north uttlesford garden community hearing … · the ‘uttlesford local plan spatial strategy...

North Uttlesford Garden Community

Grosvenor Britain & Ireland Ltd

May 2019

NORTH UTTLESFORD GARDEN COMMUNITY HEARING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF GROSVENOR BRITAIN & IRELAND TO UTTLESFORD LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION: MATTER 7 – THE PROPOSED NEW GARDEN COMMUNITIES – GENERAL MATTERS (POLICIES SP5, SP6, SP7 & SP8)

Hearing Statement Matter 7 – The Proposed New Garden Communities – General Matters (Policies SP5, SP6, SP7 & SP8)


Page i

Quality Assurance

Site name: North Uttlesford Garden Community

Client name: Grosvenor Britain & Ireland Ltd

Type of report: Hearing Statement Matter 7 – The Proposed New Garden Communities – General Matters (Policies SP5, SP6, SP7 & SP8)

Prepared by: Anthony Child BPlan AssocRTPI MPIA AIEMA

Signed

Date May 2019

Reviewed by: Guy Kaddish BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI

Signed

Date May 2019



Page ii

Table of Contents

Matter 7 – The Proposed New Garden Communities – General Matters (Policies SP5, SP6, SP7 &

SP8) 1

1. How were the broad locations for the garden communities selected, and what evidence documents were produced

to inform their selection? 1

2. Have landscape, agricultural land, flood-risk, natural heritage and heritage assessment been carried out to inform

the location of the proposed garden communities? 4

3. Is the Sustainability Appraisal of the garden community options robust, particularly with regard to its threshold of

5,000 dwellings? 6

4. Are the locations of the proposed garden communities adequality identified on the policies maps? Should they be

more clearly defined? 7

5. Have the infrastructure requirement of the proposed garden communities been adequality identified and costed?

Including the requirements for: 7

6. Is there evidence that the infrastructure requirements will be delivered within the necessary timescales? 7

7. Should policies SP5, SP6, SP7 and SP8 make more specific requirements as regards the provision and timing of

the infrastructure needs for the proposed garden communities? 8

8. Has the economic viability of each of the proposed garden communities been adequately demonstrated in the

Uttlesford Economic Viability Study 2018. 8

Appendix 1

Grosvenor Infrastructure Delivery Plan Commentary

Appendix 2

Illustrative Masterplan (Ref: 01347_SK_053), JTP

Matter 7 – The Proposed New Garden Communities – General Matters (Policies SP5, SP6, SP7 & SP8)

These representations to the Inspector’s Questions listed below have been prepared by Bidwells

on behalf of Grosvenor Britain & Ireland (Grosvenor) as the promoter and master developer of

North Uttlesford Garden Community (NUGC) as one of three new garden communities allocated

in the Local Plan.

1. How were the broad locations for the garden communities selected, and what evidence documents were produced to inform their selection?

1.1 We support the spatial strategy which provides for the balanced and equitable distribution of

growth across the District; and the hybrid approach to include for development at the main towns

and new Garden Communities, including NUGC, and the evidenced and staged process that

Uttlesford District Council (UDC) undertook to form this conclusion.

1.2 The key documents that have been produced to inform the strategic decisions underpinning the

Local Plan are set out at paragraph 3.22 of the Submission Local Plan. These documents

reinforce the justification for the strategy to focus new development in garden communities.

1.3 At a more granular level, the plan-making process that has been undertaken to understand,

explore, refine and decide a spatial strategy that included garden communities is described by

the ‘Uttlesford Local Plan Spatial Strategy (including Garden Communities) Background Paper’

(October 2018). This is a 338 page document that summarises the many steps that UDC

undertook to decide upon the broad spatial strategy and how it went about selecting the number,

size and location of new garden communities. Pages 6, 7 and 8 of the background paper details

each of the associated documents, and consultations undertaken that contribute to the Local

Plan evidence base.

1.4 In July 2015 UDC, through its Planning Policy Working Group, formed five high-level criteria to

inform where ‘areas of search’ should be targeted to start the process of understanding which

parts of the District should accommodate growth:

● Potential to contribute to effective cross-boundary strategic planning priorities.

● Potential to minimise the need to travel by car, for example by locating residential

development near to jobs, shops, leisure opportunities, and other facilities.

● Potential access to the strategic highways and rail network.

● Exclusion of areas with special protection, for example Registered Parks and Gardens and

Sites of Specific Scientific Interest.



Page 2

● Focus on key villages and “villages with a primary school and with some local services: e.g.

village hall/pub/shop suitable for a scale of development that would reinforce its role as a

local service centre” (known as Type A rural settlements in the 2014 submission Local Plan).

1.5 This led to nine Areas of Search being formed for potential new settlements; all nine areas were

carried forward for assessment. Seven other Areas of Search were included for non-new

settlement options. In total this formed 16 extensive Areas of Search across the District.

1.6 In March 2016, following the Area Assessments and a Sustainability Appraisal (September

2015), UDC’s Full Council resolved that a new settlement(s) should continue to be investigated.

1.7 In July 2016, UDC’s Full Council considered five potential ‘Development Scenarios’ to select a

preferred one to form the foundation of a spatial strategy. Based on the assessment and

sustainability work undertaken UDC made an informed decision to select the ‘hybrid distribution

strategy’, which includes new settlements.

1.8 In October 2016, UDC received a non-statutory Sustainability Strategy it had commissioned to

provide an interim appraisal of seven new settlement options that had been submitted by

promoters under the call for sites. At this stage, Elsenham and Birchanger were assessed as

being not appropriate for further testing; the new settlement options became a list of five,

including NUGC (but then known as ‘Great Chesterford’).

1.9 During December 2016 to April 2017, the five potential new settlements were subject to

reasonable alternative testing in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental

Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004.

1.10 The Regulation 18 consultation took place between July to September 2017 along with a host of

background and evidence documents, including a Sustainability Appraisal, that presented UDC’s

preferred options, which included for NUGC, Easton Park and West of Braintree.

1.11 The Regulation 19 preparation took place from July 2017 to June 2018, including the preparation

of a number of more detailed technical evidence documents (set out on page 44 of the UDC

October 2018 Strategy Paper) and consideration of the representations made at the Regulation

18 stage. This process refined the policy for each of the ‘preferred’ garden communities. The

Regulation 19 consultation then took place and forms the Local Plan submitted to the

Examination in Public.

1.12 With specific reference to NUGC, the summary of the ‘Comparative Assessments - Conclusions

at Submission Stage (Regulation 19)’, at page 47 of the UDC October 2018 Strategy Paper,

draws out the reasons why NUGC remained a preferred option:

● No other location identified as suitable from further SLAA assessment in the north of the

district for strategic scale development;

● North Uttlesford provides a range of house types and tenures and services that supports

existing high value employment locations in the vicinity including Genome, Granta Park, and

Chesterford Business Park;



Page 3

● Provides land for employment in short supply that can complement the above business uses;

● Provide housing at affordable rents in an area of high housing demand and above average

prices serving above business locations, Saffron Walden, and north of the district;

● The distribution of Garden Communities around the district helps address water quality

issues by utilising locations with the largest rivers (i.e. Cam in case of North Uttlesford

Garden Community) as well as locations with smaller rivers/watercourses; and,

● Good access to the Strategic Road Network with opportunities to consolidate a number of

unlinked employment hubs with bus services.

1.13 The above summary presents a brief overview of over four years work led by UDC to determine

that a spatial strategy that includes for new settlements is the most appropriate strategy and to

scrutinise, assess and select which new settlements should then deliver that strategy.

1.14 Alongside and supporting the strategic exercise described above, various technical reports have

been formally submitted over the course of the Local Plan-making process by the promoter to

demonstrate that NUGC is deliverable and to support the strategic spatial planning decisions that

UDC has made, which includes the positive contribution that NUGC will make to the delivery of

the Local Plan Vision and Objectives. The following further evidence prepared by the promoter

and their technical team compliments and builds upon the vast amount of work undertaken by

UDC to support the Local Plan:

Submission to UDC in Relation to SLAA Site 10GtCHe15 as identified in Local Plan

Consultation Autumn 2015 (July 2016):

● Professional Commercial Commentary upon the Economic Growth & Innovation Sector in

North Uttlesford and Southern Cambridgeshire, Bidwells, 28 June 2016;

● Objectively Assessed Housing Need, Bidwells, 13 June 2016;

● Transport Infrastructure Appraisal and Option Strategy, Peter Brett, June 2016;

● Utility and Infrastructure Report, 36997/2501 Rev A, Peter Brett, June 2016;

● Landscape and Visual Appraisal and Capacity Study, Bidwells, 27 May 2016;

● Cultural Heritage Assessment, Bidwells, 24 June 2016 Including:

Archaeological Desk-Based Report No. 1912, Oxford Archaeology East, April 2016; and

Review of Great Chesterford Deer Park, 1021 R01, Michelle Bolger, June 2016.

● Ground Conditions Technical Note, 36997 GEO1, Peter Brett, May 2016;

● Flood Risk and Surface Water Management Due Diligence Report, 36997/4001, Peter Brett,

May 2016;

● Phase 1 Ecology Report, 1174 Version 1.0, Applied Ecology, 31 May 2016;

● Concept Masterplan, Bidwells, June 2016; and

● North Uttlesford Garden Village – A Working Garden Village Charter, Bidwells, 18 January

2016.



Page 4

Regulation 18 Submission – September 2017:

● Full Objectively Assessed Needs – Uttlesford, Bidwells September 2017;

● Full Objectively Assessed Needs – Uttlesford, Bidwells September 2017; and

● Representations in respect of landscape matters concerning proposed North Uttlesford

Garden Community, Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd, August 2017.

Regulation 19 Submission – August 2018:

● NUGC Vision Statement (Grosvenor);

● Employment – Employment Strategy (Bidwells - March 2018), Retail and Centres Strategy

(Bidwells – March 2018);

● Transport – Transport Vision & Strategy (Peter Brett Associates LLP), Representations

Relating to Transport (Peter Brett Associates LLP);

● Ecology – Phase 1 Ecology Report (Applied Ecology – July 2016), Technical Report Ecology

(Peter Brett Associates LLP – March 2018);

● Heritage – Heritage Significance Assessment (Bidwells – March 2018), Initial Heritage

Impact Assessment (Bidwells – May 2018);

● Archaeology – Archaeology Desk Based Assessment (Oxford Archaeology – April 2016),

Archaeology Interim Update to Desk Based Assessment (Oxford Archaeology – December

2017).

● Topography, Landscape & Visual Impact – Landscape and Visual Appraisal

(Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd – April 2018);

● Drainage & Flood Risk – Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Strategy (Peter Brett

Associates – March 2018);

● Utilities – Utilities and Infrastructure Technical Report (Peter Brett Associates – April 2018);

● Green Infrastructure – Approach to Green Infrastructure Strategy (Environmental

Dimension Partnership Ltd – April 2018); and

● Community Infrastructure – Community Infrastructure Strategy (Bidwells – March 2018);

1.15 The NUGC Vision Statement and supporting technical reports act together to demonstrate that

NUGC is not only deliverable, but evidence the geographical benefits to its location near to

existing and planned strategic infrastructure and in an area where there is well-established

employment (the ‘Southern Cluster’):

2. Have landscape, agricultural land, flood-risk, natural heritage and heritage assessment been carried out to inform the location of the proposed garden communities?

1.16 UDC has prepared District-Wide evidence to inform the Local Plan and the resultant spatial

strategy that has been formed. As part of the Local Plan-making process, the NUGC landowners



Page 5

and promoter has prepared and formally submitted technical assessments to demonstrate the

site is deliverable. These documents are listed under Question 1 above.

1.17 Collectively, the District-Wide evidence and NUGC specific assessments conclude that there are

no designations or significant characteristics that would prevent the successful delivery of the

allocation. Grosvenor’s Regulation 19 submission provides the most up-to date technical

assessments to demonstrate the suitability and deliverability of the site. In reference to the

matters raised by the question pertinent to NUGC:

● Landscape – EDP has undertaken a Landscape and Visual Appraisal of the site. The

appraisal found that there are no in-principle reasons why the site should not be taken

forward for residential-led development.

● Agricultural Land – The Landscape and Visual Appraisal found that the Provisional

Agricultural Land Classification of the site is part Grade 3 and Part Grade 2, which is typical

for the region, with some of the site being regarded as best and most versatile land. The soil

resource could be regarded as medium to low value. This is a typical position being that the

majority of the Uttlesford District comprises Best and Most Versatile land, and is not a matter

that notably varies between greenfield sites across the District

● Flood Risk – UDC has undertaken an assessment of flood-risk, the results of which are

summarised in the Uttlesford Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (May 2016). PBA (on behalf

of Grosvenor) has also undertaken a site-specific assessment of flood risk and surface water

drainage for NUGC which is set out in the Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Report

included in the Regulation 19 representations. This confirms NUGC is in an area at low risk

of flooding and that it is feasible for the development to provide betterment downstream, by

way of constructing a flood storage area to hold back surface water run-off. This would

benefit the existing recreation ground and properties along Walden Road, which are currently

at risk from flooding.

● Natural Heritage and Ecology – The natural heritage of the site has been assessed in the

submitted Phase 1 Ecology Report (Applied Ecology), Technical Report Ecology (PBA) and

the Landscape and Visual Appraisal (EDP). The site has limited ecological capital, and

includes Chesterford Roadside Verge which is a non-statutory Local Wildlife Site situated

along the western boundary of the site, forming the A11 embankment. Hildersham Wood

SSSI is situated at the northern site boundary, with a small portion of the woodland falling into

the site area. Hildersham Wood SSSI will be retained and protected as part of NUGC. The

on-site ecological features occupy very limited areas of the site and can be readily included

within a masterplan. The allocation offers significant potential for biodiversity enhancement.

● Heritage – The heritage within and surrounding the site has been assessed and those

findings are provided within the Regulation 19 submission. Summary updates on heritage

matters are included with Matter 8, Question 2. The assessments find that there are no

heritage assets that unduly prevent or constrain development as part of a considered

masterplan process and there are opportunities for some benefits, such as securing a

management plan to take the on-site Scheduled Ancient Monument off the risk register,

whilst enhancing the public access, understanding and enjoyment of it.



Page 6

3. Is the Sustainability Appraisal of the garden community options robust, particularly with regard to its threshold of 5,000 dwellings?

1.18 As noted in response to Matter 1, the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Garden Communities

(GC) is considered robust and legally compliant. The ‘Uttlesford Local Plan Spatial Strategy

(including Garden Communities) Background Paper’ (October 2018), provides an account of the

robust process to the Sustainability Appraisals undertaken over the course of the Plan-making

process.

1.19 With particular regard to the threshold of 5,000 dwellings; this follows a consultation response

from Essex County Council (ECC) (as the Education Authority) at the Issues and Options stage.

This threshold was identified by ECC as that which is more likely to support the delivery of a

secondary school and which would more likely include for a good breadth of teaching. There are

also sustainability benefits to securing a secondary school as part of a new-settlement to

increase trip internalisation and give more people a greater chance of walking and cycling to

school.

1.20 A similar approach was considered appropriate by the Inspector in the North Essex Authorities

examination based on “increased financial viability, curriculum choice and range of facilities that a

larger secondary school could provide. It was logical also to take into account the greater range

of employment opportunities, healthcare and other community facilities that could be supported

by a Garden Community of 5,000 dwellings compared with a smaller settlement.”

1.21 5,000 homes is a higher threshold to the 3,000 houses or 4,000 dwellings (houses and flats)

requiring a new secondary school, according to Essex County Council’s (ECC) Developers Guide

to Infrastructure Contributions (2016); however, the latter and smaller thresholds would support

only a four-form entry secondary school, the minimum size that ECC regard as financially viable.

1.22 A 5,000 dwelling scheme, as opposed to a smaller settlement, will generate increased

educational benefits and sustainability credentials arising from a larger secondary school that has

a higher prospect of delivery. This was therefore established as an achievable element to secure

the most sustainable spatial strategy, and the SA accordingly documents that there will be

significant benefits from sustainable transport, and new physical and social infrastructure.

1.23 The 5,000 unit target is agreed as being appropriate to provide a variety of benefits including:

delivery of secondary school at scale to deliver a greater chance of providing a wider curriculum

with dedicated teachers to deliver specialist topics; a greater viability with a bigger critical-mass

of pupils and associated funding; increased internalisation of trips with more homes being at the

same village as the secondary school they are served by.



Page 7

4. Are the locations of the proposed garden communities adequately identified on the policies maps? Should they be more clearly defined?

1.24 As set out in our Regulation 19 representations, it is considered that the NUGC Inset Map at

Appendix 7 of the Local Plan should identify the defined extent of the allocation rather than the

broad area of search. We would support a clearly defined boundary related to the allocation of

NUGC at its full delivery of 5,000 homes as represented in our Regulation 19 representations.

5. Have the infrastructure requirements of the proposed garden communities been adequately identified and costed? Including the requirements for:

a) road improvements;

b) rapid public transport systems and sustainable transport networks;

c) water supply and waste water treatment;

d) the provision of electricity/gas and other services;

e) primary healthcare;

f) schools and early years’ provision;

g) green infrastructure; and

h) leisure and sports facilities.

1.25 As demonstrated by the extensive baseline technical studies and stakeholder meetings that

Grosvenor have undertaken to date, Grosvenor are satisfied that the Infrastructure Delivery Plan

(IDP) prepared in support of the Local Plan, adequately identifies and costs the infrastructure

items which will be required to support the delivery of NUGC.

1.26 This is supported by the ‘Infrastructure Delivery Plan: Grosvenor Commentary’ at Appendix 1,

which builds on the work prepared by UDC to clarify the anticipated infrastructure requirements at

NUGC.

6. Is there evidence that the infrastructure requirements will be delivered within the necessary timescales?

1.27 Necessary infrastructure will come forward before and alongside the delivery of NUGC to support

its build-out within and beyond the Local Plan period. This is evidenced in the appended



Page 8

‘Infrastructure Delivery Plan: Grosvenor Commentary’ that explains how each item described by

Question 5 above will come forward to support NUGC.

7. Should policies SP5, SP6, SP7 and SP8 make more specific requirements as regards the provision and timing of the infrastructure needs for the proposed garden communities?

1.28 We consider that it is not necessary or appropriate for the Local Plan policies to describe the

detailed provision and timing of specific infrastructure needs at this early Local Plan allocation

stage.

1.29 In addition to the Local Plan, there will be a Development Plan Document (DPD) to be solely

focussed on NUGC. This will consider the delivery of NUGC in more detail and there will be a

more informed position around the phasing of the development. This in turn will better inform

what infrastructure is needed, by when. This is confirmed by paragraph two of Policy SP7 which

states the following in relation to the contents of the DPD:

‘…together with a phasing and implementation strategy which sets out how the rate of

development will be linked to the necessary social and physical infrastructure to ensure the

respective phases of the development do not come forward until the necessary infrastructure has

been secured.’

1.30 Following the DPD there will be an outline planning application. In the normal way, this will

advance a s106 planning legal agreement to secure exactly what infrastructure will be delivered

in a timely manner against the delivery of the new settlement. Planning permission for the outline

application would include planning conditions to be satisfied, and would only be granted once the

s106 agreement is signed; after this time the agreement is legally binding to ensure the defined

infrastructure is delivered.

8. Has the economic viability of each of the proposed garden communities been adequately demonstrated in the Uttlesford Economic Viability Study 2018?

1.31 Grosvenor agrees with the conclusions drawn by UDC that NUGC is a viable and deliverable

allocation, as supported by the Uttlesford Economic Viability Study (2018) in relation to Garden

Community 1 and further supported by the detailed site assessments, internal cost analysis and

financial appraisal work undertaken by Grosvenor. GL Hearn has provided viability advice in

relation to NUGC.



Page 9

b) Are appropriate assumptions made about the level and timing of infrastructure costs and other costs associated with, for example the sensitive nature of the sites in terms of historic heritage?

1.32 Grosvenor considers the Uttlesford Economic Viability Study has made appropriate assumptions

about the level and timing of infrastructure costs associated with NUGC. We understand that the

phasing and delivery assumptions for strategic infrastructure at NUGC are informed by the IDP,

which we support.

1.33 Further information on historic heritage relating to NUGC is included in two summary updates in

the form of an ‘Archaeology and Historic Landscape Character Appraisal’ and a ‘Built Heritage

Statement’ which are appended to Grosvenor’s Hearing Statement for Matter 8. This evidence

confirms that heritage considerations will not materially affect the timing or the delivery of housing

or infrastructure at NUGC. It is acknowledged that the appropriate archaeological site

investigations will be undertaken in advance of an outline planning application to inform the

Reserved Matters applications for infrastructure and housing.

1.34 The illustrative masterplan (Ref: 01347_SK_053) at Appendix 2 demonstrates that the total site

area has abundant capacity to accommodate 5,000 new homes, employment and associated

infrastructure, with 58% of land left over as non-developed green infrastructure land.

1.35 The abundance of open space throughout the proposal provides inherent flexibility for the

developable and non-developable land to move around to accommodate any site sensitivities

that may become evident through the processes of more detailed surveys, investigations and

assessment. As such, assumptions around the timing and delivery of strategic infrastructure will

not be influenced by the historic environment.

1.36 In relation to infrastructure costs, an allowance of £40,000 per unit (£50,000 per unit has also

been tested) has been made in respect of off-site infrastructure, s106 and s278 works. An

additional allowance of 15% of build costs has been adopted to reflect “opening up” works, which

equates to circa £17,500 per unit. “Opening up” works are defined as the ‘Cost of bringing

services to the site‘.

1.37 This leads to an overall allowance of between £57,000 - £67,000 per unit towards S106/278

contributions and works, and on-site strategic infrastructure, which are broadly aligned with our

early infrastructure cost plan assumptions.

1.38 We are aware of a number of strategic sites of a similar scale to NUGC with similar levels of

strategic infrastructure costs with those above including, for example, a comparable location in

the South East comprising upwards of 3,500 homes where recently competitively tendered

combined strategic infrastructure and s106 costs of development costs are estimated to be in the

order of £65,000/unit. These costs have been robustly tested and are substantiated by all bidders

which are comprised of experienced national housebuilders. This is in line with our clients QS

opinion of the likely infrastructure costs at NUGC.



Page 10

f) Is the viability threshold set at an appropriate level?

1.39 It is acknowledged that a Benchmark Land Value is used as a comparison tool to demonstrate

whether a scheme is viable, and Three Dragons and Troy Planning confirm that ‘the benchmark

land value is an estimate of the lowest value that a landowner may accept and does not preclude

the possibility that some schemes may have enough value to pay more for land’.

1.40 We consider the Benchmark Land Value which has been adopted for Large Strategic sites is also

an appropriate benchmark for Garden Community Sites where there are multiple landowners as

is the case at NUGC. However, this does not affect the overall position given that if the Large

Strategic Site benchmark land value is applied, as we suggest it should, the NUGC site is still

viable in all scenarios., We are in overall agreement with the Uttlesford Economic Viability Study

which confirms at para 2.11 that ‘clearly where there is viability headroom land will transact at

higher values’.

APPENDIX 1 GROSVENOR INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN: COMMENTARY

Infrastructure Delivery Plan: Grosvenor

Commentary

Introduction

This report has been prepared by Grosvenor Britain & Ireland (Grosvenor), alongside a number of

expert consultants, in support of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which has been prepared to

support the Uttlesford Local Plan.

Grosvenor is the master developer responsible for the promotion and delivery of North Uttlesford

Garden Community (NUGC) which has been allocated under Policy SP7 of the Uttlesford Local Plan,

as one of three Garden Communities in Uttlesford, to provide 5,000 new homes, employment, local

and community services and supporting infrastructure.

In relation to NUGC, the IDP adequately identifies the infrastructure that is expected to be required to

support the delivery of NUGC, and includes appropriate assumptions relating to timescales and costs.

Where there are unknowns in relation to costs in the IDP, we have undertaken our own review of the

appropriate costs for these un-costed items, to gain a full picture of likely costs required to deliver the

strategic infrastructure set out in the IDP for NUGC.

We have also had regard to the total costs set out in the Uttlesford Economic Viability Study of

£57,000 - £67,000 per unit, which cover S106/278 contributions and works, and on-site strategic

infrastructure.

We are confident that the total costs required to deliver the infrastructure items set out in the IDP

(including the items which are currently un-costed), and the on-site infrastructure (which is not

included in the IDP) align with the range of between £57,000 - £67,000 per unit.

Our view on the total costs for NUGC have been informed by our experience of working on other

Greenfield development sites at scale, and advice from our technical team who have undertaken a

series of detailed site assessments to understand the NUGC site, including input from PBA on

transport matters and Arcadis on costs.

Infrastructure Delivery

In this section, we set out our commentary on the strategic infrastructure which has been identified for

NUGC, and the associated mechanisms and timing for their delivery, breaking this down into the eight

categories as identified by the Inspectors within Hearing Matter 7, Question 5.

‘Have the infrastructure requirement of the proposed garden communities been

adequately identified and costed? Including the requirements for:’

In this section, we also seek to address the Inspectors’ Hearing Matter 7, Question 6.

‘Is there evidence that the infrastructure requirements will be delivered within the

necessary timescales?’

a) Road improvements;

Improvements to M11 Junction 10

Improvements to M11 Junction 10 have been adequately identified in the IDP, and are aligned with

the White Young Green (WYG) Uttlesford Local Plan Transport Study, South Cambridgeshire

Junction Assessments.

The IDP identifies these works as being delivered via a S106 contribution, which we agree is

appropriate. Contributions from NUGC and other nearby developments would allow Cambridge

County Council / Highways England flexibility to deliver the necessary works in accordance with either

the mitigation identified by WYG or to deliver a scheme in accordance with the outcomes of the A505

Strategic Transport Study.

The A505 Strategic Transport Study is to be commissioned by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

Combined Authority (CPCA). The Study will examine a range of options to improve the strategic road

network (and wider transport networks), looking not only at improvements to M11 Junction 10, but

also major improvements to the A505, Stump Cross junctions and the M11 Junction 9.

In March 2019, the CPCA Board approved funding of £1M from their 2018/19 budget to commence

the production of the A505 Strategic Study. Procurement for the study is underway, and it is expected

to take approximately one year to complete. The CPCA have allocated a further £100M in a draft

budget for the Combined Authorities Business Plan for 2021 to 2022, which demonstrates a

commitment to addressing the A505 corridor issues within the UDC Local Plan Period. This

demonstrates that there are realistic delivery prospects for the A505 strategic upgrades by the end of

the Uttlesford Local Plan period, if not before, to support the delivery of NUGC.

Development at NUGC can commence ahead of the implementation of a scheme at Junction 10 as

assignment from NUGC is primarily through Stumps Cross. The longer term A505 Strategic

improvements to be identified through the A505 Study will only be needed beyond the Local Plan

period.

Improvements to capacity at the roundabout with A505 / A1301:

Improvements to capacity at the roundabout with A505 / A1301 have been adequately identified in the

IDP and are aligned with the WYG Uttlesford Local Plan Transport Study, South Cambridgeshire

Junction Assessments.


appropriate. Contributions from NUGC and other nearby developments would allow Cambridge

County Council to either deliver an interim solution to this roundabout (as set out by WYG in the Local

Plan transport evidence), or to contribute towards the delivery of a more strategic scheme identified

as part of the A505 Strategic Study (above).

The delivery of the first phase of homes at NUGC is expected in 2023 where the first 50 homes are

expected to be occupied. The timing of any capacity improvements at this junction is expected to be

required by 2024. The longer term A505 Strategic improvements to be identified through the A505

Study will only be needed beyond the Local Plan period and we this timing will allow time for the

longer term A505 strategic solution to be confirmed prior to any implementation of an interim scheme.

A11/ A1301/Stump Cross Roundabouts:

Improvements to the A11/ A1301/Stump Cross Roundabouts have been adequately identified in the

IDP, and are aligned with the NUGC Transport Vision and Strategy prepared by PBA.

PBA have identified a number of improvements at Stump Cross roundabouts, which have been

prepared in consultation with Essex County Council and Highways England. As set out above, the

A505 Strategic Study will also explore improvements at Stump Cross and its relationship to the

M11/A505, and as such PBA’s proposed improvements to Stump Cross may be superseded by the

outcomes of the A505 Strategic Study.

We agree with the IDP which identifies these works as being delivered directly by the developer, in

conjunction with the relevant highways authorities. It is noted that Stump Cross improvements may

ultimately be superseded by the A505 Strategic Study, and appropriate contributions would be sought

as above.

Improvements to Stump Cross are not required until around 1,200 dwellings are occupied. Further

non-strategic improvements could then be implemented that would allow sufficient capacity to be

provided well beyond the end of the plan period. Any longer-term Strategic improvements to be

identified through the A505 Study will only be needed beyond the Local Plan period and this timing

will allow time for the longer term A505 strategic solution to be confirmed prior to any implementation

of an interim scheme.

Great Chesterford, Hinxton, Ickleton and Duxford – contributions for traffic management and safety

and pedestrian / cycle improvements:

Contributions towards traffic management and local improvements have been adequately identified in

the IDP, and are aligned with the NUGC Transport Vision and Strategy prepared by PBA, which

include for improved facilities and public realm measures for pedestrians and cyclists in the local

villages to encourage safe and sustainable travel and to discourage ‘rat running’.


appropriate.

Contributions are expected from first occupation, which will help to support early delivery to promote

sustainable travel patterns.

Contribution towards improvements in Saffron Walden:

The principle of contributions towards junction works / improvements in the local area is appropriate

for the IDP. Currently there are no clear schemes proposed in Saffron Walden to contribute towards

at this early stage, and it is suggested that the appropriate mitigation measures will be identified at a

later date.


appropriate.

Contributions are expected by the end of the plan period, which is considered appropriate and

deliverable.

Local level highway infrastructure enhancements:

The principle of local level highway infrastructure enhancements is appropriate for the IDP. It should

be clarified that the infrastructure enhancements should not double count contributions towards

junctions or cycle/pedestrian improvements, which are covered in the items above.

The IDP identifies these works as being delivered either through S106 contributions or directly by the

developer, by the end of the plan period, which is considered appropriate and deliverable.

b) Rapid public transport systems and sustainable transport networks;

Sustainable travel promotion and package:

The principle of delivering or contributing towards sustainable travel and promotion packages in the

local area is appropriate for the IDP. There are presently no specific schemes identified however it is

expected that these would be identified through the planning application process, and could include

travel plan contributions.

The IDP identifies these works as being delivered either through S106 contributions or directly by the

developer, from first occupation to build out of the site plus 5 years following completion of the final

dwelling. This is considered appropriate in order to promote sustainable travel patterns from and early

stage of the development.

We are supportive of this and have set out an ambition within the NUGC Transport Vision and

Strategy prepared by PBA to implement area-wide travel planning for NUGC residents and the

surrounding villages, to promote the use of sustainable modes.

Potential for extension of existing Bus services:

The principle of delivering or contributing towards an extended or enhanced local bus service to serve

the site is supported, with more detailed proposals set out in the NUGC Transport Vision and Strategy

prepared by PBA.

Based upon the baseline technical work; as set out within our Vision statement, we believe this would

most appropriately include a new regular bus service with 20 -30-minute frequency connecting with

Whittlesford Park Way, Wellcome Genome Campus and Granta Park / A11 Park and Ride during the

peaks via A11 and A505. Off-peak a “hopper” service would operate providing greater coverage

within the site with links to Great Chesterford Rail Station.

The IDP identifies these services as being delivered through a bus company, funded via S106

contributions, which is considered appropriate. Early delivery of these services is supported, with

timescales expected to be agreed with the relevant provider and based on occupation and demand at

NUGC.

Bus connection to Granta Park:

The principle of delivering or contributing towards a Bus connection to Granta Park is supported, and

would form part of the bus services described above.

Passenger Transport Infrastructure Improvements in Great Chesterford:

The principle of delivering or contributing towards enhanced off-site local bus infrastructure is

supported, and could form part of the bus services described above.

Walking / Cycling – contribution for improvements between the site and Great Chesterford, Saffron

Walden, Wellcome Genome Campus, Chesterford Research Park, Granta Park and towards

Cambridge:

The principle of delivering or contributing towards enhanced walk and cycle links to and from the site

and within the local area is supported.

We consider the following measures should be implemented as part of NUGC, with more detailed

proposals set out in the NUGC Transport Vision and Strategy prepared by PBA:

- New pedestrian and cycle linkages at Park Road Access;

- Surfacing to existing PROW that links Walden Road with Carmen Street;

- New Toucan crossing on Newmarket Road;

- Consideration of pedestrian / cycle access improvements on road towards Great Chesterford

Station;

- Connecting to Essex County Council’s Great Chesterford to Saffron Walden Scheme;

- Connection to A11 into Wellcome Genome Campus;

- Improvements to recreational routes (Icknield Way).

Early delivery of these connections are supported to promote sustainable travel patterns, with all

considered deliverable within the control of Grosvenor, the Local Highway Authority or Highways

England, hence there are no constraints to achieving these timescales.

c) Water supply and waste water treatment;

As outlined in the Council’s Detailed Water Cycle Study there is expected to be a need for further

investment by Anglian Water at Great Chesterford Water Recycling Centre to accommodate the foul

flows from this development together with other developments in the catchment over the plan period.

Affinity Water and Cambridge Water have confirmed they would be able to serve the NUGC site with

potable water, within their existing network with network reinforcements or through direct connections.

It is agreed that Anglian Water Services as well as Affinity Water/Cambridge Water will be responsible

for these works.

Potable and foul water companies are responsible for providing water connections to new sites and it

is agreed that costs will be determined at the time NUGC is progressed.

The timing of the required investment will be reviewed by Anglian Water as part its business planning

process. Anglian Water’s Water Recycling Long Term Plan (Sept 2018) recognises the need for

investment specifically for those developments of a strategic scale which would come forward over a

number of Asset Management Plan periods. This funding will be used to ensure Anglian Water’s

investment is aligned with the scale and timing of the proposed garden communities over the plan

period outlined in the Uttlesford Local Plan.

d) The provision of electricity/gas and other services;

The NUGC Utilities and Infrastructure Technical Report (Peter Brett Associates – April 2018) provides

an overview of the utilities infrastructure deemed necessary to support NUGC. The IDP adequately

identifies the relevant electricity and gas upgrades.

Electricity

UK Power Networks (UKPN) is the Distribution Network Operator (DNO) for the area.

UKPN has confirmed that no network reinforcement is required to meet the demands of the first 1,925

homes in the Local Plan period.

To serve the full allocation of 5,000 homes, a new primary substation is identified within the IDP.

UKPN has provided the relevant budget estimates to provide the new primary substation onsite and

lay 8.2km of 33kV ducted cable from Thaxted Grid to it, and a further budget estimate to install 12

onsite secondary substations and lay 12km of cable onsite to provide connections to 5000 homes.

It is agreed that the timing will be determined through the detailed design process and delivered in

accordance with appropriate trigger points to be agreed with UKPN.

The supply of electricity to the NUGC site is available and deliverable.

Gas

Cadent Gas is the service provider for the area and will provide necessary off-site reinforcements.

A nearby point of connection via a medium pressure gas main has been identified which is adequate

to serve 5,000 new homes at NUGC, and is likely that some reinforcements will be required.

Timescales for reinforcements and provision will be informed through the detailed design process and

agreed with the service provider in advance. It is noted that new homes will no longer be heated by

gas from 2025, therefore gas demand is expected to be lower over the lifecycle of the NUGC

development.

The supply of gas infrastructure for NUGC is therefore available and deliverable.

e) Primary healthcare;

The provision of new health facilities of part of NUGC is supported, as is the approach to calculating

the need for General Practitioners based on population growth. A new GP facility is proposed to be

provided on site, which is expected to be delivered once a patient orientated critical mass has been

achieved (circa 2,500 residents). Early conversations will be held with Essex County Council, the

NHS and Clinical Commissioning Groups to inform timescales and the most appropriate type and

quantum of health facilities, to ensure minimal impacts on existing health facilities in the surrounding

area.

The location of health facilities is still to be determined; however we can confirm there are no physical

or financial constraints which would prevent the timely provision of the appropriate health facilities, in

conjunction with the relevant provider.

f) Schools and early years’ provision;

The provision of new educational facilities at NUGC is fundamental to support the creation of a new

community. We confirm that the education facilities proposed in the IDP have been adequately

identified as follows:

- Early Years & Child Care

- Primary School Provision

- Secondary School Provision

The education facilities will be likely to meet the needs of the residents of NUGC, whilst also providing

wider capacity to surrounding communities if required over the plan period and beyond.

We support the delivery of early years and childcare provision, a 3FE primary school and secondary

school within the plan period, with further primary schools and an expansion to the secondary school

targeted beyond the plan period. There is a requirement for the developer to deliver clean serviced

land for the primary and secondary education facilities, with an appropriate S106 contribution.

Contributions from NUGC and other nearby developments would be expected to support early

delivery of the secondary school. Timing for these contributions (inc. phasing of construction works)

will be determined through the detailed master planning process and delivered in accordance with

appropriate trigger points to be agreed with ECC. The location of these education facilities is still to be

determined; however we can confirm there are no physical or financial constraints which would

prevent the timely provision of the appropriate serviced land and contributions to ECC for the delivery

of these education facilities as part of the wider masterplan.

The IDP acknowledges that early years and childcare facilities could be delivered as standalone

facilities, or integrated within the primary school facilities, which we support as a concept.

It is agreed that Essex County Council will be responsible for delivering the education facilities,

however private partnership delivery is also an appropriate mechanism. The delivery mechanisms will

be explored and agreed with ECC at the appropriate time.

Please refer to the Community Infrastructure Strategy prepared by Bidwells (March 2018), which

considers the requirements for supporting social and community infrastructure at NUGC in more

detail.

g) Green infrastructure;

A wide range of accessible open space will be delivered at NUGC, providing a range of opportunities

for informal play, recreation and sports. This green infrastructure will encourage healthy lifestyles

whilst complementing and enhancing the character and setting of the NUGC site.

We confirm that the leisure and recreation facilities proposed in the IDP have been adequately


- Natural and semi-natural green spaces

- Amenity Green Space

The provision of green infrastructure will be delivered on-site over the lifetime of the NUGC

development, as part of a phased process. The timescales for phased delivery of green infrastructure

will be explored in more detail during the master planning process, which will take place in conjunction

with UDC, the local community and interested stakeholders such as Natural England and the Wildlife

Trust.

We are confident that the green infrastructure can be delivered on-site and by the developer and/or

housebuilders, and appropriate stewardship arrangements for the long term management of green

infrastructure can be explored and agreed as part of the planning process.


considers the requirements for supporting green infrastructure at NUGC in more detail.

h) Leisure and sports facilities.

Leisure and recreation facilities are considered an important element of NUGC, to provide a wide

range of facilities to serve the new and nearby communities and encourage enjoyable and active

lifestyles for residents of all ages.

We confirm that the leisure and recreation facilities proposed in the IDP have been adequately


- Allotments

- Play Spaces (LAPs, LEAPs and NEAPs)

- MUGA

- Community centres

- Outdoor pitch facilities

- Indoor sports hall

- Indoor Swimming pool / and or other sports facilities as determined necessary through master

planning and consultation with the community and other relevant stakeholders.

We are confident that these items can be delivered on-site and by the developer and/or housebuilders

as part of the wider masterplan or individual residential development parcels.

The appropriate leisure and recreation facilities will be delivered as the new community establishes

and forms. The exact timing for each facility will be informed by demand and ongoing conversations

with the relevant authorities including UDC, ECC, Sports England and the local community (including

local sports groups).

The location of these leisure and recreation facilities has not yet been determined, however we can

confirm there are no physical or financial constraints which would prevent the timely provision of these

facilities as part of the wider masterplan.

The IDP acknowledges the ability to co-locate a variety of facilities which could help to create

successful hubs of specialist interest, such as a co-location of sports facilities associated with the

educational facilities which are accessible to the wider public outside of school hours.


considers the requirements for supporting leisure and sports infrastructure at NUGC in more detail.

Conclusions

NUGC presents an exciting opportunity to deliver a sustainable Garden Community which can capitalise on its unique location close to the strategic road network and existing railway infrastructure, whilst providing enhanced sustainable connections to nearby villages and science parks, and also providing the community facilities, services and jobs on-site to cater for a new community of 5,000 homes.

As demonstrated by the baseline technical studies and stakeholder meetings that we have undertaken to date, we consider there are no constraints (on-site or off-site) which would prevent the delivery of NUGC or the supporting strategic infrastructure.

We are satisfied that the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which has been prepared to support the Uttlesford Local Plan, adequately identifies the strategic infrastructure that will be required to support the delivery of NUGC. In reviewing the costs that have been apportioned to the identified infrastructure in the IDP, and the cost assumptions in the Uttlesford Economic Study, we conclude that the overall allowances for S106/278 contributions, S106 direct delivery and on-site infrastructure closely align with our own total cost estimates.

We anticipate that the cost estimates will be further refined and clarified throughout the planning

process as local impacts are understood in more detail. Community consultation, the NUGC

Development Plan Document, an outline planning application, S106/278 Agreements and further

reserved matters applications will provide ample opportunities to confirm the appropriate costs,

timescales and delivery mechanisms over the lifetime of delivery at NUGC.

Within the detail of the IDP we note that there are some elements of infrastructure that have been

identified, but not costed (costs are shown as Unknown), such as; Utilities, Play space, Natural and

Semi-green space and Amenity green space. Having undertaken our own review of these costs, we

are comfortable that these items can be delivered within the total cost envelope of between £57,000 -

£67,000 per unit, for s106 and on-site infrastructure works at NUGC.

We believe that the strategic infrastructure required to support NUGC will provide significant benefits

to the new residents of NUGC and the wider region and should not be considered a constraint. We

are confident that the overall IDP allowances are correct and align with our overall cost estimates at

this Local Plan allocation stage, ultimately supporting the deliverability of NUGC.

APPENDIX 2 ILLUSTRATIVE MASTERPLAN (REF: 01347_SK_053), JTP

north uttlesford garden community hearing … · the ‘uttlesford local plan spatial strategy...

Documents