Question 1

The redevelopment of this area is fundamental to the viability and success of the new station. Not only should the station be called "Cambridge North", but this could be a moniker for the entire area bounded by the river and Milton Road/A14.
I have attached a document, which spells out the vision I have for the area.
You will see that there is a good mixture of accommodation, addressing some of the need for Council housing, as well as further student accommodation, allowing for a diverse mix of residents. This accommodation would be in lieu of open-market affordable accommodation, to allow developers to create much more attractive buildings and maintain profits, whilst providing accommodation to well-vetted Council tenants.
I have also suggested relocating the Police Station to the area (blue square). This has a number of benefits:
It will provide a smell barrier from the sewage works
It has immediate access to the A14/A10 etc, and therefore can mobilise police personnel quickly to potentially higher crime areas of the city.
It will be a very attractive gateway building and will allow confidence for developers to develop
It will free up the existing Station on Parkside to be redeveloped, either to a 5-star hotel, which the city badly needs, or more high-quality apartments. I would favour the hotel.
There would be a new road for all traffic to the industrial estate and station. This would free up the existing Cowley Road to be pedestrianised and provide the attractive gateway of shops and restaurants as people approach the Science Park, if that is their destination. This would also allow for easy development access to the current sewage works site, if and when it is redeveloped. The Big Green Box company will need to be relocated, but I believe this is the most logical access road.
The Council accommodation is next to the Police station, and also closest to the main road, so although still highly desirable, would act as a sound barrier to most of the area. It also would put people off from committing crime as the police can be on site immediately, thus negating problems of Council high-rises in the past.
The other black line adjacent to the Council blocks is for access to the underground car park, largely for residents, but some could be for the office accommodation. There will be a public multi-storey car park at the industrial end of the road, which will be surrounded by the student accommodation, whether for Ruskin or privately rented, similar to the Downing model at CB1.
Orange blocks are for the offices, again with the intention of blocking the sound and smells for the residential behind, in the light blue boxes.
Each box has an indicative building height.
The maroon box is a hotel, and not another budget hotel, but a 4-star hotel. Perhaps Radisson, if their Science Park hotel is not going ahead.
The yellow lines are pedestrianised paths with very attractive planting. The residential and hotel accommodation will have bars and restaurants lining the boulevard, ideally bringing new restaurants to the city.
Some buildings form a square, similar to Plaza Mayor in Madrid but on a smaller scale. This would be surrounded by shops and restaurants, and ideally would have a fountain, and possibly glass roof. This would make it a wonderful destination for when the weather is bad and give residents a chance to do something different that just go to the city centre. We could have acts performing, similar to Covent Garden.
I understand that Brookgate have the area nearest to the station, so I truly hope that they will do a much better job than at CB1, which is a missed opportunity to create something amazing.
I do however have an idea to redevelop the other side of the railway line. I have called this area "Fen Meadows", and would result in 100 or so Traveller families being relocated, ideally through compulsory purchase. This would immediately improve East Chesterton and the city as a whole, but I understand a suitable site would need to be found for them. This area could house 4000 people and would create some wonderful riverside accommodation, walks and create a NIAB/Great Kneighton style area, which would have the benefit of being adjacent to the station. A new cycle bridge could link this area to the station and allow easy access, without using people's cars. A new road bridge could be created at the north end of the site linking to Fen Ditton and the A14 junction at Fen Ditton. Of course, a tunnel linking to the station from the south of Fen Meadows would make a more attractive proposition as it would make it easier to travel to a new link to Wadloes Road, allowing people from Barnwell, Newmarket Road, Fen Ditton, the Airport etc to access a railway station without clogging up East Road. It would involve building a road on top of Ditton Meadows, but this could be covered over with grass, forming a hill, which in itself could become a new amenity for the area, with new planting as appropriate. Then the question would be to build a tunnel or a bridge to link to the station. £30M or more would be a lot of course, but the benefits to the city would pay that back within 10 years, and provide critical infrastructure that should have been done 50 years ago.
You will see that at the top of Fen Meadows, the secondary school will be there, and this will be a great location for it considering not only the future development on the sewage works, but also increasing capacity at Milton, Fen Ditton and Shirley Primary Schools.

Using this area well is a good idea. However, I strongly object to any proposal to move the sewage works to another site, for two main reasons:
a) Waste of huge existing investment in the present site; and
b) Destruction of some other area by moving it, as that area would be likely to be in the green belt, and destroying green belt with a sewage works is just as bad as building on it.

Cambridge Northern Fringe East

I have studied the consultation documents and have come to the conclusion that this area is largely useless from the point of view of development potential unless, of course, serious public money is invested in it, a return from which is not likely to be forthcoming for several years.

2 The area is sealed off from the outside world by the railway to the east, the A14 to the north and fairly impenetrable suburbia to the south. The only access by road is from the Milton Road, which is probably reaching the limit of its capacity, and Cowley Road.

3 The area is, of course, dominated by Anglia Water's WWTP, the sewage works. It seems quite clear that Anglian Water is not prepared to abandon the plant and move elsewhere or reduce its footprint. Indeed they want to expand it, as they probably need to do so, given the amount of new development taking place, or due to take place, in and around the city. It was not clear to me whether much can be done to reduce the stink from these works or whether Anglian Water would even try to do so.

4 There are also, of course, two aggregate facilities. These will need to remain in place, monopolising the derelict railway sidings, at least and until the A14 is rebuilt. The operators may want to move their site northwards, to a point adjacent to the A14, and build a connection to the road, taking the secondary aggregate plant with them, but they will wish to retain the connection with the railway. This does not leave much of the derelict sidings available for redevelopment until the operators move out. In the meantime their activities will contribute to the aromas wafting around the place.

5 There is also the existence of a high tension power line which runs diagonally right across the area. This will need to be moved.

6 Another large chunk of the area is taken up by Stagecoach by their bus depot. They will take some persuading to move out. If they do where will they go? I suppose this depot generates a fair amount of traffic, not only by the buses but by the staff, including the bus drivers. They presumably use Cowley Road.

7 I have not revisited the business case for the new rail station but it must look rather thin unless the promoters are laying store by the connection with the busway, i.e. it will turn out to be an interchange station. Would car commuters thread their way through the area to park at the new station? I doubt it.

8 Brookgate want to develop the only part of the area which is feasible for redevelopment and if allowed to do so they will take the low hanging fruit. If they are allowed to build it is likely to be the only substantial development to take place in the area for many years to come. I suppose they could be prevailed upon to develop in such a way that the possibility of expansion into the rest of the area is not precluded.

9 Is there any prospect of public money being available to improve the connections to this area from the outside world? Given that there is no immediate prospect of substantial development taking place for many years I doubt it.

This seems to include all the relative issues

The area needs to have an overall vision, not piecemeal development. The vision is appropriate

Whilst developing the brownfield site, the masterplan should safeguard a route for a road across into Fen Road Chesterton either via a new level crossing or a bridge over the railway, to link across at an appropriate point in the road system on the other side, avoiding residential areas already developed by Travellers there. Whilst there is currently no plan to fund such a route, this will be needed later.

The aim to accommodate a new Household Waste Recycling Centre here is misguided: people will bring bulky waste by car anyway, and the current site at Butt Lane is much more suitable.

The development should provide everything for its residents including doctors, schools, and cemetery.

Whilst I think a railway station to the north of Cambridge would be an excellent idea and long due I have my misgivings about the rest of the possible development.

1) Whilst I support the principle of regeneration of this site, the development of the new railway station and extension of the guided busway, I believe the Sewage Treatment Works should be moved elsewhere in order to permit a greater proportion of sustainable urban living than commercial and industrial premises. The opportunity should be taken to remove this source of odour from the north of Cambridge. It may be appropriate to develop commercial units on the northern part of the site, against the A14, to provide a sound and pollution barrier for the residents further south in the site.
2)There is an excess of industrial units un-let in and around Cambridge. I doubt that more industrial units on this site would be used. I feel there is more need for housing.
3) Whilst the aggregates railhead is required I believe road access should be provided by means of a westbound off-slip from the A14 and a westbound on-slip to the A14. Aggregates lorries should NOT travel via the Milton Road onto or off the CNFE site. Whatever the solution, aggregate lorries should be restricted to the northern fringe of the site, to separate them from domestic traffic and they should not travel into Cambridge on the Milton Road.
4) The Household Waste Recycling Centre should NOT be moved from Butt Lane to this valuable site. The operation at Butt Lane is required to be monitored for as many years as it takes for the waste to completely decompose, so there is no compelling reason to move the HWRC from Butt Lane to the CNFE area.
5)A road bridge across the railway should be provide access to the northern end of Fen Road. Alternatively, since a foot and cycle bridge is planned for the railway station, I suggest it should be extended across the tracks, with appropriate gates, to provide pedestrian and cycle access for the residents of Fen Road.

Brookgate supports the proposed vision and agrees with the need for comprehensive planning. The new railway station will create a high quality transport gateway, acting as a catalyst for the regeneration of the wider area. The CB4 site presents a unique opportunity for integrated development to occur. The Chesterton Partnership has the ability to deliver a comprehensively planned re-development of the largest brownfield site in Cambridge, without the involvement of multiple land owning parties. The deliverability of the CB4 site is essential to ensure the regeneration of the CNFE will occur in tandem with the new rail station opening.

Savills Planning Team in Cambridge are instructed on behalf of St John's College, Cambridge to make 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.

The proposed vision for the Cambridge Northern Fringe East (CNFE) reflects the Councils' intention to support new development in what is currently the largest brownfield site in the city (excepting it straddles South Cambridgeshire District Council's administrative boundary). From a simple planning perspective, the promotion of new development on a large previously developed site in a highly sustainable location in one of the Country's growth locations is entirely sensible. In such a context, the aspirational vision set out on page 9 of the consultation document reflects the need to make the best use of a scarce resource, i.e. brownfield land, for new development. This will ensure that Cambridge continues to play an important role in bringing new jobs and investment into the city area and importantly into an area where people want to live.

The current hearings taking place on the Examination to both Local Plans have heard detailed evidence from a number of parties who have asserted that both Councils have significantly underestimated the housing requirements over the plan period. The consequence of an Inspector concluding that significant housing is needed over and above the current figures in the draft plans is to force the issue of providing new jobs. In the circumstances where the "golden thread" runs through the Councils strategy to align the number of new jobs and the number of new homes, this places greater importance on the Councils need to identify major new employment sites.

The focus for new employment in general within the Cambridge Northern Fringe East is therefore supported although it can only play part of the role in accommodating new development. Indeed this is borne out by the concerns expressed by the College and St John's Innovation Centre who Savills also represent, about the realistic proposition that the area will provide significant amounts of new employment and housing as expressed within some of the options. With Anglian Water being the largest landowner in the area and containing a land use which has an impact on the nature and location of surrounding uses, it is clear that decisions made by them will dictate the timetable, shape and form of new development; whilst the planning system might provide the context for the planning policy against which development proposals are considered, ultimately it is the decision of the landowners (including Anglian Water) as to when or indeed if such proposals come forward.

Development proposals for this part of the CNFE have been mooted many times before and the likelihood of major change occurring remains the same as it has been in the past - if sufficient finances are in place for landowners (and in particular Anglian Water in terms of their regulatory framework), then presumably those landowners would look to adopt a position in terms of bringing development sites forward. Anglian Water have a more complicated position in terms of either contracting on site or relocating elsewhere.

The vision as expressed on page 9 is exactly that - it is a vision. Indeed the broad elements of the vision could in fact be applied to most areas of regeneration, i.e. the need to make development successful (however that is defined), to meet residential and commercial need, to provide for high quality sustainable transport to create a well-connected and visual place and to enhance the environmental area.

The second part of the "progressed vision" lists a series of other characteristics of the CNFE that are being sought as a result of the plan's intentions.

One matter which does not appear to be expressed within the vision is the intention to consolidate existing development through plot intensification. This particular phrase is referred to in the keys accompanying the four options within the document. The notation applies to Cambridge Business Park for Options 1 to 4 but only in options 3 and 4 for St. John's Innovation Park. (This is inconsistent with the Councils' own appointed consultants SQW who do not appear to have made any differentiation as to which Option should only encourage plot densification on the Innovation Park - see paragraph 1.29 and 1.34 of SQW's report "CNFE Employment Guidance for the Area Action Plan"). Whilst the term "regeneration" is used within the vision we consider that the vision should be more explicit in terms of referring to plot densification as an approach that is being applied to the area.

Accordingly whilst we broadly support the proposed vision we consider that the opportunities afforded by increasing floorspace and thereby new jobs and investment within existing employment areas is equally valid as the creation of new employment areas. To that end we consider that a new bullet point be inserted in the second paragraph to read:

"That optimum use of existing employment areas within the CNFE is made through plot densification where appropriate."

In this context it is noted that the St John's landholding east of Milton Road and west of Cowley Road including the St John's Innovation Centre is proposed to fall within the CNFE. In the same way that the Cambridge Business Park is identified as having potential for plot densification within all 4 options it is considered that this approach should also be applicable to the St John's land. This specific issue is covered elsewhere within the representations being made by our client.

The vision detailed in the CNFE is not realistic with regards to what can be achieved within the AAP and it does not detail any clear timescales for achieving the vision.
Any unrealistic, undeliverable and over-inflated vision will damage Cambridge's ability to meet the wider stated vision of both Councils - "... continued growth as an innovative, integrated, fair and sustainable city, whilst supporting sustainable economic growth and providing a high quality of life". Any misplaced vision for the AAP area may divert attention, infrastructure provisions and allocations away from more easily deliverable appropriate and suitable sites for the full range of business sectors.
One of the major factors to creating an employment led, mixed use neighbourhood at the CNFE site is the delivery of a sustainable transport network. Milton Road interchange to serve the site is questionable in terms of how it will be financed and there is currently no final design, delivery mechanism or phasing programme agreed on the delivery of this essential sustainable transport link.
The proposed vision details that the development will ensure that the aggregates railhead and the existing waste management facilities will be safeguarded and that new waste management facilities will be delivered. The retention of these uses and development of new waste management facilities within an area which would also provide for modern commercial business buildings / uses and urban living environs are considered to be incompatible. Noise, odour, vermin, dust and HGV traffic issues which would be associated with waste and minerals management operations will have negative impacts upon sensitive receptors and limit the marketability of the remaining land due to these factors and the perception of these factors.
The principles detailed in the vision are those which would be expected from a new modern urban regeneration scheme, however, the realisation of these goals is in significant doubt by virtue of several factors:
* transportation funding gap;
* lack of clarity on how and when the transportation improvements will be built;
* retention and creation of incompatible uses within the AAP boundary;
* lack of detail on how existing uses, which are also essential for Cambridge's continued growth, will be relocated;
* fragmented land ownership;
* a lack of understanding of market demands.

A new development on a large, previously developed site in a highly sustainable location in one of the UK's leading growth locations is greatly welcomed. The vision set out in Section 2 of the consultation document is commendable because it seeks to make best use of a significant area of brownfield land for new development. This should alleviate pressures on housing, transport and commercial space generated through growing numbers of new businesses around Cambridge and the attraction of the city region to inward investment.

The vision states that 'the development will ensure the continued presence of the strategic aggregates railheads that will facilitate the wider growth of Greater Cambridge'. CNFE is the only location in the Cambridge area which has strategic railheads, and these are essential to the growth of the area as they are the means through which mineral which cannot be found locally i.e. hard rock, is brought into the area. The alternative would be to bring large quantities of hard rock by road which would not be sustainable. The Lafarge Tarmac railhead will also play an essential role in bringing in hard rock for the improvement of the A14, over the three year build period.

The intent to retain these railheads is therefore strongly supported and is consistent with the County Council's policy in the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2011) and Site Specific Proposals Plan (2012) which identifies the Lafarge Tarmac railhead as a Transport Zone and designates a Transport Safeguarding Areas around it, placing within it a presumption against any development which could prejudice its use for the transport of mineral and / or waste.

The vision box also states that the development will ensure 'existing and new waste management facilities can be safeguarded / delivered (including Household Recycling Centre and inert waste recycling facility)'. This is welcomed and is in line with the County Council's policy in the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2011) and Site Specific Proposals Plan (2012) which identifies an area of search for a Household Recycling Centre and a permanent inert waste recycling facility, alongside other new waste technologies where appropriate. As pointed out above, so long as the vision takes account of the relevant safeguarding areas and allocations set out within the Minerals and Waste Development Plan, and ensures that development is appropriate that will not prejudice the minerals and waste, plus related transport uses, it should be seen to be policy compliant.

Support from economic development perspective.

The vision would benefit from the inclusion of "health" as a concept.

The vision is supported, but reference should be made of existing businesses within the area. Their continued success is of prime importance and it will be vital to ensure new development does not impinge on existing developments.

See attached document

The Wildlife Trust would like to see specific mention of biodiversity in the vision statement. We suggest that "opportunities to enhance the environmental assets" be changed to "opportunities to enhance the existing environmental assets and create new green space to benefit biodiversity."

The proposed vision is broadly supported but could be improved. It is important that CNFE is not viewed in isolation from planned strategic developments. There is clearly the potential to reinforce the strategic importance of the greater north Cambridge area, in particular, the potential for a positive relationship between CNFE area and the proposed Waterbeach New Town should be emphasised in the vision because of the potential for new homes and jobs in close proximity and the potential for new sustainable infrastructure to benefit both developments. It is also important that the regeneration vision is not compromised by the continued presence of strategic aggregates and waste management facilities.
Suggested changes
In the third bullet point under "The development will also ensure" include reference to Waterbeach New Town.

We support the vision but seek a better balance of land uses to effectively allow for the delivery of the vision and objectives set out. This will allow the full extent of the opportunity to be realised for the benefit of Cambridge.

The area is very suited to being developed but needs an overall plan.

In broad terms, Turnstone can support the vision that the AAP proposes, however this comes with the following caveats: -

* The vision must be predicated first and foremost on the need for development to have a considerable employment content, as this is the most appropriate, sustainable and indeed best site in the City to accommodate future employment growth in a highly accessible location, in close proximity to a significant employment cluster, in particular the world-famous Cambridge Science Park;
* The possibility of an element of housing development at the southern end of the AAP area cannot be ruled out; however it is not believed that the City Council is dependent on this in terms of achieving its housing targets in the new Local Plan in the period to 2031. Furthermore, there is uncertainty as to whether the land in question (as highlighted in some of the development options) can in fact be delivered as there are existing occupiers who may not wish to vacate their sites. In light of this the AAP should downplay rather than highlight "sustainable urban living";
* Whilst the new railway station is undoubtedly a key piece of physical infrastructure it should not be viewed alone as the sole "high quality transport gateway" to the area. There are already good public transport links (including the guided bus and conventional buses), cycle and pedestrian links (e.g. the Jane Coston Bridge over the A14 to Milton) and also good road links (which cannot be ignored). There is also scope to link into new pieces of transport infrastructure such as the Chisholm Trail.

The vision needs strengthening substantially. This is one of the last major remaining brown field sites in Cambridge and the City and South Cambs need to maximise the use of their land resources to meet the development challenges which flow from recent, sustained success. Positioned close to the Science parks and opening on to Fenlands of South and East Cambridgeshire districts, the area provides opportunity to develop on a larger and denser scale than outlined and in a manner which provides a modern, substantial and dynamic new quarter of the city. The current vision runs a substantial risk of providing a piecemeal strategy which will develop only local opportunity based schemes. Recent developments and current plans include significant and imaginative developments for the west and south of the City, a wider vision for CNFE would help in rebalancing towards the north east. As well as contributing more substantially to the longer term requirements of the city and providing a revitalised gateway, the area should be regarded as an important opening to the Fenlands of South and East Cambridgeshire districts.
Whilst the need for an employment led, mixed use community is accepted, the goal of providing a substantial, vibrant new quarter, as well as the need to deliver the City's future housing requirements, means that a substantial residential element should be included in the vision. A significantly denser development will help fund the relocation or reconfiguration of the water treatment plant which is essential to the strategy for the site. It will also allow for the creation of a distinctive and sustainable urban community, with a strong sense of place, thus creating a much more distinctive and impressive new quarter for Cambridge which will greatly enhance the northern part of the city.

See attached document

See attached document

See attached document

See attached document

I find all proposed options to be too restricted with the use of space. A mix of residential use, offices and industry would be preferable to give it a more natural feel. For example, leave the Nuffield Road industrial area and more residential use development further north. Also consider a more modular approach that allows to develop toward a future goal, but doesn't depend on things (like moving the water recycling centre) from the get go.

*******************


9) Objective 3 shouldn't get highest priority.
14) 11-13 are too divided in to use of space, a more natural mix of residential, offices and industrial would be better. Also, re-use as much of what is already there as possible.
15, 16, 17) No clear explanations, which means meaning will be defined later.
18b) Would destroy the feeling of that part of the city.
23c) Science Park should be independent.
24d) This should only be considered if there are no other options. Moving the businesses will be expesive, so leave them there and build the residential area somewhere else.
30e) Student accomodation should be integrated so they won't all be in the same area.
36) Whatever makes best sense for transport at the current stage of the project.

See attached document

The MOD has no objections to the proposed Area Action Plan. However, it is important to recognise that the proposed site is encompassed by the stautory safeguarding aerodrome height consultation plan. The main concern of the MOD is to ensure tall structures do not disrupt or inhibit air traffic operations on site. On reviewing the proposed Cambridge Northern Fringe East Area Action Plan, the proposed area falls within the 15.2m height consultation zone. This means no development should exceed 15.2m. This office requests to be kept informed of any proposed applications within this area for review.