Question 8

Look again at relocation of the water recycling centre and Waste

I am supporting this on the grounds that, given the existing constraints, the planning department focus on cycle and pedestrian infrastructure and priorities this. Most notably, to ensure the new area is easy and safe to get to by bike - be it by those cycling from the city, or coming in from Milton and other surrounding villages. This is crucial, if the council is to limit increased vehicular congestion.

The sewage works should be regarded as "in place" and not to be moved.

Network Rail's disused private access road from Milton Road to Chesterton railway sidings running along the north side of the Business Park is currently a wasted asset. It should be made into a public footpath and cycleway for pedestrians and cyclists travelling to and from the new railway station. This would also enable the Crown Estate to install side entrances on the North side of the Cambridge Business Park to shorten the walk between offices on the Cambridge Business Park and the new railway station.

Making Network Rail's private access road from Milton Road to Chesterton railway sidings running along the north side of the Business Park into a public footpath and cycleway would help to meet these objectives.

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.

Additional thought should be given to the possibility of inconvenience caused to local residents by inconsiderate parking by users of the new rail station.
Implications of increased use of Fen Road should also be considered

In 6.10 you say "there are no recorded instances of groundwater flooding within CNFE". Milton Parish Council was always concerned with the high water table South of the A14, and flooding on Chesterton Sidings and Fen Road Chesterton area. The very important First Public Drain provides for the whole of NE Cambridge (from Huntingdon Road eastwards), and Orchard Park, not just "the surrounding area".

Please consider safeguarding the old surface water drain under the sidings (and existing railway) straight through to Camside Farm, which could be a cheaper route for a sewage connection under the railway to Fen Road residents.

There is a misprint in 6.11 "following the" should read "the following".

There seems to be a lot about improved car, Guided Bus, bicycle and pedestrian access ....what about local buses?

1) The Sewage Works should be removed to permit a greater proportion of residential development where the ground conditions permit.
2) Milton Road is already at capacity. Direct access to and within the site should be prioritised for pedestrians, cyclists and users of the guided bus (to discourage use of cars).
3) Aggregate lorries should be restricted to the northern perimeter.
4) Surface water runoff should be controlled to avoid flooding commercial premises and residences in Fen Road.
5) Buildings on the site should be no taller than three floors.
6) There should be NO ugly/massive/inhuman 'statement' or 'gateway' buildings on the site.

The transport network is a key constraint in bringing forward development at CNFE. The Milton Road corridor and A14 Milton Interchange currently operate at capacity during peak travel periods. The CNFE has the potential to become highly sustainable due to the new railway station, extended Guided Busway and pedestrian/cycle enhancements, however highway capacity remains a significant constraint requiring further investigation with a mitigation strategy developed as part of any future development proposals.

Contamination should not be overstated and seen as a barrier to development. The current odour maps do not reflect Anglian Water's proposed WRC upgrades and should be re-visited.

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.

It is clear that there are a large number of issues and constraints that are relevant to future development proposals and indeed it is the presence of these that have been the determining factors in why development has not progressed in the area to date despite many plans and proposals over the years.

As noted in separate responses to other questions, the issue of landownership and a commitment to those landowners to bring forward land for development remains a critical feature of the Plan. The discussions will be affected by a whole series of issues not least the values that would accrue from any change in land use having regard to all the technical and environmental issues raised in your paragraphs 6.3 to 6.16. In such a context as far as the College is concerned, it is the environmental impact of the neighbouring land use that is a critical issue in the circumstances where the Anglian Water site is retained in its present form but with a new Household Waste Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility. The relationship between B1 offices (including the research and development uses) on the land at the Innovation Park and the water infrastructure facilities across the road is a key one. Having said that, it is the case that St John's College secured planning permission last year for some 4400 sq m of B1(a) office floorspace on the Innovation Park so there is clearly no objections in principle for such uses to come forward in circumstances where mitigation measures can be put in place. The College cannot sanction a strategy which would make such a relationship more sensitive and therefore strong objections are raised to the siting of such a new Recycling Centre as shown in the four options. These matters are raised in separate responses to other questions.

Land uses and creating balanced communities section highlights the following:
6.4 Neighbouring communities
Neighbouring residential areas are home to some of the city's more disadvantaged communities. This AAP and subsequent development proposals represent a significant opportunity to provide employment opportunities and other benefits to local residents.
Would the regeneration of the AAP site for residential, office and R&D purposes be the most advantageous way to provide employment opportunities on this site for those as described in paragraph 6.4 of the consultation document, adjacent "disadvantage communities"? It would be anticipated that those from the city's more disadvantaged communities will also have lower levels of education attainment and, therefore, they will be reliant on service / lower skilled roles being created on the site. Although we believe the site can offer opportunities for a wide range of employment uses, including offices and R&D, it will be important to ensure that opportunities are retained also for industrial uses.
6.6 Housing
There is a high level of housing need in the Cambridge area. While opportunities for housing on CNFE are limited, due to constraints such as odour and land contamination, the area can still make a valuable contribution to overall housing supply.
6.7 Community and Leisure Facilities
CNFE currently has very limited facilities (e.g. retail, leisure and community uses) both within its boundary and in the surrounding area. The AAP and future development proposals offer an opportunity for provision of a new community core with shops, services, restaurants, cafés etc. with possible links to improved facilities on the Cambridge Science Park.
Paragraph 6.6 highlights that the site will be heavily constrained in providing housing due to odour and land contamination issues but that the AAP site offers an opportunity to provide shops, restaurants and cafés.
If the site is largely unsuitable for dwellings both in terms of costs to mitigate contamination and odour issues why would it be conceivable that developments such as restaurants and cafés would be viable. Cafés, restaurants and shops will also require a high level of amenity and the income value on those types of uses will not provide developers with confidence to invest heavily in contaminated land remediation works.
The constraints listed are comprehensive but they give no indication of costs to mitigate against issues of noise, odour, vibration, flood risk or overhead power cables. A further constraint which should be highlighted at this point is that the AAP is reliant on sustainable transport measures being delivered. Failure to deliver these measures in a timely fashion will render the AAP site unsustainable and heavily constrained in its scope of development.

We are concerned by the environmental impact of neighbouring land use, and in particular by the possible retention of the Anglian Water site in its present form but with the addition of a new Household Waste Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility. We cannot support a strategy which would make the relationship even worse than it is at present. We object strongly to the siting of such a new recycling centre as shown in the four options.

Figure 4 shows an indicative Household Recycling Centre location at the boundary with the A14 alongside an area for an inert waste recycling facility. Whilst we welcome the inclusion of this facility, and more importantly the footnote that states that 'the Household Recycling Centre could also be located on B2, B8 and sui-generis land in the vicinity of Cowley Road', we are concerned that at present the new entrance to serve this facility is in very close proximity to the Jane Coston Bridge and also crosses protected verge land. Such issues, alongside permeability into the site by pedestrians and cyclists, still need careful consideration.

The County Council is currently reviewing the strategic waste service provision of Household Recycling Centres. At present the allocation for a Household Recycling Centre, allocated through the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan, is intended to provide essential waste infrastructure which will be needed when the time limited Household Recycling Centre at Milton closes. This will be the only facility in the Cambridge area and must continue to be taken into account in future development scenarios.

We welcome the acknowledgement to the role of Anglian Water's Water Recycling Centre and the odour issues that need to be taken into account. We also welcome the acknowledgement to noise issues in relation to the A14 and the mineral and waste operations, all of which need to be taken into account when planning compatible uses in the future that do not prejudice the existing and planned operations.

Paragraph 6.14 discusses landscaping and enhancement for high quality development. However, reference to existing screening landscape on the site also needs to be taken into account, particularly alongside the boundary with the A14. Furthermore, existing waste uses also need to be considered in the context of landscaping, so this should be acknowledged within the issues and constraints going forward. In particular when the heights of buildings are being considered the consideration of views onto such activities also need careful consideration and should be acknowledged at this early stage.

o 6.7 - The need to provide leisure/community opportunities for the Nuffied Road area is supported as this area is a deprived area and these services/facilities can help improve health and social cohesion.
o 6.8 - The aim for modal shift welcomed but this needs to be an evidenced based figure of 24% i.e. the number of Cambridgeshire people who work less than a set distance from work who travel by car, also what are the current background levels.

The County Council supports the redevelopment of the area. With the new station, busway and proximity to the A14 and A10, the site is probably better linked than any other on the Cambridge fringe. The station will markedly improve accessibility into the area and could divert many longer trips onto rail, particularly on the Ely, Royston and Saffron Walden corridors. There is an excellent opportunity through the AAP to make sure that the local transport network from the station makes these trips as easy as possible for those going to the Science Park, Regional College, or to the other major employment sites in the area. At the same time, new employment in the area will have the opportunity to take advantage of the excellent transport links, particularly by rail, guided bus, walking and cycling. It is also fair to say that early development around the station would also improve the attractiveness of rail and bus trips into the whole area.

However, there is a need for a very careful consideration of how this growth can fit into the local transport network, and a particular focus on what level of growth might be possible to manage, given the constraints of that network. Some very high levels of new jobs are under discussion. Even at the lowest level, the number of new jobs is equivalent to around three new Cambridge Science Parks. If the transport network and peoples travel patterns remain as now, we do not need to model to know that the local road network will not cope with this.

The City Deal transport programme has obvious potential to help address this issue. Several work packages are likely to provide new sustainable transport capacity in the area:

* Milton Road bus corridor
* A10 north corridor transport package - rail, Busway, pedestrian / cycle networks, A10 improvements
* Eastern Orbital public transport - Science Park to Cambridge Biomedical Campus.

Work to further develop the Milton Road corridor is likely to commence early next year (subject to Member consideration). Work on the other two packages has yet to be programmed. However it will not be possible to complete the work in time to meet the timescales envisaged for the AAP. The level of growth under consideration in the area is likely to require a more radical approach to transport in the area and potentially in the wider city than is currently under consideration.

To put this into context, at the levels of growth under consideration, even very low mode shares of car use similar to those that are targeted in the CB1 development around Cambridge Station will cause very severe problems on the local road network. The Highways Agency has not accounted for growth at the levels under consideration in its planning of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon scheme. There is often a commercial imperative to produce development in areas with similar levels of parking to that historically seen. In this case, that would be wholly counterproductive, as the road network would not have the capacity to get people to these parking spaces. Growth at the levels under consideration will demand a wider consideration of how the current and new employment uses operate in transport terms, and quite possibly, how the wider city, fringes and employment catchment operate.

6.9. - There is the potential through the redevelopment of the site to enhance the First Public Drain. This could be in terms of the surface water mitigation, ecological or aethestic values. This could be achieved through a number of possible hydrogeological improvements.

No comment on stated issues, but the absence of any information about traffic and junction layout is disappointing as it is impossible to assess the relative impacts of the options on existing developments within the AAP area

Consideration of CNFE in the context of both existing and proposed new developments will be vital to ensure a well-coordinated and integrated development. The lack of mention of other strategic developments as part of the context is a significant omission. The following issues should also be taken into account:
6.4 Neighbouring communities
Consideration will need to be given to other planned new communities and neighbourhoods in close proximity to CNFE, in particular Waterbeach New Town only 5km to the north.
6.8 Movement/Transportation
Consideration should be given to the sustainable transport links from/to the planned Waterbeach New Town including existing and new shared infrastructure such as the guided busway, cycle/pedestrian connectivity and rail connections. Waterbeach New Town will provide a future population in close proximity and it will be important to maximise sustainable transport links.

The Household Waste Recycling Centre could be relocated in an alternative location to avoid it being a constraint and give greater opportunity to create a place of real character.

We would anticipate further evidence base research being undertaken in order to fully explore and understand other potential constraints including ground conditions.

Turnstone do not object per se to the potential inclusion of an element of housing within the CNFE AAP area. However, the objective must be to maximise employment opportunities from this site and this must be the absolute priority. The emerging Cambridge Local Plan is not reliant on new housing in this location to meet the Council's assessment of objectively assessed needs. Housing should only be pursued if there are site specific reasons for doing so on the fringes of the AAP area, and land is available and deliverable for these purposes.

The Movement/Transportation section of this Chapter (paragraph 6.8) appears to downplay the fact that the site is off a major north/south, east/west highway network with Milton Road, the A14 and the A10 all carrying high volumes of traffic including buses. These modes will remain important in terms of the long-term accessibility of the site, irrespective of capacity issues.

In light of odour issues detailed (see paragraph 6.11) relating to the WRC, it will be important for the AAP in its final form to provide the necessary promptings to encourage and facilitate modernisation of the WRC in a manner, and in a timescale, which will enable the potential of the AAP area to be maximised as a new employment cluster sitting alongside existing areas.

In a similar vein, the AAP will need to provide support to the concept of relocating non-conforming uses away from the area so that uses causing environmental impacts of an adverse nature are directed away from this location e.g. aggregate batching. It will be difficult to deliver the high quality of development aspired to if new employment uses need to sit alongside visually intrusive and environmentally unneighbourly land uses.

Any open space which is seen as a potential resource for local communities should be located proximate to those communities and should therefore be on the periphery of the CNFE AAP area. It would not be logical or desirable to try and accommodate public open space in the heart of a commercial business or science park and there would seem to be far greater logic for situation such space close to the new railway station, possibly as part of its public realm.

In terms of visual impact of new development, it is clear that there is scope for higher density development in this part of the City and also that there is potential for some taller buildings. However, as ever, locations for these need to be carefully considered and it is not thought there would be rationale for pursuing large scale buildings around the new station in the manner of CB1, even if these are moderated to reflect the edge of City location. The station location is on the very fringes of the AAP area, adjoining the Green Belt and open land beyond the travellers' sites to the east of the main railway line.

Turnstone consider that the better scope for denser, taller development will be more inboard of the AAP area, towards its centre, with the scale of development generally reducing at its margins.

Paragraph 6.16 of the AAP Issues and Options report identifies infrastructure providing important services for Greater Cambridge and which need to be taken into account in any future development proposals. The absence of the new railway station seems to be an odd omission. It is also suggested that it should be acknowledged that there is potential for future changes to the WRC and the aggregates railhead so they are both possible variable constraints.

See attached document

See attached document

See attached document

See attached document

I do not think this should go ahead unless as part of the scheme a cycle footway is provided on land Network Rail own along side Cowley Road (to the south of Cowley Road). The scheme needs a safe route for cyclists and pedestrians. The Cowley Road footpath as proposed would have the entrances across it.

See attached document

These comments are provided on behalf of Marshall Group, which includes Cambridge International Airport. We understand that the area defined as Cambridge Northern Fringe East (CNFE) is located between the A14 to the North, the A10 Milton Road to the West, the Cambridge to Kings Lynn railway line to the east, and residential areas of Chesterton to the south. We also note that the consultation document seeks views on the potential to extend the boundary to include the Cambridge Science Park.

As an operational airport, Cambridge International Airport is under a statutory duty to ensure the safe operation of the airport in accordance with guidance from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as set out in:
CAP 168 (Licensing of Aerodromes);
CAP 738 (Safeguarding of Aerodromes); CAP 1096 (Crane Guidance);
Ministry of Defence (Cambridge Airport) Technical Site Safeguarding signed and dated 23 July 2003.

As part of this process, Cambridge International Airport has lodged formal safeguarding maps with Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. The safeguarding map shows that the area to be covered by the CNFE Area Action Plan falls within the area hatched green on the safeguarding map. Any development proposed with a maximum height in excess of 15 metres above ground level (AGL) requires consultation with the Airport. The site is also within 2.5 nautical miles of the airport and as such falls within the Air Traffic Zone (ATZ) which is controlled by the Air Traffic Controllers at Cambridge International Airport.

Our expectation is that building heights in Option A (heights up to 16m) may be acceptable, but Options B (heights up to 24m) and C (including "significantly taller forms of development") in particular have potential to cause conflicts with safe airport and aircraft operations. In order to ensure that any development principles established through the AAP are deliverable and compatible with the safe operation of the airport, Marshall Group requests that the joint Councils (or any prospective developer) engages early with the Airport to ensure any building
heights proposed are compatible with airport operations, including the operation of cranes throughout the development.

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.