Savills Planning Team in Cambridge are instructed on behalf of St John's College, Cambridge to submit responses to the Issues and Options Report on the CNFE having regard to the College's landholdings and land interests at St John's Innovation Park west of Cowley Road and east of Milton Road.

This option relates to the lower level of development whereby Anglian Water resolve to remain in situ. Their presence in the central and northern part of the site has a major bearing on potential adjacent land uses having regard to the character of the infrastructure and the consequent cordon sanitaire that is in place within the Minerals and Waste LDF plan and which provides for a safeguarding area around the edge of the site.

There are effectively two main issues that are of concern to the College in the context of this Option 1.

Firstly, and as stated in separate responses to other questions, it is noted in this Option 1 (and indeed in Option 2) that the St John's land does not benefit from the proposal for plot densification that is applicable to the Cambridge Business Park. We cannot see why any differentiation is made when comparing the two areas. Indeed the current St John's Innovation Park density is considerably lower than the Business Park - the opportunities that are afforded by increasing floorspace in both those areas is consistent with Objective 3 of the Plan. Consequently we feel that the key and the plan for Option 1 needs amending to ensure that plot densification also applies to the St John's land. Indeed work undertaken by SQW on behalf of the Council's "CNFE Employment Guidance for the Area Action Plan" and which is the supporting material for the Issues and Options Report makes it quite clear at paragraphs 1.29 and 1.34 that intensification of the St John's Innovation Park is acceptable without affecting the quality of development. (There is no logic as to why plot intensification could not come forward now. It is not dependant on anything that might or might not happen with the Anglian Water landholding and which is implied by Options 3 and 4)

Secondly, the option shows a new "Household Waste Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility" to be located to the north of the Anglian Water site. It is surprising that there is no definition of this facility within Appendix 3 (Glossary of Terms) and we consider that it requires specific reference. At the Public Exhibition, Officers confirmed that the facility was essentially a relocation of the current Butt Lane facility at Milton. Such a use clearly has to be carefully sited and in this context, the College is particularly concerned to see Option 1 include such a facility located close to the offices and other businesses at the Innovation Park. In the circumstances where alternative locations exist either within the new or existing areas to the south of the Anglian Water landholding then this would seem a more appropriate location to site such a facility. Locating such a use with its attendant characteristics including noise, dust and traffic close to high technology offices and buildings does not make for logical planning and consequently from a business perspective, dilutes the profile of the Innovation Park. This is the absolute antithesis of what we are seeking to achieve and consequently we cannot support Option 1.