imaginative development could create a unique urban quarter; a novel, arty, environmentally friendly quarter for business, sport and commuters.

Are ‘neighbourhood plans’ viable?

Most of our issues in Cambridge go beyond smaller neighbourhoods. Local people taking on issues within their area could benefit all, retaining and enhancing quality environments in their neighbourhood. Lack of finance, limited volunteer power and knowledge may mean that ‘Localism’ won’t work for each area.

How could the planning process be improved to give better control of the quality of large-scale developments?

Cambridge Green Belt boundary in 2002 as defined in CCC commissioned report ‘CAMBRIDGE GREEN BELT STUDY A Vision of the Future for Cambridge in its Green Belt Setting’ - produced by Landscape Design Associates, Peterborough.

GREEN FINGERS

The current Local Plan Green Belt policy does stress that it will support proposals that “increase public access, improve amenity and enhance biodiversity”, ensuring a network of green space for both amenity and wildlife across the city. Such aspirations surely align with the ‘sustainable development’ encouraged within the NPPF. In many ways these characteristic ‘green corridors’ or ‘fingers’ running through the city are the darling concept of nature conservation in the city’s plans. The cynic, however, might consider these to be less green fingers coming into the city and more suburban sprawl leeching out into the Green Belt. Yet with current Cambridge Green Belt proportions consisting of 74% arable/horticultural land, 13% semi-natural grassland and only 5% woodland cover, perhaps these ‘green corridors’ could work towards improving outdoor space intended for pure recreation.

“effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed.”

AN INERT GREEN BELT?

A core planning principle of the NPPF is the “effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value”. Cambridge, unlike larger metropolitan areas like London or Birmingham, has less brownfield land available, which makes further Green Belt release more likely. Michael Monk notes the financial and environmental costs at hand; “One of the important characteristics of Cambridge as protected by its Green Belt is that it is easily traversed by foot and bicycle…eroding the Green Belt would make such journeys less attractive and could require greater investment in roads and public transport infrastructure.”

Clearly an inert, permanent Green Belt is an argument for a taller, denser Cambridge, an acutely urban island embedded in a patchwork of countryside. The alternative of a changing Green Belt will inevitably become a driver for urban sprawl. For Cambridge residents it might be difficult to make peace with either scenario.

Sahiba Chadha, Department of Architecture, University of Cambridge

By learning from continental examples – sharing the uplift of land value between the original owner and the Local Authority, procurement of development parcels through a master plan developed by a team with wide ranging specialists, to ensure quality layout, design, detailing, bulk procurement of sustainable materials, employing local companies and ensuring low-cost long-term maintenance.

Building in the Green Belt - your views?

The Green Belt is one of the best things that happened to Cambridge, avoiding uncontrolled sprawl and retaining some of Cambridge’s beauty. Land released over a decade ago is now being built upon, any further development needs exceptional justification with all opportunities for development within the city or outside fully explored and analysed before attacking the valuable Green Belt. Cambridge as a major economic engine needs its green lungs for us to work at full power and stay happy and healthy at the same time!

Has the current Local Plan had any significant successes?

Yes, strong decision making resulted in more environment-friendly developments with on-site energy generation above the then national guidelines.

Carolin Gohler CEO, Cambridge Past Present and Future www.cambridgeppf.org

11

mixing it up Employees don’t especially like being in science parks on the outskirts of a city - even sites that have their own lakes or cafe’s - and a predominance of such employment zones is not good for a creative city. People who work in offices or laboratories are not mere cogs in the industrial zones of the 21st Century but also wish to interact socially around working hours. Housing and commercial developers must work together to mix up our streets. Adam Peavoy explains:

“Quality of place is not a frill: it is a necessity’ Richard Florida, 2012 URBAN LAND magazine.

A PLACE TO SUPPORT CREATIVITY.

Cambridge is clearly a creative city, where the force of ideas is understood. Since the start of the Cambridge phenomenon however the world has also realised the power of creativity, technology, science and knowledge as an economic engines. Consequently many cities are now trying to emulate the ‘silicon something’ model and there is growing international competition for talent and market share. In this context, some hard questions can be raised about whether the city is performing to task at nurturing creativity and its economic impact. In particular is the form, quality and image of the city attracting and retaining the best talent and optimising the interchange of knowledge?

The reality for any prospective or existing employee, the idea originators, is that they are part of a growing number of people who do

not have contact with the city’s vibrant historic core on a day-to-day basis. Their work is likely to be in a peripheral, silo like employment cluster that contains little or no mix of use, has low-grade public space, is surrounded by low-density, poor quality suburban housing and is remote from social facilities. Is this an appropriate form for a creative city?

Richard Florida, who defined a new ‘creative class’, and Charles Landry the author of ‘The Creative City’ both suggest that creative cities are vibrant, mixed use, participatory, connected, authentic and dynamic places. Florida even substitutes ‘quality of place’ for the familiar phrase ‘quality of life’. The reality for Cambridge is that the ‘quality of place’ is not good enough in the non-core parts of the city to allow them to adequately support the city’s crucial creative industries.

This concern is echoed in ‘Cambridge phenomenon at 50: Retrospect and prospect’ which identifies that most employees in the city would prefer to work in the central core and that this is where business networks are seen to be most successful and sustainable. Simply put, the places where most people work in Cambridge do not provide the qualities sought after by a creative class and the form of the city in this regard threatens its economic health.

CONNECTIVITY, DENSITY, DIVERSITY

Vibrant Mixed use in the city centre -Quayside, Cambridge. Image - Luke Cave

12

The creative city relies on social interaction for the exchange of ideas and the stimulation enterprise. It is true that Cambridge University provides an exceptional setting for such interchange and that much industry in the city starts as spins-offs from the University but Cambridge has reached a tipping point where industry now has as much impact on the city as the University has had historically. To maximise its creative potential the city needs to provide greater opportunity for all it’s citizens to come together outside of the university context and for creative industries to exist independently. This is especially important given that the planned

growth of the city will further reduce contact with the city centre.

“In the industrial age there was a need to separate dirty industry from work, home and leisure. But knowledge industries require urban settings that project space, openness and social interchange’

Charles Landry, The creative city.

To achieve improved interaction the city needs more successful streets and increased efforts to break down the results of its highly zoned planning history. Jane Jacobs, Donald Appleyard, Jahn Gehl and others have demonstrated how streets assist social interaction and help create activity, ‘buzz’ and the possibility of unexpected encounters. To create streets you need diversity of use in close proximity, sufficient density and high quality public space.

Diversity in employment sectors is also crucial for a creative place and in trying to protect the city’s ‘stand out business sectors’, the five most prominent industries including education and technology, the council have historically pursued what they term a ‘selective management of the economy’. This policy has not encouraged other industries to grow and establish footholds, which has created an imbalance in the city’s employment base that now needs addressing. The arts sector, for instance, could be strengthened through an incentivised Creative Arts Quarter, which in turn could form the basis of a strong and identifiable a character for one of the city’s new streets.

COMMUNICATION IN THE FRINGES

It is all too easy to ignore ‘the bits between’ in cities as they often fall across ownership boundaries and are not direct revenue generators. Public space however is crucial to the image of a place and it is so important Cambridge improves this real weakness in

Science Park entrance - existing situation ( ‘photo location’ noted above)

its make up to assist in satisfying the best worldwide talent. Pedestrian and public transport interconnections for instance are real issues for the city; it is important to avoid new peripheral developments being isolated and for existing ones to be better linked. For example, Cambridge University’s ‘Northwest Cambridge’ development has a real chance of success as a dynamic urban place but will the connection with West Cambridge across Madingley road be remodelled as a pleasant pedestrian environment? How successful will the link be from Northwest Cambridge across the NIAB sites to the Science Park? These links are crucial to build connectivity across the city’s zones allowing each one the potential to have a slightly distinct functional emphasis yet not become silos. It is also important that these routes are established as pleasant and high quality streets or green corridors where

Science Park Potential for Mixed use

Image - Matthew Smith

people can stop, interact or socialise.

“Life between buildings is not merely pedestrian traffic or recreational or social activities. Life between buildings comprises the entire spectrum of activities, which combine to make communal spaces in cities and residential areas meaningful and attractive.”

Jan Gehl, Life between Buildings (1987)

For the city’s economic advantage to be maintained the life between buildings must be treated with more care. Cambridge has so much going right but it is important the city’s image and form keep pace with its aspirations and that the ‘quality of place’ in both new and existing periphery zones is made world class.

Adam Peavoy, Architect, Cambridge

Image - Matthew Smith

Where in Cambridge would benefit most from investment and how could the Local Plan enable this?

All parts of Cambridge would benefit from investment. Resources for investment in infrastructure will be provided from development - be that affordable housing or through S106 or CIL. Failure to provide for development will mean resources secured from investment are spent elsewhere, although given the economic strength of Cambridge people will continue to travel into the city. Cambridge will continue to suffer the disbenefits of growth, such as congestion, without being able to lever in the benefits.

Building in the green belt - your views?

Green Belt is not an environmental designation in its own right. It is a policy tool to deliver a planning strategy. Cambridge continues to need a Cambridge-centred approach, supporting the sub-regional economy, tackling the housing crisis and addressing Climate Change. These issues, coupled with the huge under delivery of homes in the Cambridge area since 2000 and the loss of key sites from the strategy means the appropriateness of the Green Belt boundaries needs re-visiting.

How could the planning process be improved to give better control of the quality of large-scale developments?

The planning process doesn’t need to be improved to give “better” control over large scale developments. The planning process needs improvement to ensure that desperately needed development can be delivered more quickly to support the continued economic success of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire.

Has the current Local Plan had any significant successes?

A critical task for the Local Plan was to reverse the previous strategy of dispersal and deliver significantly more new homes in and on the edge of Cambridge. Whilst the plan might be said to have had a degree of success in putting in place such strategy, the plan needs to be judged against delivery and unfortunately, by 2011, under delivery against the local plan stood at 4,000 homes and against the East of England Plan, at 4,800. The next Local Plan needs to ensure it facilitates delivery.

Colin Campbell, Director Savills Planning & Regeneration

We are suppliers of residential and commercial floor and wall tiles.

Serving the architectural and design community, we specialise in innovative and sustainable hard surface finishes including porcelain, ceramic, mosaic, natural stone and conglomerates in both tile and slabs.

Call us free now for free on 0800 093 4902, email office@bedrock-tiles.com www.bedrock-tiles.com

13

consult

Can the man on the street really answer quesions on a local plan in a useful way? Nuala Flood thinks so — if both the question and the answer are properly framed. There are a whole host of imaginative methods to involve the public and extract generative insights from a city’s inhabitants.

“It is unfortunate that all too often, endusers are merely asked to react to an already formulated plan”

With a reevaluation of urban planning in the 1960s, public consultation has gained increasing importance in a more human-centred approach.

The rationale for carrying out public consultation includes: advancing issues of fairness and justice, legitimising public decisions, finding out the public’s preferences and fulfilling legal requirements for public notice. Public consultation is a way of uncovering the end-users’ local knowledge so that it can be incorporated into the planning process and therefore it is particularly relevant in the creation of local area plans. It is unfortunate that all too often, end-users are merely asked to react to an already formulated plan. If local knowledge is to be authentically incorporated into the planning process, public consultation ought to be carried out at the generative stages, to not just inform the plan but to inspire the process. Consultation is not just a question of collecting data about what the public want in terms of facilities and amenities. It is about illuminating hopes, dreams and desires for an area.

In the summer of 2011, in order to help formulate their vision statement for one of the busiest shopping areas in Dublin’s city centre, Dublin City Council contracted the Designing Dublin 2.0 team to carry out on-street public consultation in the Grafton Street Quarter. The challenge was to engage with a random selection of city centre users, to uncover how they felt about the area and to discover what they might change if they were given the opportunity. The design team decided to lure people into conversation in this busy city centre location, using what Hitchcock would term a ‘McGuffin’, or a ‘big, dumb object’ ― a prop whose main function is to engage both the characters and the audience, driving the plot forward, but being of limited significance to the essence of the storyline.

Towers of cardboard boxes, topped with an invitation asking people to ‘Help us design a better Grafton Street Quarter’, were placed in multiple, prominent locations around the area, arousing curiosity and luring 473 passersby into conversation. The participants were14:51 thenPage requested to answer a Cambridge Architects Gazette Ad_Layout 1 31/01/2013 1 People’s local knowledge incorporated Image - Nuala Flood number of intentionally open questions, such as:

ALL YOUR BUILDING NEEDS from a name you can trust Delivering daily across East Anglia from 25 branches 14

the ‘ McGuffin’ in the plot

Image- Designing Dublin 2.0

Is there anything you love about this area that you would hate to see lost? Describe your dream for the future of this area...

The colourful responses were then pinned to the cardboard tower and the sight of them fluttering in the wind attracted further passersby into conversation. At times a queue of people formed, wanting to express their thoughts. People were also invited to write their ideas about the area on a sheet of paper and be photographed with this personal expression. This was to allow Dublin City Council get a sense of who they were creating this vision statement for. However, there is no substitute for those formulating the Local Plan themselves experiencing the process.

Some recurring themes emerged such as the desire for further pedestrianisation of the area and less on-street parking. The area’s value as a civic amenity was reiterated; many noted that it was a ‘treat’ to stroll around the narrow streets and lanes. In response, Dublin City Council have begun an exercise in the temporary widening of the footpaths and removal of car-parking spaces in the area. These temporary measures are now being evaluated before permanent installation begins. Though the tower of cardboard boxes have long been dismantled, the conversations that the McGuffin helped initiate continue to reverberate in the city’s physical layout.

Nuala Flood, Urban Researcher, Trinity College, Dublin

CAMBRIDGE North Nuffield Road CB4 1TS CAMBRIDGE South Cromwell Road CB1 3YB Tel 01223 466000 www.ridgeons.co.uk

RIDGEONS Timber & Builders Merchants

Who do you think should define the future of Cambridge?

in the ‘hood New legislation, as mentioned in CA64 suggests we can come together as community groups to produce plans for our city. In theory this will enable development, give a sense of ownership and result in positive cohesive planning.

Can this really be a useful part of the process without dedicated funding? Angela Koch explains how it is going in Kentish Town.

The Localism Act received Royal Assent on the 15th November 2011. It includes the provision for Neighbourhood Development Plans and Orders to be developed by Parish Councils or Neighbourhood Forums. Neighbourhood Plans will be adopted as policy once they have passed a designation and examination stage and a local referendum. If successful, they then sit underneath the Local Plan and should be in general conformity with higher level plans, but their policies would have to be taken into account by the Planning Authority when assessing planning applications.

Neighbourhood plan making is fundamentally different to top-down, wellresourced and carefully controlled planmaking. Neighbourhood Planning work is generally done by volunteers on shoestring budgets, so the ability of forums to attract free skilled help and funding is critical.

There are currently over 250 funded ‘Neighbourhood Planning Frontrunners’ and non-funded groups trying out ways to make Neighbourhood Plans based on this new legislation, which gives direction but not instruction. One of those Frontrunners is the Kentish Town Neighbourhood Forum (KTNF).

Since its creation in January 2012, KTNF has successfully attracted Neighbourhood Planning Frontrunner monies, on-going professional support from the Prince’s Foundation, research students from UCL and a growing number of external organisations such as the Royal College of Art. KTNF have carried out wide reaching public and stakeholder engagement using various dialogue formats, aimed at shaping and inspiring the design and planning work. This included over 500 on-street conversations with passers by and local business owners and an Enquiry by Design, a hands-on, design-led workshop. In Kentish Town, one early outcome of this work is the realignment of mainstream Local Authority funding towards a new station square.

There are two, equally important, ways in which successful Neighbourhood Planning can improve an area. The first is through local focus, learning and partnership building during the plan making process and the second is the plan’s affect on the local planning policy framework, guiding future design and investment decisions.

Angela Koch, Director, ImaginePlaces Ltd, Kentish Town

My view is that the planning process has a key role to play in this. The production of a new Local Plan for Cambridge should be the process by which a spatial vision for the city is created. The engagement of the various communities of this city is paramount and there is extensive public engagement built in. 11,000 comments in response to the first issues and options consultation bears witness to that. The feedback received helps challenge, test and support the development of the new plan.

I believe the new plan needs clarity about the future vision for the city. It needs to react appropriately to current circumstances and plan for future needs. It needs to set out options and consequences for difficult choices that need to be made about the balance to be struck between meeting needs for homes and jobs and where that development should go.

Where in Cambridge would benefit the most from investment and how could a Local Plan enable this?

The city clearly needs new infrastructure to support growth and this infrastructure is in part identified through the planning process.

The Local Plan should be a vehicle for helping direct development to where it is needed – an example of this might be the identification of new opportunity areas we hope to promote through the new Local Plan.

Are ‘neighbourhood plans’ viable?

Neighbourhood plans have their place. My view is that we should make sure our new Local Plan reflects the planning issues that people are interested in locally so that they don’t need to do neighbourhood plans unless really necessary.

Building in the Green Belt - your views?

This is part of the challenge we face in planning to deliver sustainable development.

We need to find the right approach for Cambridge that balances economic, environmental and social needs against the land we have available to meet those needs.

Green Belt land has to be examined for the part it can play in meeting those needs, whilst recognising that Green Belts are designated for a specific purpose, and that purpose can be undermined.

Patsy Dell Head of Planning Services Cambridge City Council Enquiry by Design

Biljana Savic, Prince’s Foundation

‘I wish this was...’

KTNF

15

Cover: Mike Taylor, 5th Studio

PUDLO is the world’s first and most widely used admixture for producing Watertight, Corrosion-Resistant Concrete.

The PUDLO System

20-year company warranty – covers product and completed section of works

10 year renewable independent insurance backed guarantee

ISO9001, BBA and WRAS certified

Dedicated site-support teams attendance throughout your project

PUDLO – WATERPROOF CONCRETE WATERTIGHT GUARANTEE

Newmarket Leisure Centre, Suffolk

T: +44 (0)1954 780687 sales@pudlo.com www.pudlo.com

CA gazette current sponsors 5th Studio A.E.H. Sursham AC Architects Andrew Firebrace Partnership Anthony Cooper ART VPS Ltd Barr Architects Berkeley Homes Bobby Open Bremner Partnership Caroe Architecture Carter Jonas LLP CFCI Colen Lumley DPA Architects Ltd Freeland Rees Roberts Architects Hayes Specialist Recruitment Hannah Reed Harvey Norman Architects Haysom Ward Miller Ian Harvey Ivor Smith Jonathan Polley Architects John Honer K. P. Rainsford Marshall of Cambridge (Airport Properties) Ltd Martindales Mole Architects NDC Architects Ltd NRAP Ltd Paul Eccleston PD Consulting Peter Sparks Purcell Rob Howard Robert Hatt Savills (UK) Ltd Studio 24 Architects The Landscape Partnership Tim Christy William Miller Architects Wrenbridge Cambridge Architecture gazette is a review produced by the Cambridge Association of Architects, the local chapter of the Royal Institute of British Architects. The views in this gazette are those of individual contributors (named and unnamed) and not of the Association. www.architecture.com/cambridgegazette ISSN 1361-3375 This issue edited by Ann Bassett February Phillips Zoë Skelding Fundraising Marie Luise Critchley-Waring Sponsorship Ashley Courtney Editorial Board Adam Peavoy, Richard Owers.

Copyedited by The Editors Ranald Lawrence, Ze’ev Feigis Cambridge Architecture gazette Zoë Skelding, c/o Purcell, 1 Quayside Bridge Street, Cambridge CB5 8AB To receive your free copy of the gazette and for other enquiries e-mail: riba.caa@googlemail.com We welcome letters and article suggestions Designed & produced with CB Creative www.cb2creative.com