Godmanchester PDF 8 MB - Huntingdonshire District Council
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL
16th MARCH 2015
Case No:
1408224COND (CONDITION DISCHARGE APPLICATION)
Proposal:
DESIGN CODE PURSUANT TO CONDITION 16 OF OUTLINE
PLANNING PERMISSION 1200685OUT
Location:
LAND
NORTH
WEST
OF
BEARSCROFT
BEARSCROFT LANE GODMANCHESTER
Applicant:
DAVID WILSON HOMES
Grid Ref:
525540 269847
FARM
Date of Registration: 06.10.2014
Parish:
GODMANCHESTER
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE
The submitted Design Code is referred to the Development Management
Panel to seek its approval to use it as a material consideration in the
determination of subsequent reserved matters applications.
1.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1
The submitted Design Code (Revision M) relates to land at Bearscroft
Farm, Godmanchester on the east side of the A1198, which has outline
planning consent (ref. 1200685OUT) for a residential led mixed use
development.
1.2
The submission of a Design Code is a requirement of condition 16 of
outline planning permission 1200685OUT and the Code has been the
subject of public consultation including a public exhibition in November
2014 that DMP members were invited to attend.
1.3
The Design Code is a large document containing some 127 pages.
Members are advised that a full copy will be available to view on the
Council’s website, but the printed agenda will contain only a limited
number of key pages, including some referred to in this report.
What is a Design Code?
1.4
The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) for England says in paragraph
036 (Reference ID: 26-036-20140306) that a design code is a type of
detailed design guidance that can simplify the processes associated
with new development to give more certainty to all those involved and
help to make high quality places. The information that should be
included within a Design Code is not prescribed, but the PPG says that
a good code is about finding a balance between technical specificity
and a succinct description of what is required.
1.5
Design codes are not new to Huntingdonshire. A Design Code for the
Loves Farm eastern expansion of St Neots was approved by the
District Council some years ago and a Design Code for Key Phase 1 of
the Alconbury Weald development is scheduled to be heard at the
same Panel meeting.
1.6
The submitted Design Code has been prepared on behalf of home
builders David Wilson Homes & Barratt Homes; the freeholders of the
residential land at Bearscroft Farm. The Code aims to achieve a high
quality development by setting site wide design requirements that each
subsequent reserved matters submission must comply with. These
design requirements are derived from a master planning exercise of
the development that bridges the ‘gap’ between the principles set out in
the outline planning permission and the detailed design of each phase
that will come forward as ‘reserved matters’ submissions. By bridging
the ‘gap’, the Code gives certainty as to how the land will be
developed, helping avoid the uncoordinated piecemeal and fragmented
consideration and delivery of the development.
1.7
It a requirement of condition 16 of the outline planning permission for
the Design Code to accord with the principles of the Design and
Access Statement and Parameter Plans accompanied the outline
planning application and to cover the following matters:
a) Layout and character areas
b) Movement network including route hierarchy and footpaths
and cycleway links
c) Building and block typologies
d) Public realm and public art strategy
e) The general strategy for utility kiosk design and location
f) External boundaries of the site
g) Front and rear boundary treatments and plot boundaries
h) Building heights and details
i) External lighting within both the public and private realm
j) Existing and proposed finished floor levels
k) Open spaces, landscaping, bund and SUDs
1.8
The Design Code takes the form of a written document with
illustrations that contains mandatory ‘coded’ elements and
discretionary design guidance on these matters.
2.
NATIONAL GUIDANCE
2.1
The National Planning Policy Framework (2012):
•
paragraph 56 says that the Government attaches great importance to
the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of
sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should
contribute positively to making places better for people.
•
paragraph 59 says that local planning authorities should consider using
design codes where they could help deliver high quality outcomes.
However, design policies should avoid unnecessary prescription or
detail and should concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density,
massing, height, landscape, layout, materials and access of new
development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area
more generally.
2.2
The accompanying Planning Practice Guidance for England provides
guidance on the use of Design Codes as a tool for achieving good
design in paragraph 036 (Reference ID: 26-036-20140306).
2.3
For full details visit the government website
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-forcommunities-and-local-government
3.
PLANNING POLICIES
3.1
The Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD 2007 – paragraph 1.3.3 refers
to Design Codes.
The Design Guide is viewable at
https://www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk
4.
PLANNING HISTORY
4.1
1200685OUT - Residential development of the land to provide up to
753 dwellings, including affordable housing, together with a 1.5 form
entry Primary School on 2.3 hectares of land; up to 3.6 hectares of B1
land; up to 0.8 hectares of B1 and/or D1 land in the alternative, a local
centre of an area of 0.3 hectares falling within use classes A1, A2, A3
and A5 and/or D1 in the alternative (with the combined net retail sales
area for A1, A2, A3 and A5 uses not to exceed 600m2) together with
the provision of a local recycling centre a 'bring site', public open space
including formal sporting provision, landscaping, access, highway
improvement works and associated other works.
4.2
1401813REM - Approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale
for enabling infrastructure comprising of main vehicular routes,
sustainable urban drainage pond, swales and associated landscaping,
pending consideration.
5.
CONSULTATIONS
5.1
There were two principal rounds of consultations on the Design Code;
the first in October 2014 prior to the public exhibition and the second in
December 2014 that led to the submission of revision M of the Design
Code.
5.2
Godmanchester Town Council – in response to the first and second
round of consultations the Town Council submitted two response
letters that are attached.
5.3
County Council Education – revised design code fails to make
provision for school drop-off facilities near to the school entrance on
Secondary Road type. The school will not be providing parking (over
and above staff parking) for those dropping off/collecting children.
5.4
County Council Transport - highway near the school should be able
to cater for the twice daily delivery and pickup of children, possibly with
wider roads in this location on the Secondary Road type.
•
difficult to assess the junction spacings on the road network without
knowing what will be built and there should be a 30m off-set
between junction centres.
•
road design should be suitable to achieve those speeds required,
for instance long stretches of road will do nothing to reduce
speeds.
•
concept of "shared cycle/pedestrian paths" is not supported as
conflict between the two modes is built in from the start which does
not encourage local travel by these modes. Primary roads should
have unidirectional cycle paths segregated from vehicles and
pedestrians.
•
the street hierarchy (page 17 of Code) shows a connected network
of roads avoiding cul-de-sacs for vehicles making it very easy and
convenient to drive. However, the design should look to give more
weight to walking and cycling. Non-Motorised User (NMU) routes
should be convenient and direct, whilst car routes should be much
more circuitous.
•
the Primary Road type (page 21) shows a wide carriageway with
good forward visibility and these characteristics lead to a high
speed environment; above the 20mph design speed.
•
the Secondary Road type (page 22) should be amended to cater
for cycling in the carriageway and give the additional space to
pedestrians and planting. Street furniture erodes the footways
such as the street lights and this is unacceptable.
•
the Tertiary Road type (page 23) must be served by accesses
to/from the green spaces and the carriageway width must be 5m
wide and not 4.8m as indicated, although appropriate narrowing
may be allowable.
•
the Land and Mews type (pages 24-25) must have an abundance
of access points through to green spaces and if proposed for
adoption the shared surface should be a minimum width of 5.5m
with 0.5m maintenance strips both sides. These shared surface
streets only function well where there is an appropriate level of offstreet parking and users are clear that the car is a ‘guest’.
•
shared accesses should be a minimum of 5m in width from the
Primary and Secondary routes.
•
advisory comments are offered on highway drainage, junction
geometry nd visibility.
•
level of cycle parking is encouraging, but there is no mention of
visitor parking at key locations (retail/commercial). Advice can be
found in the Cambridge Residential Cycle Parking Guide.
•
table D, page 48: bound gravel is not an appropriate surface for
shared use paths crossing the open spaces - only proper machine
laid tarmac should be used.
•
noted that some land parcels will drain direct using surface water
pipes to a single attenuation pond contrary to the SuDS treatment
train and opportunities for localised SUDS to offer further source
control within the primary school boundary should be considered.
Swales have a slope of 1:2.5 and might be difficult to maintain.
•
no reference to the RECAP Waste Management Design Guide
(WMDG) to clarify where the standards are set out for turning areas
and suitable roadway construction and adequate internal and
external storage of waste.
•
play areas and principles should be developed using the Play
England document Design for Play.
•
no mention of formal indoor art/display/performance space,
museum space or display areas in other buildings, or indoor sports
facilities. Will off-site contributions be agreed later?
•
why are 3 football pitches proposed and should they all be full
sized? What about other sports like Rugby?
•
no mention of changing facilities, flood lighting, toilets, sheds for
machinery or a pavilion?
•
will car parking at the sport field be sufficient?
•
is the access sufficient to cope with the traffic
5.5
Environment Agency - no comments with regard to the design code.
5.6
HDC Transportation – no objection.
5.7
HDC Environmental Health – no reply.
5.8
HDC Operations – provides informative comments on street furniture
specification, bin collection points, waste/recycling location, space
required to turn a refuse freighter, planting, fencing of play areas,
specification of play equipment and SUDS design.
5.9
HDC Leisure Development – no comment.
5.10
HDC Lighting Engineer – no reply.
6.
REPRESENTATIONS
6.1
A letter was received from the Head Teacher of Godmanchester
Primary School Academy and Godmanchester Community Education
Trust who, as sponsors of the new school on the Bearscoft
development, are concerned that the lack of provision for visitor and
parent parking next to the school site will have a negative and long
lasting impact upon the relationship between School and nearby
residents.
The overall aesthetic design of the development is
welcomed with much thought given to green space and play areas,
however, we would urge that provision for school parent and visitor
parking is included in an updated design. It is unrealistic to assume
that all children will walk to the school.
7.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
7.1
The main issue to consider is whether the submitted Design Code:
(i) accords with the principles of the Design and Access Statement and
Parameter Plans that accompanied outline planning application
reference 1200685OUT and;
(ii) provides satisfactory guidance and coding on the matters listed
under condition 16 of the outline planning permission to inform
subsequent reserved matters applications and aid delivery of a high
quality development.
7.2
It is beyond the reasonable scope of this report to provide a detailed
commentary on each and every element of the submitted Design Code
which extends to some 127 pages, but Officers are satisfied that the
coding and design guidance contained in the Code is capable of
informing an appropriately high quality development.
7.3
The submitted Design Code remains faithful to the parameter plans
that accompanied the outline planning application in terms of the
movement network through the development, the hierarchy of roads,
disposition of land uses, open spaces, drainage infrastructure,
residential density and building heights. Coding and design guidance
is provided on all of the individual matters listed under condition 16 and
it is therefore compliant with the terms of the outline planning
permission.
7.4
Officers have provided a brief summary of the most important elements
of the Design Code as follows:
Layout and character areas:
7.5
Section 5.2 of the Code (pages 79-97) prescribes different character
areas that are appropriately different and respond satisfactorily to the
way the development is expected to function, the topography of the site
and its surroundings. These character areas will give variety to the
built environment, provide a choice of housing and a sense that the
Bearscroft is a place in its own right, and one which relates to the built
up part of Godmanchester rather than a development of uniform
houses with a bland and monotonous form.
7.6
For example, the character area coding plan (page 78) purposely
shows denser more urban style development of mainly semi-detached
and terraced buildings being located on road frontages nearer to the
‘Community Core’ where the school and retail centre will be located.
Moving away from the ‘Community Core’ there is gradual and logical
transition to less dense residential development of mainly detached
houses set in more informal groupings and located closer to the edges
of the development with a greater proportion of landscaping at the
interface with the countryside beyond.
7.7
How these character areas will be achieved through subsequent
reserved matters submissions is coded by the Regulating Plan (page
79) and the Regulating Code (pages 80-82). The Regulating Plan
shows the spatial layout and density of building ‘blocks’, building forms
(e.g. detached, terraced, semi-detached dwellings, street frontages,
building sets back and spacings), and letters (a) to (e) on the
Regulating Plan code the spatial layout of acceptable house block
typologies within these areas. The Regulating Plan links to the
Regulating Matrix which prescribes the range of acceptable house
typologies for each character area and this includes bungalows in
certain parts of the development.
7.8
Building materials and finishes that relate to existing buildings in
Godmanchester and appropriate boundary treatments are also coded
across the site.
Movement network & route hierarchy:
7.9
The network of cycle paths, footways and roads shown in the Design
Code (page 17) are faithful to the parameters established by the
outline planning permission and indicative masterplan. The layout of
footpaths and cycle paths within the landscaped green corridors (page
47) that radiate out from the community core (where the school and
local centre will be located), provide convenient and direct movement
corridors accessible to residential development parcels and reflecting
‘desire lines’ of future residents.
7.10
The general distribution of roads follows a logical hierarchy and avoids
a network of cul-de-sacs and ‘dead end’ streets that inhibit movement
and design variety. This, along with the residential character areas
referred to above, will contribute to a development that is permeable by
promoting efficient movement for cyclists, walkers and drivers, and
legible insofar as occupiers and visitors will be able to navigate through
the development using their surroundings, rather than being
disorientated by sinuous cul-de-sacs and bland monotonous rows of
housing.
7.11
An important function of the Design Code in reinforcing the character
areas proposed and promoting a legible layout is the interaction
between buildings and public spaces. The Design Code defines 7
groups of buildings that are considered to be ‘key groupings’ in section
5.2 (page 90) because of their relative prominence in the street scene,
and these will be defined by particular characteristics to distinguish
them from other parts of the development. It should be noted that the
sketches accompanying the key grouping are not fixed by the Design
Code or endorsed by Officers and are for illustrative purposes only to
guide the building heights, frontage forms and enclosure of the street.
The detailed design of each ‘key grouping’ is a matter for subsequent
reserved matters submissions, but the developer will be required to
achieve a distinctive group of buildings in these locations.
7.12
The County Council has made a series of comments regarding the
movement network and these are addressed later on in this report.
Officers note the comments from the County Council, Town Council
and the sponsors of the Primary School that a dedicated drop off area
for the parking of cars close to the Primary School should be provided
on the Secondary Road type. It is noted that the County Council does
not offer advice on the capacity of the requested drop-off facility,
preventing Officers from estimating the land take associated with the
request. Officers appreciate that it is unrealistic to assume that all
children will walk to and from the primary school. However, the
benefits and disbenefits of providing a dedicated drop off facility on the
secondary type road have been carefully considered and such a facility
discounted for the reasons that follow.
7.13
The primary school is expected to cater in the long term for between
315-420 pupils. Given expected pupil numbers, it is unlikely that a
drop-off facility would cope with the likely parking demand created by
the school. The County Council says that the school will not be
required to provide a drop off facility within the school grounds (only
staff parking) and any such facility in the highway would not be
managed by the School and could not be reserved solely for school
related parking.
7.14
Officers advise that there is no guarantee that space made available in
the Secondary Road type for dropping off/collecting school children will
be kept available for school related parking as it will be unmanaged
and available to all; including residents, visitors and shop customers.
7.15
Officers do not consider that vehicles parked on the Secondary Road
type, (which is 5.5m wide) and close to the school will give rise to
unacceptable highway safety risks and it is noted that the County
Council does not frame its request for a drop off facility in this way.
The District Council’s Transportation Officer agrees that the parking of
vehicles on the Secondary Road type would not be unacceptably
harmful to highway safety and would have traffic calming effects.
Having a very wide road outside the school that is only subject to
significant parking at the start and end of the school day will encourage
higher vehicle speeds at other parts of the day and weekends/school
holidays, which is undesirable in the ‘Community Core’ of the
development, close to the convenience store location, the community
square open space and near to the confluence of the landscaped
green infrastructure corridors containing cycle ways and footways.
7.16
Officers note that parking on the highway and close to the school
grounds is likely to result in some inconvenience to nearby residents,
their visitors and possibly shop customers most likely at the start and
end of the school day. Officers empathise with the school sponsor who
wishes to build good relationships between school and residents, but
as this is a new development in its entirety and the location of the
school is fixed and is shown on all master plans, Officers suggest that
future residents must be realistic about what they are buying into when
choosing to live within close proximity to a school. The clustering of
the school and retail shop, amongst higher density housing within the
‘Community Core’ is a key part of creating a sense of place in the
Bearscroft development.
7.17
Officers advise that the Primary Road type which joins the A1198 at
both ends will run alongside the southern boundary of the school and
at 7.3m wide this road type will be capable of accommodating parked
vehicles on both sides. The Primary Road type can therefore function
as a defacto drop off facility for the school, which would bring a
welcome additional form of traffic calming to this road in combination
with the physical measures listed in the Design Code.
7.18
The Design Code shows footpaths within the development that radiate
out from the school along the green corridors to provide a direct
illuminated corridor of movement between housing parcels, the school
and local centre, giving an alternative to vehicle journeys to and from
the school, which should be discouraged.
7.19
In concluding this issue, Officers are sensitive to the concerns raised
by the County Council and the sponsors of the Primary School.
However, there is a balance to be struck and in doing so Officers
consider that a drop off facility in the Secondary Road should not be
sought for the reasons given above.
Open spaces, landscaping, bund and SUDS:
7.20
The green infrastructure components containing landscaping,
footpaths, cycleways and drainage, and the open spaces and play
areas are also faithful to the principles in the outline planning
permission and are considered satisfactory by Officers and the
Council’s Operations Team, who have the opportunity to adopt such
spaces.
Responses to consultee comments:
7.21
A wide range of comments have been received from consultees, but it
should be noted that not all comments are relevant to the consideration
of the Design Code for the reasons explained in the following
paragraphs.
7.22
Given the complexity of the Design Codes, their non-statutory status
and the fact that they are required for relatively few development sites,
it is perhaps unsurprising that some consultees are uncertain as to
which matters fall within the scope of a Design Code and which do not.
7.23
response to the comments of Godmanchester Town Council Officers
advise:
•
the request for details for the improvements to Post Street, Riverside
Junction and A14 junction ramp following appropriate traffic and
transport management cannot be met by the Design Code as these offsite works are triggered by a detailed strategy for delivery that is
secured by the Section 106 agreement.
•
the bus link to Kisby Avenue is shown on page 16 of revision M of the
Design Code. Condition 13 is the delivery mechanism for the bus gate
to Kisby Avenue, not the Design Code.
•
concerns that photographs of existing buildings in section 3 of the
Design Code are not reflective of the eclectic mix of buildings in
Godmanchester are noted, but Officers advise that these photos are
part of the discretionary guidance and it will not be mandatory for new
homes to emulate these buildings.
•
concerns over the labelling of the pedestrian links shown in section 4.2
are noted. Officers consider that such concerns have arisen because
David Wilson Homes opted to show the indicative masterplan
submitted with the outline planning permission to demonstrate that the
Design Code accords with the principles of the Design and Access
Statement and Parameter Plans. This master plan showed potential
links that could not be delivered. Officers emphasise that approval of
the Design Code does not approve the masterplan by default. The
outline planning permission does not approve a pedestrian link to
either Judiths Field or to Ravenshoe.
•
public transport is absent from the Design Code because the locations
of bus stops and the bus gate to Kisby Avenue are to be delivered by
conditions 13 and 14 of the outline planning permission, and the
Section 106 agreement delivers the bus service and secured
contributions.
•
the Bus link to Kisby Avenue has not been withdrawn as it is to be
delivered by the outline planning permission under condition 13.
•
note the Town Council’s comments regarding the A1198, but the works
to the A1198 and the effects it would have were considered as part of
the grant of outline planning permission. The A1198 works are to be
delivered by conditions 12 and 13 of the outline planning permission
following a Safety Audit by the County Council under a section 278
agreement between it and the developer. The Design Code included a
proposed Section 278 scheme for illustrative purposes as the Code
does not override the planning permission. The Code is required only
to set the principles of the movement network within the housing
development including route hierarchy and footpaths and cycleway
links within the development site.
•
maintenance and management of canals and other surface water
attenuation features is secured by the Section 106 agreement and is
not a matter for the Design Code. Risk assessment and long term
safety issues are matters for other legislation and fall outside of
planning.
•
note the concerns of the Town Council regarding the width of the
‘Primary Route’ through the site, but advise that the Code specifies (in
the table on page 21 of the Design Code) the options for achieving
traffic calming, which will consist of junction treatment, pedestrian
crossing strips and occasional landscaped ‘pull outs’; features that
narrow the carriageway. The precise details of these features will be
determined in subsequent reserved matters applications. Planning
Officers consider that the length of the ‘Primary route’ which is roughly
twice the distance of the length of the A1198 between the north and
south accesses to the site combined with the inclusion of traffic
calming measures, parked cars, pedestrian crossings and junctions
with minor roads will dissuade residents from rat running through the
development. Planning Officers point at that the Design Code shows a
route network that complies with the principles of the outline planning
permission.
•
the Design Code cannot set a speed limit or prohibit vehicles of a
certain size or weight from the development site, but condition 17
required a construction management scheme to be agreed. The final
speed limit will be determined by the County Council following a
detailed safety audit and adoption process, and it might be higher than
the 20mph design speed.
•
note the comments of the Town Council regarding pedestrian/cycle
crossings of the Primary Road through the site. It is advised that
detailed design of crossings will be determined under the reserved
matters submissions by the County Council.
•
note the Town Council’s concerns over the Lane and Mews type
streets being designed with a shared surface, but advise that carefully
designed shared surface streets work well, in principle, such as
examples from Loves Farm St Neots which have been adopted by the
County Council.
•
note the query regarding car parking space dimensions and advise that
on-plot car parking will be a matter for individual reserved matters
applications for residential development phases, following the guidance
in section 4.4 of the Design Code.
•
maintenance and management of open space, play areas and
landscaped SUDS are secured by the Section 106 agreement.
•
delivery of the pathway/cycleway adjacent to Judith’s field and along
London Road is triggered by condition 13 of the planning permission
and will be subject to a separate agreement and safety audit by the
County Council under a Section 278 agreement.
•
note the safety concerns over the attenuation pond in Bearscroft Park.
The Council’s Operations Team will require the Play Area in Bearscroft
farm to be fenced to keep children away from pond and this can be
sought at the detailed design stage. The Section 106 agreement
establishes the maintenance responsibility for the open space, play
areas and SUDS.
•
note the concerns raised about the access to the sportsfield. The
indicative master plan (not approved) showed vehicular access from
Bearscroft Lane, which is public highway, and from the development
site. The Design Code indicates vehicular access from Bearscroft
Lane and pedestrian access via a Green Corridor from within the site.
The cross section on page 53 of the code provides for an agricultural
corridor in accordance with the principle established in the indicative
masterplan. The width of the Primary Road through the site provides
space for vehicular parking, a relatively short walk from the sports field.
The volume of traffic movements is not a matter for the Design Code.
•
the Design Code cannot deliver buildings such as toilet facilities and
changing rooms and kitchen facilities to serve the sportsfield, but there
would be sufficient space to accommodate such a facility if offered by
the developer. It should be noted that the outline planning permission
does not obligate the developer to provide such a facility.
•
the Design Code will not bind the developer to provide a facility or pitch
for a specific sport as this is a matter for the Section 106 agreement to
deliver. It should be noted that provision of an on-site indoor sports
facility was considered at the outline planning stage but could not
reasonably be secured owing to the scale of the development. Instead
a contribution to off-site sports facilities was secured by the section 106
agreement (refer to para. 7.264 of the DMP report on the outline
planning permission). The Section 106 agreement will secure the
management of this space.
•
no requirement for a trim track to be provided.
•
the maintenance issues and parking provision for allotments would be
determined through the section 106 agreement and the future reserved
matters applications.
•
the scale and nature of on-site provision for opportunities for dog
walking is a matter to be determined under condition 21 of the outline
planning permission.
•
the land required for surface water drainage infrastructure is shown in
the Design Code and the Environment Agency has not objected. The
detailed elements of the drainage systems will be determined under
conditions 7 and 8 of the outline planning permission.
•
the Design Code says on page 73 that the recycling 'bring' site will be
situated within the local centre. Precise details of the recycling site and
how/who is responsible for this would be determined at the appropriate
reserved matters application and the management of such a facility,
and other details, would fall to be considered under condition 18 of the
outline planning permission.
•
the provision of broadband is not a matter for the Design Code and it
falls to condition 9 of the outline planning permission.
•
lighting of cycle ways is proposed and a detailed scheme would be
determined at the appropriate reserved matters stage.
•
the Design Code does not commit to achieving a specific level of code
for sustainable homes; only to meet the appropriate standard at that
time. LPA’s are now advised by Government not to prescribe minimum
standards as part of reducing the burden on developers.
•
a paper copy of a revised Design Code was provided to the Town
Council.
•
the Design Code applies to all homes on the development, regardless
of tenure.
•
sourcing public art will be a matter for the developer in consultation
with Planning Officers and others.
•
note the comment that the A1198 should be diverted around Bearscroft
so that new residents become fully part of the Godmanchester
community. This option was considered by Officers as part of the
outline planning permission and was not taken further for reasons
previously explained in the DMP report from July 2013. The pedestrian
links across and works to the A1198 are secured by the outline
planning permission and are subject to a S278 agreement with the
County Council. They cannot be determined through the Design Code.
•
the outline planning permission does not require the provision of a new
GP surgery. Rather the Section 106 agreement requires the developer
to make land (no less than 0.6 of a hectare) available for a health
centre and market that land for 18 months from commencement of
development. The section 106 agreement explains the precise details
of this obligation and others relating to healthcare provision.
•
note the Town Council’s concerns about the scale and location of the
health centre land, which is indicatively shown by the plan annexed to
the section 106 agreement on the western side of the A1198, but this is
not a matter for the Design Code.
•
concerns relating to access to the primary school and parking for
school drop off and pick up are addressed above.
•
the request for more specific language to describe the architectural
language, but Officers advise that it is not a requirement for the Design
Code to be overly prescriptive on architectural style given the location
of the site; rather it is a combination of density, building heights,
architectural detailing, materials, street types, landscaping that will
define the character areas in the development. Specific architectural
styles will be determined at the appropriate reserved matters stage,
particularly for each of the 7 Key Groupings of buildings in section 5.2
of the Design Code.
•
note the doubt expressed by the Town Council over the need for
commercial development given reported vacant buildings, but the
amount of commercial development is determined by the outline
planning permission and cannot be altered through the Design Code.
•
note the objection of the Town Council to 3 storey commercial
development fronting the A1198, but advise that the parameter plan,
which the Design Code must accord with, provides for buildings up to
10m high on the A1198 frontage as shown on page 126 of the Design
Code.
•
note the Town Council’s opinion of the design of the commercial
building on the corner by A14 roundabout (page 126) and it will be
made clear that this design of building is illustrative only. The purpose
of this drawing is to show that a ‘key’ building will be expected on this
corner; one of high architectural quality.
•
note the serious concerns about accessing the B1 use class land on
the part of the site to the east of Cardinal Park via the roads within the
development site and through residential development. However, the
outline planning permission approved the means of access to the site
and the location of the B1 use class land is shown on the parameter
plans as a principle that the Design Code must adhere to.
•
note the Town Council’s request for details about the delivery and
phasing to help manage integrating this community and the financial
returns Godmanchester Town Council will receive. The phasing of the
development must be formally agreed under condition 6 of the outline
planning permission and the Section 106 agreement varied
accordingly. The timing of delivery of CIL money to the Town Council
will be dependent upon the delivery of the development.
•
condition 15 secures the adoption strategy for highways etc. within
each plot or phase, so this is not a matter for the Design Code.
7.24
In response to the comments from departments within Cambridgeshire
County Council, Officers advise:
•
shared use cycle/footways are not inappropriate and unidirectional
cycle lanes are unnecessary and would add to the land take of the
highway infrastructure, affecting the character and appearance of the
development. This view was also given in respect to a similar request
for the Alconbury Weald KP1 Design Code.
•
provision for school drop-off facilities near to the school entrance for
those dropping off/collecting children are addressed above.
•
junction spacings on the road network within the development will be
considered in subsequent reserved matters applications.
•
it is noted that the achievement of speeds limits will depend upon road
design and possible options for traffic calming are included in the
Design Code.
•
the comment that Non-Motorised User routes should be convenient
and direct, whilst car routes should be much more circuitous are noted.
The route network in the Design Code is considered by Planning
Officers to be satisfactory and compliant with the principles of the
outline planning permission.
•
advisory comments on the geometry of junctions, planting and turning
space are noted.
•
the Tertiary Road type (page 23) shows a minimum width of 4.8m and
can be increased to 5m as required.
•
the Land and Mews type streets (pages 24-25) show approx. 7.3m
width as adoptable highway and therefore the minimum width of 5.5m
with 0.5m maintenance strips on either side as required by the County
Council can be met.
•
amount of visitor parking at key locations (retail/commercial) would be
a matter for the relevant reserved matters submission.
•
the comment that bound gravel (stated on table D, page 48) is not an
appropriate surface for shared use paths crossing the open spaces only proper machine laid tarmac should be used is noted.
•
the detailed drainage design is a matter to be determined under
condition 7 and delivered through a reserved matters submission. The
Environment Agency had no comment to make on the Design Code.
•
a future reserved matters submission would take account of standards
for turning areas and suitable roadway construction and adequate
internal and external storage of waste as set out on the Waste
Management Design Guide (WMDG).
•
the District Council’s Operations Team is satisfied with the guidance in
the Design Code that relates to play space and open space.
•
the Design Code cannot secure financial contributions; this falls to a
Section 106 agreement.
•
the precise details of the outdoor sports space will be determined by
the Section 106 agreement, but the Design Code shows that sufficient
space will be provided to achieve 3 full sized pitches, if that is what is
required.
•
changing facilities, toilets, sheds for machinery or a pavilion are not
secured by the outline planning permission or the Section 106
agreement.
•
the Design Code does not cover the details of outdoor lighting of the
sportsfield. The scheme required by the Section 106 agreement will
secure details of open space and adoption/maintenance.
•
quantity of car parking provision at the sports field is a matter for a
future reserved matters submission
•
the means of access to the sportsfield and the wider site was
considered at the outline planning stage and will be refined by the
appropriate reserved matters submission. It is not a matter for the
Design Code.
Conclusion:
7.25
Officers are satisfied that the Design Code will contribute to simplifying
the process of achieving a high quality development at Bearscroft
Farm, giving more certainty and avoiding piecemeal and fragmented
delivery of the development.
It should also aid the efficient
determination of subsequent reserved matters applications by the
Local Planning Authority.
8.
RECOMMENDATION
8.1
Members approve the Design Code as a material consideration in the
determination of subsequent reserved matters applications for the
Bearscroft development.
CONTACT OFFICER:
Enquiries about this report to Mr
Management Officer 01480 387070
Gavin
Sylvester
Development
If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio
version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate
your needs.
Huntingdonshire District Council
Pathfinder House
St Mary’s Street
Huntingdon
Cambridgeshire PE29 3TN
9th December 2014
Dear Sirs
Bearscroft Farm Design Code: supplementary submission
Further to my letter of 21 November, we would be grateful for your
consideration of the following additional comments which are made following
an exhibition from David Wilson Homes on 27 November 2014.
Godmanchester Town Council were pleased to be able to view some of the
documents in the Bearscroft Design code at a scale that was legible, unlike
the paper copy provided, or on HDC portal. It appears some significant
changes have been made to the design that differ from the document we
were asked to comment on.
1. A1198.
We note the toucan crossings have been reduced from 4 to 2, traffic lights
added at the end of the primary route through the estate, and 2 islands in
centre of road at Cardinal Park end. Godmanchester Town Council request
to know why this change was required, as we have never been given a view
of the traffic forecasts for this road. We also await the environment impact
assessment of the A1198 and the methodology and the guidelines used for
this.
Godmanchester Town Council still firmly believes serious consideration
should be given to diverting A1198 around the outside of the Bearscroft Farm
development.
2. Bus access to Kisby Avenue. This was not indicated in the design code,
but was on the diagrams on display last Thursday. Although we support
encouraging the use of public transport, Godmanchester Town Council
repeat their concerns about additional buses using Kisby Avenue given the
current problems of buses having to mount the kerb and verges to
manoeuvre the corners to avoid parked cars. Please can we see the
evidence how this route is considered a feasible option without seriously
impacting on residents.
3. Pedestrian link to Ravenshoe. Again, this was not clearly evident within
the design plan given to Godmanchester Town Council Godmanchester Town
Council or on the portal. This link appears to run from the back of the
southern section of commercial units. At the DWH open meeting it is now
apparent it is proposed the GP surgery facilities are in the southern
commercial area. Within the section 106 agreement, page 10 it says 0.6
hectares, coloured orange on plan 3. Sadly nothing orange on the plan
printed from the portal by Godmanchester Town Council so this site had not
been noticed until DWH open session. The location proposed is not ideally
placed for residents of Bearscroft being across A1198 at the far end of the
site from the vehicular entrance. The site appears to have limited onsite
parking. Godmanchester Town Council and the residents of Ravenshoe
have genuine concerns their street will be used for parking as people then
walk through to the proposed GP surgery. We believe the cramped site will
not be conducive to prospective providers of GP services as it is too small to
be economically viable.
4. Sportsfield. The larger diagrams DWH provided indicate the vehicular
access to this site is to be via the existing single track road. We wonder if
this will be acceptable for the quantity of traffic generated by 3 adult sized
football pitches. Again we await the traffic predictions for this facility.
Godmanchester Town Council can now identify a farm track around the
outside of the site. The pedestrian access from the development to the
sportsfield crosses this track which we are informed will be regularly used by
30 ton trucks and, in season, combine harvesters. The diagrams show no car
parking on the sportsfield, which will obviously be essential to stop cars
parking on-street within the development. We presume all services will be
connected across the farm track to facilitate the construction of toilet
facilities/changing/club facilities that will be required by a substantial site like
this.
5. We note the footpath/cycle way running along the west side of A1198
stops just into the top of London Road, level with the entrance to Stokes
Drive. This path will need to be extended to join with the existing footpath that
stops at the entrance to Judith’s Field.
We look forward to receiving further details as previously requested, but in the
meantime if you have any queries relating to our comments, please do not hesitate
to contact the Town Clerk.
Madelaine Liddiard
TOWN CLERK
8
9
:
;
<
=
3
4
3
5
6
7
7
7
!
$
"
$
$
#
#
/
0
"
1
#
%
#
&
'
!
"
&
(
,
#
>
:
?
<
@
A
<
:
?
<
B
4
7
C
D
7
C
D
E
7
3
5
F
S
N
O
H
T
L
P
U
O
Q
O
R
V
K
Q
U
H
L
W
R
O
K
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
O
R
'
-
.
'
*
)
)
)
(
(
2
(
(
)
*
+
7
6
6
+
3
4
6
6
5
+
2
-
1
0
'
1
0
'
.
-
(
,
'
,+
'
*
/
+
/
.
-
(
,
'
,
#
#
#
#
$
)
(
(
'
$
&
&
$
%
!
$
"
!
!
BEARSCROFT FARM
DESIGN CODE
OCTOBER 2014
APPLICATION
ISSUE
e
W
W
\
S
[
Y
Y
]
V
Z
V
Y
S
Q
Q
U
T
P
_
V
Y
V
^
T
T
X
R
S
The movement network is illustrated to the right. One of the objectives for
the development is to maximise the opportunity for residents to walk and
cycle along attractive routes connecting directly with all important
destinations within the development and beyond.
X
Q
U
Q
]
b
`
y
a
Routes and connections
8
Movement & streets
d
4.2
c
b
S
[
Y
Q
Z
V
[
T
T
Z
V
Q
Q
Q
]
Z
Local centre
School
LEAP
Outdoor sports facilities
F
A
E
C
@
B
B
?
<
c
c
_
T
T
W
]
Y
c
c
c
y
z
U
y
V
Y
T
T
Z
S
x
Y
V
S
S
a
[
Y
Q
T
{
X
V
S
a
x
Q
Q
_
[
]
w
W
Y
T
Z
W
S
}
V
U
T
T
V
S
a
a
^
T
A
E
9
8
E
>
E
B
<
L
;
M
D
K
>
N
O
V
S
a
Q
Q
_
[
]
W
Y
T
Z
w
v
u
s
r
j
r
i
t
m
o
j
g
o
q
i
n
n
i
o
p
h
m
h
j
i
g
l
f
k
b
\
V
]
T
c
]
b
V
S
a
Y
Q
Q
W
[
|
S
Q
[
Y
V
[
Q
]
T
?
J
?
;
?
D
I
>
D
<
:
;
=
G
The layout should make walking and cycling
to and from local facilities the natural
choice. In particular, designing safe routes to
the school/local centre for parents and
children is paramount to the street
design/layout.
`
Godmanchester
H
~
~
~
~
~
c
a
a
[
[
Q
`
Destinations include:
T
Z
b
Q
U
]
c
X
Q
a
U
]
`
{
b
y
a
S
Street Hierarchy
\
Movement & streets
4.2
Within the development a hierarchy of street types will be utilised as listed below, in descending order:
~
A1198
~
Primary route
~
Secondary route
Tertiary route
b
V
[
]
]
U
T
]
[
Y
U
T
b
c
b
b
V
a
[
Q
b
c
W
a
Q
b
_
V
X
]
Y
|
b
Y
S
a
[
]
a
S
a
a
[
T
b
T
b
]
~
Lane/Mews
Whilst the principles, design, specification and road hierarchy of the Tertiary routes, Lanes and
Mews are mandatory, the routes shown within this Design Code are indicative and the exact
alignment will be determined through Reserved Matters applications.
Footpaths and cycle routes
A shared footpath and cycleway will be provided to both sides of
the A1198, and along one side of the Primary route with a footpath
to the other side.
The Secondary and Tertiary streets will have footpaths whilst the
Lanes and Mews are intentionally designed as a shared surface
encouraging pedestrian and cycle use and safety.
Within the development dedicated pedestrian and cycle routes will
be delivered via shared footpath and cycleways through green areas.
As part of the improvements to the A1198, four new Toucan
crossings will be installed to enable safe pedestrian and cycle
connection to the new development.
Toucan crossing points across the A1198
8
~
~
Dedicated pedestrian/cycle routes
ø
ü
ý
û
ü
ü
û
ø
ý
û
ý
þ
þ
,
ù
ú
ù
+
*
(
&
ù
ñ
õ
õ
è
ë
é
ì
è
ê
î
ô
ì
ò
÷
ë
ë
é
ó
"
ó
é
!
ô
î
ö
é
õ
ò
ï
õ
õ
õ
֏
ô
ê
ð
õ
ñ
î
ñ
õ
ð
ô
ï
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ó
ó
é
í
è
ê
ñ
ñ
õ
ð
ð
ô
ð
õ
ë
ë
é
õ
õ
ñ
ô
ñ
õ
î
ñ
ñ
ô
õ
ð
ï
ô
ñ
ë
ë
é
é
ö
ó
é
ö
õ
ð
ï
ô
ñ
ë
é
ö
ø
ý
û
ý
ü
ý
ù
ù
ú
ù
÷
ï
ï
è
î
ñ
î
ï
ê
ò
ê
î
ô
ë
ë
é
ó
é
é
ñ
õ
õ
è
è
ê
ô
ï
î
ô
ï
ñ
ô
ñ
ð
ê
ï
ô
è
î
ë
ë
é
÷
ï
ð
ô
ñ
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ë
é
é
ÿ
õ
ê
õ
ñ
ï
ô
õ
ì
ì
õ
ï
õ
è
õ
ì
ô
õ
è
ï
ë
ë
é
ö
ö
é
ö
ø
ø
þ
ý
ü
û
ù
ú
¯
¹
¦
©
¢
±
©
´
£
Ý
¨
æ
è
ï
ê
ñ
÷
ï
ñ
ñ
ê
ðè
õ
ñ
ô
è
ò
ñ
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ì
è
ê
ë
ë
ë
é
ö
é
ó
é
é
í
é
é
ç
Ã
¦
¥
½
Á
©
¥
¹
¨
·
¯
©
¢
©
®
¯
¥
±
¹
®
Á
©
¥
¹
¢
«
´
«
å
¥
«
©¥
¨
¨
·
»
¾
¨
°
¯
¯
®
©
£
£
¬
à
¢
Á
©
¯
«
«
´
«
©
«
¦
®
¥
Á
©
¥
¹
¥
«
£
¸
¶
ä
¨
¨
½
¨
·
¶
¡
¯
®
¢¹
¹
¢
¯
¯
®
¯
¯
¯
¯
£
£
£
£
¨
Ä
Ä
â
¯
¤
«
¯
Á
¯
°
¨
ã
ª
á
Ã
¹
Á
©
«
¥
±
±
¥
¯
®
¥
±
¢
¯
²
¢
£
¨
¶
¨
¾
¾
°
¨
¶
¶
°
¨
¢
¦
¥
¤
Á
¢
©
¢
®
´
¢
¹
´
¥
©
¢
¥
®
±
±
£
£
£
¸
¨
¸
¶
¶
¶
¨
à
Ã
®
¹
®
Á
©
«
¥
±
±
¥
£
¨
¨
¶
¨
¾
¾
Ý
Á
©
®
®
¢
±
©¥
¯®
¯
¹
¯
©
«
¥
¯
©
¢
±
©
´
£
£
£
£
£
¨
¨
°
ß
¨
³
Á
©
¥
«
¯
¥
±
¹
¯
´
±
©
¢
®
¯
´
¥
¯
¦
¯
£
£
¨
·
¶
°
¶
¨
¾
Þ
¯
¯
©
«¯
Ü´
£
¨
®
´
Ã
µ
¥
¹
¹
¯
¤
®
©
£
£
¸
¨
§
®
¯
¯
¯
Á
¥
Á
©
®
©¥
£
£
Ä
¨
°
É
È
Ì
È
É
Ù
É
Ï
Õ
Ó
Ô
É
Ï
Ì
È
Ô
Ô
É
Ï
Ó
È
Ð
Ï
Ì
É
Ë
Ö
Û
Ú
Ø
×
Î
Ê
Î
Ò
Ñ
Î
Í
Ê
Ç
¹
«
Á
©
®
¯
¯
¯
¹
¸
Æ
ª
¨
Å
°
Ä
¨
»
Â
¬
®
¯
¯
¯
®
©
¢
£
£
£
À
µ
®
´
®
¯
¯
´
¢
£
À
µ
®
¥
¥
®
¯
²
¢
®
®
¢
±
¯
£
³
°
¨
±
¦
¥
¤
¯
¦
¬
¶
º
¢
¤
¯
©
«
¢
±
«
£
¨
°
¨
½
¼
»
±
¯
¢
¢
¥
¥
¹
¶
®
©
¢
±
©
´
£
¨
¢
¯
®
¯
©
¢
©
¢
¦
¥
¤
£
¿
°
¨
¾
¸
¥
¹
®
¦
¥
¤
¯
Á
¥
¥
±
«
®
¹
¢
®
®
´
¥
¸
°
¶
¶
Ã
¨
º
®
£
£
¸
·
¶
µ
¦
¥
¤
¯
Á
¥
¥
¥
¯
¢
¢
¥
±
Building frontages approximately 1.2m-3m
deep.
8
)
é
£
£
¶
¸
°
¶
¶
¸
·
¶
µ
¬
7.3m wide carriageway to allow the street to
be used as a bus route.
'
%
ý
ø
û
é
ö
Trees positioned centrally in grass verge. Set
back a minimum of 1m from the carriageway.
Species: Lirodendron tulipifera ‘Aureomarginata’
(Variegated tulip tree) to site entrances, and
Corylus colurna (Turkish hazel) along the road
at semi mature, 20-25cm girth and clear
stemmed 1.8/2 metres. Supplied with
appropriate guying/staking and irrigation.
ï
Double avenue planted at 9-15 metre centres
within grass verges, avoiding all service routes
and vision splays. Avenue planting to be
coordinated with street light design.
è
Tree planting:
ê
20 mph design speed.
ù
3m wide shared footpath and cycleway, 2m
wide where footpath only.
#
3m wide verge with tree planting/possible use
as on street casual parking.
ý
¢
¢
¦
¥
¤
©
®
©
¢
±
©
´
¥
®
¯
²
¢
®
®
¢
±
¯
®
¥
«
£
£
£
¡
¨
³
°
¨
ª
¨
§
Part of the main circulation route within the
development.
$
Primary Road
ü
4.2
Movement & streets
-
-
I
ñ
ô
õ
è
ô
ô
ï
õ
ñ
õ
è
è
ê
è
ñ
õ
ô
ë
ë
ë
é
ö
é
é
è
ñ
õ
õ
è
ë
é
ñ
õ
ô
î
ï
é
ö
é
é
ö
ê
ñ
ñ
õ
ð
ð
ô
ð
õ
è
ë
ë
é
õ
ð
ï
ô
ñ
ë
é
ö
õ
ð
ï
ô
ñ
ë
é
ö
ê
î
ô
ô
è
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ë
é
é
é
ö
é
ÿ
ñ
õ
õ
è
è
ê
ô
ï
î
ô
ï
ñ
ô
ñ
ð
ê
ï
ô
è
î
ë
ë
é
÷
ï
ð
ô
ñ
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ë
é
é
ÿ
õ
ê
õ
ñ
ï
ô
õ
ì
ì
õ
ï
õ
è
õ
ì
ô
õ
è
ï
ë
ë
é
ö
ö
é
ö
ñ
è
ô
õ
ñ
é
ö
õ
ì
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ë
F
é
ÿ
è
ï
ê
ñ
÷
ï
ñ
ñ
ê
ðè
õ
ñ
ô
è
ò
ñ
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ì
è
ê
ë
ë
ë
é
ö
é
ó
é
é
í
é
é
ç
ì
ô
÷
ï
è
ô
é
ô
õ
ï
ê
ï
ñ
õ
ð
ô
ñ
÷
ï
è
ô
ê
î
ô
ï
é
é
é
ö
õ
õ
è
ñ
ï
ë
ë
J
÷
ï
õ
î
ï
ñ
ô
ì
÷
ï
è
ô
ô
è
ê
ë
ó
é
é
é
7
ê
ñ
õ
õ
è
õ
õ
è
ë
ë
ë
A
õ
ô
ð
ô
õ
õ
è
ò
õ
÷
õ
è
é
ó
D
è
ñ
õ
õ
ë
I
õ
õ
è
ñ
ï
ô
÷
ï
è
ô
õ
õ
è
ñ
ï
ê
ñ
ô
õ
è
ô
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ö
é
é
è
÷
ï
ô
ð
ð
ô
é
é
F
ï
ô
ì
è
ê
è
ï
ñ
õ
÷
ï
ô
ð
ñ
ï
õ
ô
õ
è
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ö
é
é
é
ó
é
í
ì
÷
ï
ô
õ
ð
ô
õ
î
ð
ï
ê
ñ
õ
è
î
ô
õ
õ
ë
ë
é
ö
é
H
è
õ
ï
õ
õ
è
G
î
ë
é
õ
ï
ô
ô
ê
õ
è
õ
ð
õ
ï
ê
ð
õ
ð
ê
õ
ñ
î
ë
B
é
ó
é
E
ô
õ
ò
ñ
ï
ë
ë
ó
é
ô
ñ
õ
õ
è
õ
÷
ô
ï
÷
ñ
ï
ë
ë
é
ö
è
ê
ô
ï
î
ô
ò
õ
ð
ï
ô
è
ð
ê
ð
ô
ï
õ
ê
÷
ï
è
ô
ô
ê
ë
ó
é
ö
é
F
é
ö
E
ï
÷
ñ
õ
õ
õ
ó
é
ö
ô
ñ
ô
õ
ê
è
ê
ð
ô
ë
ë
ó
ö
ó
8
ô
ì
ò
õ
÷
ô
è
è
ô
ð
ï
ò
õ
è
ô
ô
ì
ò
õ
÷
ô
è
è
ô
ë
é
é
ó
ö
é
ö
é
D
é
C
20 mph design speed.
ê
ñ
ê
ñ
ñ
î
ë
"
B
A
8
Building frontages approximately 1.2-3m deep.
é
ê
õ
î
ê
è
ñ
î
ë
A
8
ñ
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ô
ñ
õ
è
ñ
ê
ñ
ê
ðè
õ
ñ
ô
è
ë
ë
é
í
ö
é
2-3m wide footpath/cycleway to `school’ side
and 2m footpath to the other side.
ç
:
:
ü
;
û
@
,
9
û
ø
û
:
ü
;
;
û
þ
þ
?
ú
ù
+
>
ù
ú
ù
=
<
*
è
õ
è
ï
õ
ð
ô
ð
ê
ï
õ
ð
ô
ô
ï
ê
ñ
ï
ô
ë
ë
ë
ë
í
ö
é
é
õ
ô
ð
ê
ô
ñ
ô
õ
ê
è
ê
ð
ô
ë
ë
ö
ó
ö
ó
8
ô
ì
ò
ê
ê
ñ
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ô
ñ
õ
è
ñ
ê
ñ
ê
ðè
õ
ñ
ô
è
ï
ë
ë
ë
7
é
í
ö
é
é
4
/
6
4
3
0
/
5
2
.
1
Part of the main circulation route serving
residential areas, the local centre and the
school and linking through to the Primary
Road.
Varied width, min. 5.5m wide carriageway.
è
Secondary Road
4.2
Movement & streets
K
-
ë
é
ñ
õ
õ
è
ë
é
ø
û
ü
ù
P
,
ú
ù
ù
ú
ê
ñ
ñ
õ
ð
ð
ô
ð
õ
è
ë
ë
é
õ
ð
ï
ô
ñ
ë
B
é
ö
õ
ð
ï
ô
ñ
ë
é
ö
ê
î
ô
ô
è
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ë
é
é
é
ö
é
ÿ
÷
ï
ð
ô
ñ
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ë
"
B
A
é
é
ÿ
ñ
õ
ð
ô
ñ
õ
è
ô
ñ
ï
ô
ñ
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ì
è
ê
è
õ
ì
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ë
ë
ë
ö
ó
ö
é
í
é
é
ç
F
é
ÿ
÷
ï
è
ô
é
ï
÷
ï
ï
õ
ò
ô
ì
ò
õ
÷
ô
è
è
ô
ð
ô
÷
ï
è
ô
ô
è
ê
é
ö
é
é
é
é
õ
õ
è
ñ
ï
ë
ë
J
û
ø
%
%
ù
ñ
õ
õ
è
õ
õ
è
ë
ë
ë
I
õ
õ
ñ
õ
ð
ô
ñ
ï
õ
ê
ï
õ
ð
ô
ô
è
ê
ê
ï
ë
ë
ë
í
ö
é
ó
é
L
õ
÷
õ
è
"
B
A
D
è
ñ
õ
õ
ë
I
õ
õ
è
ñ
ï
ô
÷
ï
è
ô
õ
õ
è
ñ
ï
ê
ñ
ô
õ
è
ô
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ö
é
é
è
÷
ï
ô
ð
ð
ô
é
é
F
ï
ô
ì
è
ê
è
ï
ñ
õ
÷
ï
ô
ð
ñ
ï
õ
ô
õ
è
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
ö
é
é
é
ó
é
í
ì
÷
ï
ô
õ
ð
ô
õ
î
ð
ï
ê
ñ
õ
è
î
ô
õ
õ
ë
ë
é
ö
é
H
è
õ
ï
õ
õ
è
G
î
ë
é
õ
ï
ô
ô
ê
õ
è
õ
ð
õ
ï
ê
ð
õ
ð
ê
õ
ñ
î
ë
B
é
ó
é
E
ô
õ
ò
ñ
ï
ë
ë
ó
é
ü
ø
û
ý
û
û
üN
N
ø
O
ù
ú
è
ê
ô
ï
î
ô
ò
õ
ð
ï
ô
è
ð
ê
ð
ô
ï
õ
ê
÷
ï
è
ô
ô
ê
ë
ó
é
ö
é
F
é
ö
E
ï
÷
ñ
õ
õ
õ
ó
é
ö
ñ
õ
è
î
ô
õ
ô
ê
è
è
ê
õ
õ
֏
ô
õ
ê
ñ
è
î
ê
ð
ê
ë
ë
ö
ö
è
ô
ñ
è
ê
ô
÷
î
õ
ñ
ô
ñ
è
ô
÷
ï
ô
ð
ê
ë
é
é
ó
é
8
ô
ñ
ô
õ
ê
è
ê
ð
ô
ë
ë
ó
ö
ó
8
Occasionally, planted adjacent to open spaces
or where plot depth will allow the successful
establishment of the tree.
I
è
ñ
õ
ë
$
Trees set back a minimum of 2.5m from
highways.
ô
è
ô
ì
ò
õ
÷
ô
è
è
ô
ð
ï
ò
õ
è
ô
ô
ì
ò
õ
÷
ô
è
è
ô
ë
é
M
é
ó
ö
é
ö
é
D
é
C
Tree planting:
ê
ñ
ê
ñ
ñ
î
ë
"
B
A
8
è
ñ
î
ê
õ
î
ê
ë
A
8
ô
ì
ò
õ
÷
ô
è
è
ô
ð
ï
ô
ì
ò
õ
ð
ì
ë
é
é
ó
é
L
C
ô
õ
ñ
õ
è
î
ë
ô
ê
è
è
ê
õ
õ
֏
ô
õ
ê
ñ
è
î
ê
ð
ê
÷
ï
ô
ð
ê
ë
ö
ö
é
8
ô
ñ
ô
õ
ê
è
ê
ð
ô
ë
ë
ó
ö
ó
8
ô
ì
ò
ê
ê
ñ
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ô
ñ
õ
è
ñ
ê
ñ
ê
ðè
õ
ñ
ô
è
ï
ë
ë
ë
7
é
í
ö
é
é
4
/
6
4
3
0
/
5
2
.
1
Connecting the lower category street types to
the Primary route within the development.
é
Species: Amelanchier arborea ‘Robin Hill’
(Snowy mespilus), Malus trilobata (Apple
blossom) and Sorbus torminalis (Wild service
tree) at extra heavy standard, 18-20cm girth,
rootballed and cleared stemmed to 1.8/2.
metres. Supplied with appropriate
guying/staking and irrigation.
ç
Varied width, min. 4.8m wide carriageway.
2m wide footpath to both sides or verge to
one side where layout and service routes
permit.
Building frontages approximately 2m-6m deep.
10 mph design speed.
è
Tertiary Road
4.2
Movement & streets
Q
-
I
è
ñ
õ
ô
ë
ë
é
ñ
õ
õ
è
ë
é
ñ
õ
ô
î
ï
é
ö
é
é
ö
ø
ø
û
ü
ý
û
ù
W
õ
ð
ï
ô
ñ
ë
é
ö
õ
ð
ï
ô
ñ
ë
é
ö
ñ
ñ
õ
ð
ð
ô
ô
è
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ë
é
é
ö
é
ÿ
ô
õ
ò
ñ
ò
ì
ð
ê
ê
V
õ
ð
õ
ñ
õ
ï
ê
ë
ë
ë
ë
ó
ó
é
ö
é
é
A
÷
ï
ð
ô
ñ
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ë
"
B
A
é
é
ÿ
ñ
õ
ð
ô
ñ
õ
è
ô
ñ
ï
ô
ñ
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ì
è
ê
è
õ
ì
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ë
ë
ë
ö
ó
ö
é
í
é
é
ç
F
é
ÿ
÷
ï
è
ô
é
N
û
;
:
ü
;
û
üN
ý
ý
ü
ü
$
N
ý
ü
%
ü
þ
ý
T
ù
ú
ù
ù
ù
ù
U
,
+
õ
õ
è
ñ
ï
ë
ë
J
I
ñ
õ
ñ
ê
ê
õ
õ
ñ
õ
ð
ô
ë
é
ñ
õ
õ
è
õ
õ
è
ë
ë
ë
ï
õ
ê
ï
õ
ð
ô
ô
è
ê
ñ
õ
è
î
ê
ô
ì
õ
õ
è
ë
ë
ë
í
ö
é
ó
L
õ
÷
õ
è
"
B
A
D
'
ø
û
ý
û
û
ý
û
ø
ü
ý
û
ý
ú
ù
+
÷
ï
ô
ð
ð
ô
è
é
é
F
I
õ
õ
è
ñ
÷
ï
è
ô
õ
õ
è
ñ
ï
ê
ï
õ
ï
÷
ô
ô
ê
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
é
é
ö
E
Trees set back a minimum of 2.5m from
highways.
è
è
õ
ï
õ
õ
è
G
î
ë
é
õ
ï
ô
ô
ê
õ
è
õ
ð
õ
ï
ê
ð
õ
ð
ê
õ
ñ
î
ë
B
é
ó
é
E
ô
õ
ò
ñ
ï
ë
ë
ó
é
õ
÷
ô
ï
÷
ñ
ï
ô
é
ö
õ
ï
ê
A
÷
ï
è
ô
ô
ê
é
ö
E
ï
÷
ñ
õ
õ
õ
ó
é
ö
õ
ï
ï
ô
ð
õ
÷
ô
ï
ô
è
ô
è
ï
õ
ë
ó
é
ö
C
ñ
ô
õ
è
ô
ô
ì
ò
÷
ê
ï
ê
ô
õ
ï
õ
è
ê
ñ
õ
ñ
ë
ë
ë
ó
é
ó
é
é
ö
û
ü
ý
N
ø
û
;
û
ý
û
üN
û
ø
ý
ù
+
>
ù
?
ú
=
,
ñ
è
ê
ô
÷
î
õ
ñ
ô
ñ
è
ô
÷
ï
ô
ð
ê
è
ô
Species: Amelanchier arborea ‘Robin Hill’
(Snowy mespilus), Malus trilobata (Apple
blossom) and Sorbus torminalis (Wild service
tree) at extra heavy standard, 18-20cm girth,
rootballed and cleared stemmed to 1.8/2.
metres. Supplied with appropriate
guying/staking and irrigation.
ê
ë
é
é
ó
é
8
÷
ï
õ
è
ê
ñ
è
ê
ë
ë
ó
ó
S
ê
ï
ò
ê
÷
ï
ò
ê
è
è
ô
ï
ô
ï
ê
ñ
ô
ð
ð
ê
ò
ô
ì
ò
õ
÷
ô
è
è
ô
ë
ë
ö
é
é
M
ó
ö
é
é
C
î
ï
ô
ì
ò
õ
÷
ô
è
è
ô
ð
ò
õ
ô
è
ô
ë
é
é
é
ó
ö
é
é
D
ñ
ê
ñ
ñ
î
ë
"
B
A
8
è
ñ
î
ê
õ
î
ê
ë
A
8
ô
ì
ò
õ
÷
ô
è
è
ô
ð
ï
ô
ì
ò
õ
ð
ì
ë
é
é
ó
é
L
C
ñ
ô
õ
è
ô
ô
ì
ò
÷
ó
é
ó
õ
ñ
î
ê
ï
ê
ô
õ
ï
õ
è
ê
ñ
õ
ñ
õ
ï
ô
֏
ê
ë
ë
ë
ë
é
é
ö
é
ò
õ
õ
֏
ô
õ
ê
ñ
è
î
ê
ð
ê
÷
ï
ô
ð
ê
ë
ë
ó
é
ö
é
8
R
ô
ì
ò
ê
ê
ô
ê
è
õ
ð
ô
è
ñ
î
õ
è
ô
ñ
ë
7
ö
ö
ó
"
B
A
4
/
6
4
3
0
/
5
2
.
1
Shared surface routes.
é
Tree planting:
Occasionally, planted adjacent to open spaces
or where plot depth will allow the successful
establishment of the tree.
ç
4.8m wide carriageway; flexible road width to
allow for on-street parking and for a less
formal alignment.
Building frontages approximately 1-2m deep.
10 mph design speed.
è
Lane
4.2
Movement & streets
X
-
I
è
ñ
õ
ô
ë
ë
é
ñ
õ
õ
è
ë
é
ø
û
ü
$
ù
P
,
ú
ù
ù
ú
ê
ñ
ñ
õ
ð
ð
ô
ð
õ
è
ë
ë
é
õ
ð
ï
ô
ñ
ë
é
ö
õ
ð
ï
ô
ñ
ë
é
ö
ð
ð
ô
ñ
ñ
õ
ô
è
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ë
é
é
ö
é
ÿ
ô
õ
ò
ñ
ò
ì
ð
ê
ê
V
õ
ð
õ
ñ
õ
ï
ê
ë
ë
ë
ë
ó
ó
é
ö
é
é
A
÷
ï
ð
ô
ñ
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ë
"
B
A
é
é
ÿ
ñ
õ
ð
ô
ñ
õ
è
ô
ñ
ï
ô
ñ
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ì
è
ê
è
õ
ì
ï
ê
ð
ï
î
ë
ë
ë
ö
ó
ö
é
í
é
é
ç
F
é
ÿ
÷
ï
è
ô
é
ï
÷
ï
ï
õ
ò
ô
ì
ò
õ
÷
ô
è
è
ô
ð
ô
÷
ï
è
ô
ô
è
ê
é
ö
é
é
é
é
õ
õ
è
ñ
ï
ë
ë
J
I
ñ
õ
ñ
ê
ê
õ
õ
ñ
õ
ð
ô
ë
é
ñ
õ
õ
è
õ
õ
è
ë
ë
ë
ï
õ
ê
ï
õ
ð
ô
ô
è
ê
ñ
õ
è
î
ê
ô
ì
õ
õ
è
ë
ë
ë
í
ö
é
ó
L
Trees set back a minimum of 2.5m from
highways.
è
û
ý
N
û
\
[
Z
Y
ñ
õ
õ
è
õ
õ
è
ñ
ï
ô
õ
è
î
ï
è
î
ë
ë
ë
ë
ö
é
÷
ï
ô
ð
ð
ô
è
é
é
F
I
õ
õ
è
ñ
÷
ï
è
ô
õ
õ
è
ñ
ï
ê
ï
õ
ï
÷
ô
ô
ê
ë
ë
ë
ë
ë
é
é
ö
E
ï
õ
õ
è
G
î
õ
è
ë
é
õ
ï
ô
ô
ê
õ
è
õ
ð
õ
ï
ê
ð
õ
ð
ê
õ
ñ
î
ë
B
é
ó
é
E
ô
õ
ò
ñ
ï
ë
ë
ó
é
õ
÷
ô
ï
÷
ñ
ï
ô
é
ö
õ
ï
ê
A
÷
ï
è
ô
ô
ê
é
ö
E
ï
÷
ñ
õ
õ
õ
ó
é
ö
õ
õ
ï
ï
ô
ð
õ
÷
ô
ï
ô
è
ô
è
ï
ë
ó
é
ö
C
'
û
ø
ü
ý
û
ü
:
ü
;
N
ü
û
>
ù
>
+
ù
ù
,
ú
֏
ô
è
ê
ñ
õ
ñ
õ
ï
ô
֏
ê
õ
ñ
î
ò
õ
õ
ë
ë
ë
ë
é
ó
é
ö
õ
ê
ñ
è
î
ê
ð
ê
ï
è
õ
ô
ê
ï
ô
è
÷
ï
ô
ð
ê
ë
ë
ë
ö
é
8
ò
ë
é
S
ó
ö
ô
ì
ò
õ
÷
ô
è
è
ô
Tree planting:
Occasionally, planted adjacent to open spaces
or where plot depth will allow the successful
establishment of the tree.
Species: Amelanchier arborea ‘Robin Hill’
(Snowy mespilus), Malus trilobata (Apple
blossom) and Sorbus torminalis (Wild service
tree) at extra heavy standard, 18-20cm girth,
rootballed and cleared stemmed to 1.8/2.
metres. Supplied with appropriate
guying/staking and irrigation.
ê
é
C
î
ï
ô
ì
ò
õ
÷
ô
è
è
ô
ð
ò
õ
ô
è
ô
ë
é
é
é
ó
ö
é
é
D
ñ
ê
ñ
ñ
î
ë
"
B
A
8
è
ñ
î
ê
õ
î
ê
ë
A
8
ô
ì
ò
õ
÷
ô
è
è
ô
ð
ï
ô
ì
ò
õ
ð
ì
ë
é
é
ó
é
L
C
ñ
ñ
ô
õ
è
ô
ô
ì
ò
÷
ê
ï
ê
ô
õ
ï
õ
è
ê
ñ
õ
ë
ë
ë
ó
é
ó
é
é
ö
õ
ï
ô
֏
ê
õ
ñ
î
ò
õ
õ
֏
ô
õ
ê
ñ
è
î
ê
ð
ê
ë
ë
ë
é
ó
é
ö
è
ô
ñ
è
ê
ô
÷
î
õ
ñ
ô
ñ
è
ô
÷
ï
ô
ð
ê
ë
é
é
ó
é
8
R
ô
ì
ò
ê
ê
ô
ê
è
õ
ð
ô
è
ñ
î
õ
è
ô
ñ
ë
7
ö
ö
ó
"
B
A
4
/
6
4
3
0
/
5
2
.
1
Shared surface routes.
é
Building frontages approximately 1-2m deep.
10 mph design speed.
ç
Minimum 3.7m wide carriageway; flexible road
width to allow for on-street parking and for a
less formal alignment.
6m space to be provided in front of garages to
allow vehicle manoeuvring.
è
Mews
4.2
Movement & streets
4.3
Scale & density
Scale & density
The overarching design philosophy for the site is of a transition west to east, - from the A1198 to
the open countryside, the transition will be from a formal, rigid, dense block form to a less formal,
looser and less dense residential block with a more fragmented frontage and larger set-backs from
the edge of the highway.
Residential development close to new community facilities and the town would include houses and
apartments at between 40-45 dwellings per hectare and 2-2.5 storeys in height with 3 storeys
permitted for key buildings.
The development’s south-eastern edge would have a looser and less dense urban form with 1 and
2 storey buildings. The density will start at 30-35 dwellings per hectare towards the centre of the
development and reduce down to 25-30 dwellings per hectare along the south-eastern edge.
The majority of houses to be 2 storeys in height.
Within the remaining areas of the development residential densities would vary between 35-40
dwellings per hectare and building heights 2-2.5 storeys. There would be a range of tenures and
sizes including small groups of 1 and 2 bed apartments, 2, 3 and 4 bed houses and a small number
of 5 bed houses.
Development fronting on to the Primary route will have a strong build form with the use of
`higher’ 2.5 storey buildings and the use of 3 storeys permitted for key buildings.
Key:
Commercial
Residential
2 to 3 storeys
3 storeys – max. 10m height
2 to 2.5 storeys with occasional 3 storey
2 storeys – max. 6m height
]
-
1 to 2 storeys
Scale & density
Key:
40-45 dph (dwellings per hectare)
35-40 dph
30-35 dph
^
25-30 dph
-
4.3
Key spaces and frontages
Key spaces and frontages
There are 6 principal public open spaces that are positioned strategically across the site. These are
listed below and illustrated in the open space plan. Each of these spaces is considered individually on
the following pages, with the main elements defined and specified. This information is supported by
annotated vignettes and sections, articulating key points and demonstrating how the typical
components may come together to produce a space with a distinct character and quality.
Principal public open spaces:
A. A1198/London Road Junction
B. Community Square
C. Bearscroft Park
D. Green Corridors
E. Sports Ground
-
F. Allotments, Landscape Buffer and Ecological Enhancement Area
K
4.6
4.6
E.
Key spaces and frontages
Sports Ground
Three adult sized pitches sized to Huntingdonshire District Council’s satisfaction;
Levels raised across the pitch area to address development site material overburden and aid drainage of the pitches themselves. Pitches to be graded to achieve consistent level playing surface;
Boundary hedgerows retained, protected and enhanced;
Supplementary native tree and hedgerow planting to strengthen and define the sports ground and sites’ boundaries;
Structural planting to reinforce eastern boundary;
Significant play area (NEAP) to include more natural and adventurous elements connecting users to the landscape with 30m buffer from adjacent residential facades
KEY:
Private dwelling
2.
Access road
3.
Timber post and rail fence with hedgerow and
tree planting
4.
Farmers track
5.
12 metre agriculture corridor
6.
Sculptured landform together with tree and
shrub planting creates an exciting, challenging
and integrated play space.
7.
Play buffer zone (30m)
8.
Play area (NEAP)
9.
Landscape buffer between play area and formal
sport pitches
10.
Raised sport pitches
K
1.
X
`
_
_
_
`
_
This area will be laid out to provide 3 adult sized sports pitches adjacent to Godmanchester Rovers Football Club ground and a large play area designed for older children. The key features include:
b
c
t
{
u
}
x
s
m
l
n
x
y
f
h
w
v
o
p
t
z
x
w
{
}
j
k
l
i
i
u
t
~
z
t
r
s
q
{
x
|
p
x
o
w
q
f
g
h
z
e
o
p
q
t
q
y
~
o
p
q
Introduction
The character and land uses within the development are broadly described by five character areas as
shown on the plan opposite.
Urban Interface
Primarily featuring the existing A1198 road which will be subject to improvements to reduce width and
speed to encourage pedestrian links between the proposed development and the existing town.
Community Core
Featuring community elements such as the local centre, open space/play area and the new school as
well as residential development. This area will have an urban, contemporary feel to it.
Mid slopes residential
Providing a link between the Community Core and the Green Edge character areas.
Green Edge
A less formal residential area paying respect to the existing countryside to the east of the development.
This area will have a more suburban, traditional feel to it.
Commercial
^
This section deals with the proposed commercial areas within the development.
]
Overview
a
Character Areas Introduction
d
5.1
5.2
Character Areas – Regulating Code
Regulating Code:
¾
Å
The Regulating Code is intended as a tool to assist in the detailing of individual
blocks and to provide guidance in terms of building form, spacing, set back and
general architectural style.
À
Å
¾
À
Å
Ä
The Regulating Code consists of two element: the Regulating Plan shown opposite
and the Regulating Matrix shown on the following pages.
A range of widths and depths are shown for the various building forms and these
should be used with a ratio of 1:0.75 in relation to width and depth and vice versa.
Variations to this will be allowed but they must be limited in number.
Key buildings and Focal buildings are to be provided – locations to be agreed:
¿
À
Æ
À
À
Ä
Å
Â
Variations to the basic form will be permitted i.e. bays and projections.
Focal buildings are to be used to provide a focal end point to a vista or junction.
©
ª
¨
¢
¤
¡
¨
¦
¡
¢
§
¤
¤
£
¡
¢
¯
®
¬
«
®
®
±
¬
¬
¬
°
®
¬
®
¯
¬
®
¯
®
®
®
®
®
¯
¶
¬
µ
´
¬
®
¯
¸
¬
¬
·
¶
¯
®
¬
®
±
¶
¬
¬
¬
±
¬
¬
®
·
¡
½
¼§
¦
¬
¯
®
¹
»
¡
¤
¾
¤
º
²
³
Å
²
Æ
³
¬
Å
²
Å
¬
«
Â
¬
®
«
Æ
Å
Â
¬
¬
«
¾
Å
Â
Â
Â
¥
Â
Â
Â
À
Â
¾
Æ
Ã
Á
Å
Key buildings are landmark buildings to be used as a means of way finding.
Regulating Plan
5.2
Character Areas – Regulating Code
È
Ç
Regulating Matrix
5.2
Character Areas – Regulating Code
É
Ç
Regulating Matrix
5.2
Character Areas – Regulating Code
Ê
Ç
Regulating Matrix
5.2
Character Areas – Building Typologies
Building typologies
The following residential building types will be utilised throughout the development.
All of the examples shown are typical dwelling types envisaged for the development although this is
not an exhaustive list and additional types appropriate to the location could be used.
Flat Over Garage (FOG)
One or two bedroom flat over garages beneath providing car parking accommodation for adjacent dwellings.
Two storey height
Terraced units
Two to four bedroom houses, typically narrow fronted fronted although wide fronted variants of the same footprint
could be utilised.
Second floor accommodation provided `in roof’ with dormer windows and rooflights.
Two to three storey height
Town-houses and corner-turner/dual aspect units to be used appropriately.
Semi-detached units
Bungalow
Ë
One to two bedroom houses, typically narrow fronted.
Single storey height
Ç
Two to four bedroom houses, typically narrow fronted although wide fronted variants of the same footprint could be
utilised.
Two to three storey height
Town-houses, cranked units and corner-turner/dual aspect units to be used appropriately.
5.2
Character Areas – Building Typologies
Apartment block
One or two bedroom apartments with a shared communal stairway. Where used at junctions or key corners one of the
blocks rotated through 90º to create an `L’ shape with windows and/or additional features to provide interest to the
street scene.
Two and a half storey height with three storeys to be used appropriately.
Ç
Detached units
Three to six bedroom houses.
Two to three storey height
Narrow fronted, wide fronted, cranked units, integral garages and corner-turner/dual aspect units to be used
appropriately.
Ì
Building typologies
5.2
Character Areas – Key groupings
Key groupings
È
Î
Ï
Ð
Í
Ñ
Ò
Ó
Seven key groupings feature throughout the development. The plan opposite highlights their location
and they are discussed in detail on the following pages.
Ô
Ê
É
â
á
à
à
ß
ì
è
ä
ä
æ
ì
ä
ç
ë
ä
å
ä
ä
ì
è
ë
å
ç
é
ç
æ
ä
ì
è
ä
ä
ì
æ
ç
ö
Þ
ö
×
ö
Þ
Û
Þ
Ú
Û
Ý
ö
ø
ö
Ö
Ý
ô
Ü
ô
÷
û
û
ý
Û
ö
Ø
Û
Ù
Þ
õ
Û
ö
Ù
Ö
Þ
ô
õ
Û
Þ
ø
Ý
ó
ù
÷
õ
ó
ò
ì
è
ä
ä
æ
ì
ä
ç
ö
Ù
Ö
Û
Þ
õ
ô
ó
ò
å
ä
è
ñ
ð
ç
ï
ì
í
ç
ç
ê
î
å
ì
ë
å
ä
ä
è
é
ç
æ
ã
ö
Ù
Ö
Û
Þ
õ
ô
ó
ò
Ù
ö
Þ
Ö
ö
þ
Ü
ü
ý
ÿ
×
ø
Ý
Þ
Ù
Ö
û
ú
Ü
ô
ò
Ù
Û
Þ
Ý
Ü
Ú
Ú
Ö
Ø
×
Õ
5.8
Commercial
© Copyright 2024