Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29757

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Representation Summary:

The reconfiguration of the Waste Water Recycling Centre site is not realistic within the plan period.
The land currently within the Waste Water Recycling Centre identified for re-use would be heavily contaminated and costs of remediating that land would not be attractive to investors given that the returns gained from the development would be for B2 and/or B8 Uses.
The delivery of this quantum of development could allow for the development principles outlined in the Issues and Options paper to be implemented.
The land uses section of the analysis table does not take into account the loss of the golf driving range.

Full text:

The reconfiguration of the Waste Water Recycling Centre site is not realistic within the plan period. The operator has committed to an investment programme of circa £20m to upgrade the operations to meet with the demands from a growing Cambridge population. It is extremely unlikely that the operator would be prepared to sell sections of a key asset in an area of population growth. Demand for their service will increase and this may require for more land within the Waste Water Recycling Centre site to be utilised for further infrastructure.
The land currently within the Waste Water Recycling Centre which is identified for re-use would be heavily contaminated and the costs of remediating that land would not be attractive to investors given that the returns gained from the development would be for B2 and/or B8 Uses.
The delivery of this quantum of development could allow for the development principles outlined in the Issues and Options paper to be implemented. However, the positioning of B1(b) uses adjacent to the railway line, the aggregates railhead, industrial areas and access routes for HGV's will not be attractive to the R&D market. These sites will be subject to issues associated with noise, vibration, odour and dust which does not indicate that they would be suitable for R&D purposes. It would be more appropriate if these sites where allocated directly for general office use or intensification of B2 and B8 uses.
The land uses section of the analysis table does not take into account the loss of the golf driving range. As per NPPF and Sport England requirements should a facility of equal or greater value not be sourced within a short distance of the site?
The delivery of the development proposed will be subject to the delivery of the necessary infrastructure upgrades such as the Milton Road interchange. There is significant doubt on whether these will all be in place on time to meet with the residential, office and R&D sector demands. The concerns are related to how the infrastructure improvements will be funded and, given that many have not reached a final design stage, how long they will take to be implemented.