Question 9

Not G - relocate.

If they are left as they are then there is a real risk that they will be used to "justify" moving the sewage works to a greenfield site. The existing investment in the sewage works is vast, not only in the works themselves but also in all the piping that already runs towards them, and existing surrounding land use has taken their presence into account already.

Seems ok

These are all laudable objectives and will enhance the area for all. Wouldn't it be more straight forward to refer to the "water recycling centre" by the name by which we locals know it: Sewage Works?

I am keen for this to go ahead

7.1F "where possible" accommodate
seems too loosely worded. This will depend on cost - can we ask the developer to provide the same facilities at a limited % extra cost to where they are now, at least for a limited time?
The risk is that the light industrial users there now will not be able to afford to stay, but where else in Cambridge can they go?

In principle

Objective 1: Deliver a place that supports and fosters a strong new neighbourhood, well integrated with the wider community - Support

A. Ensure that the needs of existing and future communities who live and work in and around Cambridge Northern Fringe East are met through development and that it is a place that can adapt to meet changing needs over time.

I support A but would not want current careful planning to be overturned by commercial interests at a later date.

B. By creating a sustainable, cohesive and inclusive area through improving access to jobs, homes, open space, leisure facilities and other services within the development and to the wider community.

B I support the development of leisure facilities and open space but not commercial development (retail park), which would attract more traffic to the area.

Objective 2: Provide a mix of land uses at densities that make best use of this highly sustainable location and regeneration opportunities

C. Increase the level of economic activity and vibrancy within Cambridge Northern Fringe East and the wider area, by accommodating an appropriate mix of office, R&D, industrial and other related employment uses supported by a range of commercial, retail, leisure, community and residential uses.

I do not support the development of R&D, industrial or commercial purposes unless these are on the perimeter of the site.

D. Focus higher density development around the transport hub and along public transport routes, taking account of the wider landscape and townscape context of the area.

D - I do not support the general principle of industrial use. I believe the guided busway route should retain wide pedestrian and cycle paths beside it, with trees and hedges to protect each from the other and to provide wind protection. Footpaths and cycle paths should be permitted the direct routes; cars should be directed via longer routes to preserve open green space.

Objective 3: Maximise the Employment Opportunities

E. Deliver additional flexible employment space to cater for a range of business types and sizes, and supporting a wide range of jobs for local income, skills and age groups.

E - I feel there should be a greater proportion of residential development than industrial.

F. Manage the release of any redevelopment sites and where possible accommodate the existing businesses elsewhere within the CNFE area.

F - Support

G. Support uses which are important to the operation of Greater Cambridge, including the strategic aggregates rail head, and the Water Recycling Centre.

Object - The Sewage Treatment works should be moved elsewhere.

Objective 4: Create a new local centre that meets the needs of the new community and which complements other facilities in the wider area

H. Create distinctive and well-connected mixed use local centre for Cambridge Northern Fringe East which provides a range facilities to meet the day to day needs of those live, work and visit the area.

H - I object - believe a sustainable new community should be developed with community buildings, local shops houses and a school.

Objective 5: Deliver high quality and well-designed buildings, streets and spaces that responds to the needs of the community and supports regeneration of the wider area

I. Create a distinctive local identity through development forms appropriate to the area and which create and improve the quality, appearance and function of the public realm.

I - I object to 'development forms' which are large, tall, ugly, conceived as a 'gateway' and poorly designed. I would require human-scale, attractive buildings which are fit for purpose with green space attractive for public use between them.

J. Ensure the design, scale and location of new buildings help create streets and places that are safe, easy and convenient to navigate around, and which encourage social interaction.

J - Cyclists and pedestrians should be given priority for routes. Cars should be directed to the periphery.

Objective 6: Create an accessible, permeable, well-connected and well-integrated new neighbourhood

K. Create a gateway development that maximises the potential of the proposed new Railway Station and Cambridge Guided Busway as a transport hub.

I object to the 'creation of a gateway' which implies a combination of tall, overbearing buildings and draughty, overshadowed streets between them.

L. Deliver enhanced connections for pedestrians, cyclists, buses, prioritise these modes to encourage a modal shift.

L - I support this!

Objective 7: Enhance and protect the natural environment and existing and proposed open spaces

M. Create a network of WIDE AND EXPANSIVE green spaces and corridors to protect and enhance biodiversity and watercourses as attractive features, linking into the surrounding area.

I support this!
Allow the strip of land beside the ditch along Cowley Road to remain a green space with a footpath along it.

N. Improve the setting of the area from key approaches including the route to the proposed new railway station.
N - I support this and would like to see every opportunity take to make the site greener.
O. Remediate land contamination.
O - I support this.

Objective 8: Encourage a low carbon lifestyle & addressing climate change

P. Deliver sustainable forms of development, mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change.
P - I support this.

Brookgate supports the proposed development principles subject to the following amendments. Objective 2 should be amended to make explicit reference to high densities given the highly sustainable location of CNFE. Specific reference should also be made to the provision of residential development within CNFE, given that 'providing new homes to meet the pressing needs of the local community' is identified as one of the key opportunities for the CNFE area at para. 1.13 of the proposed AAP.

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.

We have made responses already to Q1 on the objectives including suggested wording to refer to the need for the strategy to reflect plot densification. On the specific issue of the College's interest, it is important that this section on Development Proposals reflects the opportunities provided to increase economic activity and deliver additional employment space to cater for new business - maximising employment opportunities is a main objective of the AAP and the St John's land must fall within such a scope. Separate representations are made to the Plan to ensure that the reference to plot densification should also apply to the St John's land.

The Development Principles are a holistic range of positive planning text; they attempt to provide solutions to some of Cambridge's complex and serious issues associated with affordable housing, lack of quality office space, a mix of employment opportunities and open space deficiencies. This attempt to provide a development for everyone results in a lack of focus.

We have referred already to the need for the strategy to reflect plot densification, including on the St John's Innovation Park. Maximising employment opportunities (Objective 3) should include existing developments as well as brownfield regeneration sites.

Development Principle G is supported, the continued operation of the Water Recycling Centre and the strategic railheads are essential for the growth and well being of the Greater Cambridge area.

Development Principle L seeks to deliver 'enhanced connections for pedestrians, cyclists, buses, prioritise these modes to encourage a modal shift'. However, care needs to be taken to how this can be delivered alongside existing and planned mineral and waste activity to avoid a potential conflict situation.

An additional development principle should be added which includes the need to ensure that essential services / infrastructure is retained and / or provided. This may be infrastructure which is essential to support the development proposed in the CNFE, or the wider Cambridge area e.g. a new Household Recycling Centre.

Support objective 1, but amend option B to read " By creating a sustainable, cohesive and inclusive area by ensuring there is appropriate support, improving access to jobs, homes, open space, leisure facilities and other services within the development and to the wider community".
This is supported but would benefit from "health" added to address any deprivation in the area of Chesterton.

They expand on objectives, but access and traffic must be fully addressed.

The Wildlife Trust supports principle M, in particular the recognition of the importance of biodiversity features being part of a well-connected network.
As watercourses are included, we suggest a change to "...a network of green and blue spaces..."
We also suggest removing the word "attractive" as this is a very subjective idea and not relevant to benefitting biodiversity.

The over-arching principles are broadly supported but could be improved. There is significant economic potential to promote the wider Cambridge North area including Cambridge Northern Fringe and A10 corridor such as the Research Park and Waterbeach New Town.
An additional objective is suggested under Question 2 as follows: "Ensure development is well connected and complementary to the wider North and North of Cambridge potential, including Waterbeach New Town".
The development principles underpinning this objective are suggested as:
"contribute to delivering sustainable transport links with Waterbeach New Town including pedestrian/cycle and public transport connections and access to the new CNFE railway station.
Create a mix of uses supportive to the delivery of Waterbeach New Town."
In addition, principle 3.G on aggregates and waste uses should be qualified and subject to further work to ensure a high quality employment focus is not compromised.

See attachment [below]

Question 9 Response
Principles C and D do not make any reference to residential under Objective 2. Principle C is too commercially focussed and could work against the need for balanced mix of uses to deliver the most sustainable place that is well integrated with adjoining communities and provides real benefit to those communities. A principle relating to the new residential community envisaged within the AAP area would provide better balance.
Objective 5 / Principles I and J - Reference to mixed use development should be included; zoning approach could work against well designed buildings.
Objective 6 / Principles K and L - Stronger connections required to wider area for effective integration. Highly zoned mono use land blocks works against the objective for a well-integrated neighbourhood.
Objective 8/ Principle P - Requires a mixed community - current imbalance of land uses will increase carbon footprint, encourage unsustainable travel behaviour and add to emissions.

In broad terms Turnstone supports the Development Principles set out in the AAP document but would make a number of specific points where it is felt the emphasis or indeed substance of a particular point should be differently expressed, as follows: -

* Objective 2C - this objective should be strengthened to make it abundantly clear that the Council is seeking for CNFE to be delivered as a high quality, exemplar commercial-led scheme. As written the objective does not provide for this important aspiration.
* Objective 2D - Turnstone supports the concept of higher density development, but does not agree that this should be focused "around the transport hub" which implies the new railway station. That may well have been an appropriate response in Central Cambridge where CB1 achieves a hitherto unseen commercial density in its City context, but it is not felt to be appropriate in this case. The AAP should seek to ensure that such larger scale and denser development that takes place should be centrally located within the AAP area and should not be reflected by the erection of large scale buildings at the eastern edge of the wider site - i.e. where the railway station is to be situated. It is considered that the scale and massing as well as the density of development should step down where the CNFE area adjoins and interacts with open countryside and could impact adversely on the setting of the City unless carefully managed and integrated. Turnstone considers that there is an obvious interface for an aggregation of larger scale buildings where the designated CNFE area meets with the existing parks in the area, such as St John's Innovation Park, the Cambridge Business Park and the Cambridge Science Park.
* Objective 3F - this objective should have a higher ambition of relocating existing businesses, particularly where they are non-conforming, as being "appropriate" and not merely as "possible".
* Objective 3G - it should not be automatically assumed that the strategic aggregates railhead will be required to be retained on the CNFE site in perpetuity. There may be opportunities to consider other locations whereby its presence will not detract from the quality of development that the Council should be properly seeking at CNFE.
* Objective 6K - this objective needs to be broadened to reflect and recognise the other transport modes and routes by which people will access the CNFE area. As written it largely assumes that the railway station and the busway alone are what makes the area a transport hub. That is short-sighted as there is other transport infrastructure such as cycle routes, roads and conventional buses that can equally provide ready access to and from CNFE.
* Objective 7O - this objective should be caveated by the addition of the words "where necessary".

Points 2 & 3 are the most important.

Objective 1a, which argues for adaption over time, is a recipe for a piecemeal approach which lacks the coherence and critical mass needed to maximise the potential the area has to contribute to the future of the City and South Cambs.

Support objective 3 : Principals E,F and G to maximise the Employment opportunities of the area.

It is important to support existing business by relocating them into areas suitable for their business activities. In particular the provision of a replacement aggregates rail head to replace the existing rail head lost by the development of the new station is paramount to the continued supply of aggregates for development of both the local and wider Cambridgeshire area.

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