9. POLICY OPTIONS
OVERALL
9.1 The AAP will need to include a policy which expresses the chosen land use approach, for example setting out the amount and type of employment, residential or other land uses.
9.2 As this will depend which Redevelopment Option or combination of elements are chosen following this public consultation, a policy has not been proposed here, but will be included in the draft AAP for comment at the next stage of plan making.
PLACE MAKING, GATEWAY AND BUILDING DESIGN
Introduction
9.3 Designing a significant new place and making it sustainable requires a coherent design approach and very clear basic design principles.
9.4 This chapter will include urban design policies to require the formulation of a detailed design strategy to inform the general layout, scale and distribution of different uses (including public realm and civic spaces), and establish how the built form (in terms of design, scale, density, landmark buildings and width of streets) will help to create a place of real character and quality that functions well.
PROPOSED APPROACH:
For the CNFE AAP to adopt the following Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed Submission policies on place and building design.
Policy 55: Responding to context
Policy 56: Creating Successful places
Policy 57: Designing new buildings
Policy 59: Designing landscape and the public realm
(12) Question 15
Do you support or object to the proposed approach for place and building design, and why?
DENSITY AND BUILDING DESIGN/HEIGHTS
9.5 The development of the proposed new railway station/bus interchange provides an opportunity for the CNFE area to be built at high density level. However, a range of amenity, commercial, design, environmental, and legal and property considerations will need to be taken into account to ensure an appropriate form of development at the right density is built. This includes, landscape and townscape impacts, residential amenity, parking requirements, building heights and layout, open space standards and water related issues, and legal and property constraints.
PROPOSED APPROACH:
The overall densities to be provided following a design-led approach reflecting the sustainable location and especially around the proposed new railway station interchange. The required density for employment and residential uses on a given site will need to have regard to its wider context, demand and supply consideration, viability and other policies of this plan.
(19) Question 16
Do you support or object to the proposed approach on densities, and why?
9.6 The Redevelopment Options for the CNFE provide wide scope for new development density. Future masterplanning and detailed design for the CNFE area needs to be informed by a policy for tall buildings and skyline. Further landscape and visual assessments on the landscape, building heights and skyline will be undertaken to inform the Proposed Submission version of the AAP.
PROPOSED APPROACH:
Developments in the Cambridge Northern Fringe AAP area should be in accordance with Policy 60 and Appendix F on Tall Buildings and Skyline in the Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed Submission .
(19) Question 17
Do you support or object to the proposed approach on tall buildings and skyline, and why?
9.7 The proposed new railway station creates the focus of a new transport interchange and with it the opportunity to use land efficiently and think about the potential for higher densities to take advantage of the sustainable location. Recent development around Cambridge Station at CB1 has combined mixed use retail, office, residential and student accommodation to deliver high quality and high density development around the transport interchange. Such a development at CNFE has the potential to reduce pressure on the City Centre and historic core.
9.8 CNFE has the potential to deliver a new neighbourhood with a range of mixes and uses appropriate to creating an active and vibrant community. Given the scale of the land available, consideration needs to be given to aspects that may influence the character of future development. The overall scale and massing of proposals will be subject to detailed design as part of future masterplanning to include assessment of the visual impact of proposals, but at this stage it would be useful to gauge opinion regarding the overall acceptable height of development and whether there is the opportunity to allow for some taller buildings as part of the development.
9.9 Clearly any development at CNFE will need to take a design-led approach that will take account of the site context, including site boundaries and views into and out of the site in order to safeguard the skyline and setting and uniqueness of Cambridge and in particular the historic core. The options below are intended to explore whether there is an appetite for taller buildings.
PROPOSED OPTIONS:
Option A. Mixed use development of up to 4 commercial storeys*(16m) to continue the scale and form of development on the Cambridge Business Park and adjacent residential areas.
Option B. Mixed use development of up to 6 commercial storeys*(24m) to allow development to be intensified and create more flexibility in the overall masterplanning of CNFE, with occasional taller ‘landmark’ buildings around the new station and at other key ‘nodal’ points (such as at Cambridge Station/CB1 area).
Option C. A more radical form of mixed use development that would not prescribe maximum overall heights and may allow significantly taller forms of development across the site but mainly centred on the transport interchange.
*Note: Storey heights will be influenced by whether the development is residential or commercial. Residential storey heights are assumed to by 3m floor to floor and commercial are assumed to be 4m floor to floor.
(17) Question 18a
Do you support or object to the proposed Option A on building heights, and why?
(18) Question 18b
Do you support or object to the proposed Option B on building heights, and why?
(18) Question 18c
Do you support or object to the proposed Option C on building heights, and why?
(12) Question 18d
Do you have other comments on building heights?
EFFECTIVE INTEGRATION WITH THE WIDER AREA
9.10 The new development should have an identity and make a positive statement of its own. However, it should not be designed in isolation of the surrounding area and communities. For example, there is a need to balance the desire to integrate the new development with the wider city with the need to minimise any negative impacts on existing residents or occupiers.
BALANCED AND INTEGRATED COMMUNITIES – EFFECTIVE INTEGRATION WITH THE WIDER AREA:
PROPOSED APPROACH:
The CNFE development should be comprehensive in its own right, but to be truly successful measures should be taken to ensure it is also effectively integrated with the wider communities.
This should include measures to achieve:
-
Better integration with the wider area;
-
Welcoming entrances to the area;
-
Convenient access to new facilities in the development;
-
Improved signage;
-
Accessible local services and facilities, through new facilities or improvements to nearby facilities;
-
Social spaces that support the needs of workers and residents.
(22) Question 19
Do you support or object to the proposed approach and measures to integrate the area with the surrounding communities, and why?
9.11 Regeneration of the area has the potential to enhance the role of the northern fringe as an employment hub for Greater Cambridge. The high level of accessibility provided by the proposed new Railway Station and Guided Busway means that high densities, comparable with new developments near the existing Cambridge railway station, are possible.
9.12 The Employment Land Review (2012) prepared to support the Councils’ Local Plans identified two areas of pressure and high demand for employment space in Cambridge, the City Centre and the northern fringe around the Science Park. The development of this area will help respond to the market, and deliver new buildings in a highly accessible location.
9.13 The opportunities have been highlighted further by the Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP Employment Options Study (2014) prepared to support this Action Plan. The area presents a significant opportunity to support the clustering of related businesses in high technology sectors and related businesses that have developed in Greater Cambridge.
9.14 The area should meet the needs of a range of users. Cambridge firms come in a range of sizes, from start-ups with a few individuals, to major firms with hundreds of employees. Many high technology firms carry out research and development (R&D) in office-like buildings. However, there is also demand for specialist laboratory space, alongside office uses.
9.15 The delivery of the office / R&D development will depend on the availability of the specific sites and the demand for space at the time. It is possible that some of the office development could take place after 2031 and therefore also meet the needs of future plan periods. A flexible approach will be desirable.
9.16 The employment use policy should encourage a range of employment opportunities to meet the needs of different businesses and to maximise the potential of successful clusters in the area.
PROPOSED APPROACH:
-
Development proposals should support the development of employment clusters in the following Cambridge specialist sectors:
- Computer services;
- Electronic engineering;
- High-technology manufacturing;
- Information technology / telecommunications;
- Biotechnology and Biomedical
- Research and development;
- Clean Technology;
- Nanotechnology and advanced materials;
- Business, financial and professional services;
- Other locally driven clusters as they emerge.
-
The area should deliver a flexible range of unit types and sizes, including for start-ups, and Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs).
-
Make provision for hybrid buildings capable of a mix of uses, incorporating offices and manufacturing uses.
-
The area should include provision for commercial laboratory space.
(20) Question 20
Do you support or object to the proposed approach for employment uses, and why?
9.17 Studies have shown that employment areas require complementary social and support facilities if they are to achieve the full potential of the area. The Redevelopment Options detailed early propose a local centre which could provide this sort of use.
The following policy encourages this provision.
PROPOSED APPROACH:
Small-scale leisure, eating and social hub facilities will be encouraged to enhance the vitality and attractiveness of the area where;
-
The use is ancillary or complementary to existing or proposed B-Use Classes, and supports the functionality of the employment area;
-
The use will not have unacceptably adverse effects on existing businesses or future business use of the site;
-
The facility is intended primarily to meet the needs of workers in the area, and does not attract significant levels of visitor traffic into the area.
(16) Question 21
Do you support or object to the proposed approach on shared social space, and why?
c. Change of Use from employment to residential
9.18 The aim of the AAP is to create a new employment hub for Greater Cambridge. Flexibility in the planning system to allow change of use to residential without planning permission (through a prior approval process) could potentially undermine this vision.
9.19 To reinforce the importance of this area, the Councils could seek to protect the area for employment. This could be done through an Article 4 Direction, which would require change of use to residential to require planning permission. The AAP could also include a policy seeking to protect employment uses.
CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL OR OTHER PURPOSES:
PROPOSED OPTIONS:
Option A. Do not include specific policies to protect employment uses beyond normal planning rules;
Option B. Take steps to protect new employment development in this area (such as through an Article 4 Direction).
(13) Question 22a
Do you support or object to the proposed Option A on change of use from office to residential or other purposes, and why?
(17) Question 22b
Do you support or object to the proposed Option B on change of use from office to residential or other purposes, and why?
(5) Question 22c
Do you have any other comments on change of use from office to residential or other purposes?
9.20 We asked earlier whether the AAP should be extended to include the Cambridge Science Park. The Proposed Submission South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Policy E/1 supports employment proposals for employment development and redevelopment where they enable the continued development of the Cambridge Cluster of high technology research and development companies. Appropriate policies in the AAP policies could be applied to the Science Park.
PROPOSED OPTIONS:
Option A: Do not include additional policy guidance for Cambridge Science Park;
Option B: Provide similar employment policies which apply the Cambridge Science Park, to aid consideration of intensification proposals.
(12) Question 23a
Do you support or object to the proposed Option A for Cambridge Science Park, and why?
(14) Question 23b
Do you support or object to the proposed Option B for Cambridge Science Park, and why?
(8) Question 23c
Do you have any other comments on Cambridge Science Park?
e. The Future of Nuffield Road Industrial Estate
9.21 There is limited industrial land in the city so the Nuffield Road industrial area serves an important purpose and would not want the businesses or jobs to be lost from the city. However, vehicular access is solely through residential areas off Green End Road. Local residents have expressed concern about this access and have sought an alternative access to be provided. This appears unlikely, but another option could be change the use of the area to something more compatible (office or residential) providing space is available elsewhere in the comprehensive CNFE redevelopment option to accommodate the existing industrial businesses.
9.22 The options are included in the Redevelopment Options earlier in the document, but this option seeks comments specifically on the options for this site.
CHANGE OF USE FROM INDUSTRIAL TO OTHER PURPOSES AT NUFFIELD ROAD:
PROPOSED OPTIONS:
Option A: Retaining the existing industrial land use designations in the Nuffield Road area;
Option B: Release of employment land in the Nuffield Road area for office uses and seeking to accommodate those existing business uses elsewhere within the CNFE area;
and/or
Option C: Release of employment land in the Nuffield Road area for residential uses and seeking to accommodate those existing business uses elsewhere within the CNFE area.
(11) Question 24a
Do you support or object to the proposed Option A on change of use from industrial to other purposes at Nuffield Road, and why?
(9) Question 24b
Do you support or object to the proposed Option B on change of use from industrial to other purposes at Nuffield Road, and why?
(11) Question 24c
Do you support or object to the proposed Option C on change of use from industrial to other purposes at Nuffield Road, and why?
(9) Question 24d
Do you have any other comments on change of use from industrial to other purposes at Nuffield Road?
9.23 It is important that the new development results in a balanced and integrated community where both the existing and new residents and employees in both districts benefit. Policies are proposed to share the city’s prosperity through greater opportunities for employment and skills learning and address the shortage and access to housing through the building more affordable housing.
BALANCED AND INTEGRATED COMMUNITIES - WIDER EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS:
PROPOSED APPROACH:
Developments should provide training and employment opportunities for local people, maximise the proportion of goods and services procured locally, and open up supply chain opportunities for local businesses.
Examples could include:
-
Linking training opportunities within the AAP area directly to match local demand to
promote local jobs for local people.
-
Making sure that the residents in the wider area have the right skills and information to be able to gain employment outside the city.
-
Improving access to training, advice and information aimed at reducing barriers to employment through incorporating these facilities into community facilities within the AAP area.
(12) Question 25
Do you support or object to the proposed approach on wider employment benefits, and why? Please add any other suggestions you have for policies and proposals that could be promoted through the AAP to support local jobs for local people and reduce barriers to employment in the wider area.
g. Hotel and Conferencing Facilities
9.24 The need for hotels in the Cambridge area was explored during preparation of the Local Plans, and there is sufficient supply in the pipeline to meet need generally until 2031. However, the proposed new railway station and large number of businesses in the area could mean a hotel is desirable in this location.
HOTEL & CONFERENCING FACILITIES:
PROPOSED OPTIONS:
Option A: Do not make provision for a hotel in the Cambridge Northern Fringe East.
Option B: Include provision for a hotel as part of the mixed-use development of land around the proposed new railway station.
Option C: Include provision for a hotel and conference facilities as part of the mixed-use development of land around the proposed new railway station.
(9) Question 26a
Do you support or object to the proposed Option A on hotel and conference facilities, and why?
(11) Question 26b
Do you support or object to the proposed Option B on hotel and conference facilities, and why?
(11) Question 26c
Do you support or object to the proposed Option C on hotel and conference facilities, and why?
(9) Question 26d
Do you have any other comments on hotel and conference facilities?
9.25 Developments should include a balanced mix of dwelling sizes (measured by the number of bedrooms to be provided in each dwelling), types and tenures to meet projected future household needs within Cambridge. The mix of dwellings and tenure types should also have regard to the differing needs for different unit sizes of affordable housing and market housing and to the council’s Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document in force at the time planning permission is applied for.
BALANCED AND INTEGRATED COMMUNITIES - HOUSING MIX:
PROPOSED APPROACH:
Deliver a balanced mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to meet projected future household need within Cambridge.
(13) Question 27
Do you support or object to the proposed approach on housing mix, and why? Please add any other suggestions you have for the types and sizes of houses that should be included within the CNFE area.
9.26 Greater Cambridge has a significant housing need. It is proposed that the City Council's affordable housing policies will be the basis for the CNFE AAP. This requires 40% of dwellings on large schemes to be affordable, which is the same basic requirement as proposed in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT:
PROPOSED APPROACH:
Affordable housing targets in the CNFE area should reflect Cambridge’s planning policies.
(14) Question 28
Do you support or object to the proposed use of Cambridge City Council’s affordable housing requirements for the whole of the CNFE area, and why?
c. Private Rented Accommodation
9.27 Recently there have been market moves to actively provide more private rented accommodation in new developments and new models of this are emerging, particularly in London. This should not be confused or assumed as an alternative to affordable housing. However, the AAP could specifically seek to encourage provision of this type of accommodation. Further investigations will be needed into the available delivery models for new private rented accommodation, the financial considerations, and fundamentally the implications for place making and economic/social mix of the future residential community. As well as private housebuilders and developers, other providers could include local authorities and registered providers.
PROPOSED OPTIONS:
Option A: Allow the market to deliver private rented accommodation in response to demand, and do not provide guidance in the AAP;
Option B: Seek to encourage the delivery of private rented accommodation that will have no adverse implications for place making and economic/social mix of the future residential community.
(7) Question 29a
Do you support or object to the proposed Option A on private rented accommodation, and why?
(7) Question 29b
Do you support or object to the proposed Option B on private rented accommodation, and why?
(7) Question 29c
If you have any other comments on private rented accommodation please add them here.
9.28 The market has expressed interest in the provision of student housing in the CNFE area. Views are sought on the approach that should be taken in the area. The need for and implications of student accommodation in this area will need to be further investigated.
PROPOSED OPTIONS:
Option A: Do not include student accommodation;
Option B: Set a limit on the number of student rooms that would be allowed in the CNFE area, e.g. 20% of the new population;
Option C: No limit - Introduce a new policy to require student accommodation proposals to demonstrate how the benefits could outweigh the possible negative impacts and how potential impacts would be mitigated;
Option D: Specifically identify suitable locations for student accommodation.
(10) Question 30a
Do you support or object to the proposed Option A on student housing, and why?
(8) Question 30b
Do you support or object to the proposed Option B on student housing, and why?
(5) Question 30c
Do you support or object to the proposed Option C on student housing, and why?
(5) Question 30d
Do you support or object to the proposed Option D on student housing, and why?
(8) Question 30e
If you have other comments on student housing please add them here.
Community, Retail and Leisure Uses
9.29 It is important that the main employment and residential uses are complemented by a range of other uses that are needed to meet local needs, and create a vibrant neighbourhood.
9.30 This will need to consider a range of uses, dependent on the mix of uses in the selected Redevelopment Option, including:
- Community;
- Cultural;
- Social;
- Health;
- Retail;
- Leisure/Recreational.
PROVISION OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES:
PROPOSED APPROACH:
Development at Cambridge Northern Fringe East will provide an appropriate level and type of high quality services and facilities in suitable locations to meeting the needs of future residents, employees and visitors.
These should:
-
Be delivered when needed, so that they are available to meet the needs of all phases of development;
-
Be provided on site where they are needed;
-
Take opportunities for co-location of facilities, providing multifunctional and flexible spaces;
-
Be supported by appropriate management and maintenance arrangements, to ensure their long-term viability.
Planning applications should be accompanied by strategies prepared in consultation with stakeholders, identifying needs and how they will be met.
(12) Question 31
Do you support or object to the proposed approach on provision of services and facilities, and why? Please also add any other suggestions for provision of services and facilities.
9.31 The Redevelopment Options all include a local centre of varying size as a focal point for the area. The role of the local centre will be to meet needs of those living, working and visiting the area, creating a social hub for the area.
PROPOSED APPROACH:
1. Where appropriate, all services and facilities will be provided in a single local centre at the heart of the development and located on the main green boulevard to the proposed new station;
2. New retail provision should be part of the local centre and appropriate in scale and nature to meet local needs. It should complement rather than undermine the vitality and viability of nearby centres and the station proposals having regard to the hierarchy of centres in Cambridge and the wider South Cambridgeshire area;
3. Employment and residential uses may be provided on upper floors of the local centre providing they are of an appropriate scale and are part of mixed-use schemes with active frontage uses where practicable at ground floor level.
(15) Question 32
Do you support or object to the proposed approach for the new local centre, and why?
9.32 Cambridge Northern Fringe East includes a number of ecological features which support wildlife. As well as protecting these features, the Redevelopment Options highlighted a range of opportunities to connect and enhance these areas as part of a wider Green Infrastructure network. Dependent on the chosen option, these will be reflected in the AAP.
9.33 People using the area will need new open spaces to relax and play. Both the Councils’ plans include minimum open space standards, which require new open space to accompany new developments.
9.34 Given the site’s location, it is proposed to apply Cambridge’s open space standards to developments in the entire AAP area. A similar approach has been taken to some other cross boundary urban fringe developments.
PROPOSED APPROACH:
Developments in the Cambridge Northern Fringe AAP area should meet the Cambridge City Council’s proposed Open Space Standards as set out in Policy 68 and Appendix I of the Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed Submission.
(19) Question 33
Do you support or object to the proposed approach on open space standards, and why?
KEY TRANSPORT AND MOVEMENT PRINCIPLES
9.35 The County Council's Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire (TSCSC) and Local Transport Plan (LTP3) will guide the transport policy for the wider area, particularly with regards to promoting non-car modes of travel, and keeping traffic levels in the city at current levels.
9.36 To complement this approach and create a sustainable development, the AAP policies will need to encourage most journeys within the site to be made by foot and cycle and to promote good links beyond the site by public transport, walking and cycling.
9.37 Several site specific policy options and some further general policy options based on the Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Local Plans 2014 Proposed Submissions are also proposed.
9.38 The promotion of sustainable travel is important both in its own right and for the delivery of the CNFE area due to the capacity constraints of the wider area. It is therefore important to set out some key transport and movement principles.
KEY TRANSPORT AND MOVEMENT PRINCIPLES:
PROPOSED APPROACH:
The following key transport and movement principles are proposed:
- To maximise the permeability of the area – both within and with adjoining areas;
- To develop integrated transport system between modes;
- To promote public transport, walking, cycling and other sustainable forms of movement;
- To make travel safer;
- To create transport that is accessible for all;
- To provide transport that meets the needs of the economy;
- To protect and enhance the built and natural environment.
(24) Question 34
Do you support or object to the proposed key transport and movement principles, and why? Please add any other suggestions you have for key transport and movement principles to improve and promote sustainable travel in the area.
9.39 An option of achieving the key movement and sustainable travel principles as set out is to set a modal share target for CNFE. The TSCSC has the aim of maintaining car traffic levels as they are now, in 2031. In order for this to be achieved and taking into account the growth planned, no more than 24% of trips in Cambridge will be able to be car based. It should be noted that further modelling work is being undertaken by Cambridgeshire County Council which may influence the modal share targets for CNFE.
PROPOSED OPTIONS:
What should be the modal share target for the Cambridge Northern Fringe East;
Option A - Seek to match the modal share target set for the whole of Cambridge, as set out in the TSCSC (24% car trips by 2031);
Option B - Go beyond the target set for the city and make the area and exemplar scheme;
Option C – Do not set a specific modal share target.
(11) Question 35a
Do you support or object to the proposed Option A on modal share target, and why?
(13) Question 35b
Do you support or object to the proposed Option B on modal share target, and why?
(6) Question 35c
Do you support or object to the proposed Option C on modal share target, and why?
(8) Question 35d
Do you have any other comments on modal share target?
VEHICULAR ACCESS AND ROAD LAYOUT:
9.40 The current access to the area is limited with just one main route (Cowley Road) in and out onto Milton Road. The junction acts as a bottleneck constraint to further development as it suffers from heavy peak time congestion. Investigations are currently ongoing with regard to finding the best access solutions for the area.
9.41 As already set out, the site contains a mix of uses including minerals and waste uses associated with the railway sidings. These uses are likely to increase in the future as the railway is increasingly used to transport aggregate for the A14 improvements. The associated increase in heavy commercial vehicles (HCVs) is not conducive to encouraging more use of sustainable modes of transport such as walking and cycling and they also contribute to the heavy congestion around the site at peak times. Various options could be considered to deal with this issue.
VEHICULAR ACCESS AND ROAD LAYOUT:
PROPOSED OPTIONS:
Option A - Cowley Road to remain the main access road for all modes of transport;
Option B - New main vehicular access road constructed parallel and to the north of Cowley Road. The existing Cowley Road to be re-designed as part of the development to be based on low vehicle speeds and for sustainable transport priority only. It will give priority to provision for walking, cycling and public transport, including safe and convenient crossings for pedestrians and cyclists, in order to encourage travel by more sustainable modes;
Option C - Cowley Road prioritised for station, office and residential traffic. A new Heavy Goods Vehicle access provided parallel and to the north of Cowley Road, for industrial, minerals and waste activities only.
(9) Question 36a
Do you support or object to the proposed Option A for Cowley Road, and why?
(13) Question 36b
Do you support or object to the proposed Option B for Cowley Road, and why?
(13) Question 36c
Do you support or object to the proposed Option C for Cowley Road, and why?
(18) Question 36d
Do you have other suggestions for what else could be done to improve vehicular access to the area whilst mitigating the impact of traffic?
PARKING AT TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE:
9.42 The new rail/bus interchange will need a significant number of car parking spaces. There is currently planning permission for a single large car park, needed for the opening of the proposed new railway station. However, in time it is feasible that a more efficient use of the land would be to build a multi-storey car park to free up space for other development. The precise details and specifications of any further car park(s) proposals would need to be agreed with Network Rail and Cambridgeshire County Council, but whether the preference is for a single or multi-storey car park can be considered now in principle.
PARKING AT PROPOSED NEW RAIL/BUS TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE:
PROPOSED OPTIONS:
What form of car parking should be provided at the proposed new rail/bus transport interchange;
Option A – Continue with the current consented proposal for a single ground level car park;
Option B – Flexibility to build a multi-storey car park to make more efficient use of the land for development.
(7) Question 37a
Do you support or object to the proposed Option A for parking at the proposed new rail/bus transport interchange, and why?
(14) Question 37b
Do you support or object to the proposed Option B for parking at the proposed new rail/bus transport interchange, and why?
(5) Question 37c
Do you have other comments on parking at the proposed new rail/bus transport interchange?
9.43 Whilst there will need to be parking to support the proposed new Railway Station, there will also need to be parking to support employment, residential or other uses. Recognising the accessibility of the site by a range of non-car modes, there is potential to consider relatively low parking levels.
9.44 The modelling work being undertaken by Cambridgeshire County Council, and the Modal Share target will also influence the car parking requirements.
PROPOSED OPTIONS:
Option A – Cambridge City Council proposed car parking standards as set out in Policy 82 and Appendix L of the Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed Submission;
Option B – More restrictive standards across the whole area to reflect the highly sustainable location;
Option C – More restrictive standards close to the proposed new railway station interchange and Cambridge City Council car parking standards more than 600 metres from the station building.
(7) Question 38a
Do you support or object to the proposed Option A for car parking standards, and why?
(10) Question 38b
Do you support or object to the proposed Option B for car parking standards, and why?
(6) Question 38c
Do you support or object to the proposed Option C for car parking standards, and why?
(9) Question 38d
Do you have other comments on car parking standards?
9.45 In order to discourage unnecessary car use and to encourage cycling for as many trips as possible, it has to be as easy as possible to use a bike. Integral to this is the provision of secure, convenient and plentiful cycle parking.
9.46 1,000 cycle parking spaces have already been agreed for the proposed new Railway Station.
PROPOSED OPTIONS:
Option A – Cambridge City Council proposed cycle parking standards as set out in Policy 82 and Appendix L of the Cambridge Local Plan 2014: Proposed Submission.
Option B – A higher standard across the whole area to reflect the highly sustainable location.
Option C – Higher standards close to the proposed new railway station interchange and Cambridge City Council cycle parking standards more than 600 metres from the station building.
(4) Question 39a
Do you support or object to the proposed Option A for cycle parking standards, and why?
(12) Question 39b
Do you support or object to the proposed Option B for cycle parking standards, and why?
(8) Question 39c
Do you support or object to the proposed Option C for cycle parking standards, and why?
(5) Question 39d
Do you have other comments on cycle parking standards?
Movement, Severance and Permeability
9.47 Access and permeability to the site for pedestrians and cyclists to the site will be key to achieving the movement principles and sustainable travel. The link with the guided bus and Chisholm Trail as well as close ties to Milton Road and through routes to existing residential areas offer an excellent opportunity to gain high pedestrian and cycle mode shares.
9.48 The Redevelopment Options detailed earlier propose a range of cycling and walking links both within the site and to key destinations beyond.
(25) Question 40
What further provision should be made to improve the cycle and pedestrian environment in the Cambridge Northern Fringe East area, and are there any other pedestrian and cycleway linkages that are important and you wish to be included in the plan?
CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Sustainable Design and Construction and Flood Risk
9.49 Councils have a legal duty to consider climate change when plan-making. This includes addressing the challenge of mitigating and adapting to our changing climate, including flood risk, and how to manage resources efficiently, including energy and water, in the design and construction of new buildings.
9.50 The Councils’ Local Plans include a range of policies related to climate change adaptation and mitigation, including approaches to sustainable building design, renewable and low carbon energy, and sustainable drainage systems. These could be implemented on a site by site basis to proposals in the CNFE, or a single policy could be developed to provide a comprehensive approach for the area.
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION AND FLOOD RISK:
PROPOSED OPTIONS:
Option A - Rely on Local Plan policies related to climate change and sustainable design and construction,
Option B - Develop a bespoke sustainable design and construction policy for CNFE, to cover the following aspects:
- All new non-residential development will be required to meet a minimum of BREEAM excellent. Carbon reduction for new non-residential development would be linked to the mandatory requirements set out for BREEAM excellent.
- Any new residential development to meet the optional water efficiency standards resulting from the Housing Standards Review of 110 litres per person per day. New non-residential development should achieve maximum BREEAM credits for water efficiency.
- All development proposals to demonstrate how the principles of sustainable design and construction have been integrated into the design of proposals, giving specific consideration to adaptation to climate change, carbon reduction (both in relation to the design and layout of developments and buildings themselves and through the promotion of sustainable modes of transport), water management, site waste management and use of materials.
- Surface water to be managed close to the surface and on the surface with priority given to nature services through the use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). Water should be seen as a resource and be re-used where practicable, offsetting potable water demand. A water sensitive approach should be taken to the design of development proposals.
- All development should ensure that all forms of flood risk are taken into consideration and that proposals are not at risk of flooding or increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
Given that the proposed adoption of the AAP will be late 2016, national zero carbon policy for new homes will have come into force, and as such additional carbon reduction standards for any new residential development at CNFE will not be required, in line with the outcomes of the Housing Standards Review. As a result of the Housing Standards Review, the Code for Sustainable Homes is to be wound down. In order to build upon the construction standards that are already being achieved across the Cambridge growth sites, the Councils would welcome early discussions with developers as to the use of construction methodologies for any new residential development, such as Passivhaus or the new residential construction standard currently being developed by the Building Research Establishment (BRE).
(7) Question 41a
Do you support or object to the proposed Option A for Cowley Road, and why?
(13) Question 41b
Do you support or object to the proposed Option B for Cowley Road, and why?
(5) Question 41c
Do you have other policy option suggestions for sustainable design and construction and flood risk?
Renewable and low carbon energy generation
9.51 Development at CNFE may present opportunities for a site wide approach to renewable and low carbon energy generation. In order to maximise opportunities for a site wide approach to energy provision, the following option for policy development could be taken forward into the AAP.
RENEWABLE AND LOW CARBON ENERGY GENERATION:
PROPOSED APPROACH:
1. Develop a renewable and low carbon energy generation policy giving consideration to:
- The types of renewable and low carbon energy generation that could be suitable for the area, including consideration of whether the scale of development and mix of uses would allow for the use of an area based approach to renewable and low carbon energy generation;
- Requiring developers proposing new waste processing facilities to carry out a feasibility study to investigate the potential for anaerobic digestion utilising municipal organic waste or organic waste from other sources, including sources on site, with possible connections to an area based approach to renewable and low carbon energy generation.
(15) Question 42
Do you support or object to the proposed approach on renewable and low carbon energy generation, and why? If you have other policy option suggestions for renewable and low carbon energy generation please add your suggestions.
9.52 The environmental conditions in the area will need to be addressed by development proposals, to ensure an appropriate living and working environment for those living and working in the area.
9.53 The Councils' Local Plans include policies requiring assessment and actions to address ground conditions and any contamination, and a range of environmental impacts such as air quality, odour and noise.
9.54 In accordance with current South Cambridgeshire District Council guidance, it is also proposed to require a Health Impact Assessment for large scale developments.
PROPOSED APPROACH:
Applications for developments of 20 or more dwellings or 1,000 sq m or more floorspace will be accompanied by a rapid Health Impact Assessment, and developments of 100 or more dwellings or 5,000 sq m or more floorspace a full Health Impact Assessment.
(7) Question 43
Do you support or object to the proposed approach on Health Impact Assessments, and why?
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICIES
9.55 There are a wide range of policy issues in the Councils' respective Local Plans which apply to new development. It is not the role of the AAP to recreate policies for every eventuality. In these circumstances, the wider Local Plan policies will apply.
9.56 Examples of issues not addressed in this issues and options report, but covered in Local Plans include:
- Protection of business space
- Specialist housing
- Lifetime homes
- Residential Space Standards
- Housing in multiple occupation
- Strategic Transport Infrastructure
- Mitigating the Transport Impact of Development
- Contaminated Land
- Archaeological Protection
- Water Management
- Environmental impacts including air quality, odour, dust, noise and vibration
- Light Pollution
- Protection of landscape, species, habitats and trees
- Provision of green infrastructure and corridors
- Protection of open space
- Broadband
- Telecommunications
- Cambridge Airport Air Safeguarding Zones
- Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory, Lord’s Bridge
- Construction Process and Method
(4) Question 44
Are there alternative policy approaches or policy options you think we should have considered?
Any Other Policy Areas
(9) Question 45
Are there any other policy areas that need to be specifically addressed in the Area Action Plan rather than relying on the Local Plans?
