Question 12
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30263
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited
Agent: Carter Jonas
A better option than 1 or 2 but density approach is flawed.
This option is to be preferred to Options 1 and 2 in that it starts to make more efficient use of the land at CNFE and delivers a more significant amount of commercial development floorspace. However in common with all of the options, it aspires to a density of development around the station area that is not considered realistic or desirable. Paragraph 8.9 of the AAP states that "Higher densities have been included around the proposed new railway station similar to the CB1 development in Cambridge. No account has been taken in these redevelopment options of potential additional floorspace arising from intensification of existing Business/Science Parks or taller buildings." It is considered that this is inappropriate on the periphery of the AAP area and density, scale and massing should generally fall as one reaches the edges of the defined AAP area, except where the AAP area meets with large scale commercial premises on other established sites such as the Cambridge Business Park and St John's Innovation Park. In a similar vein, Turnstone also consider that there is no obvious reason why the AAP should not include as a perfectly reasonable objective/aspiration to increase the density of existing business or other employment parks nearby, as there is evidence that there is scope for intensification.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30304
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Coulson Building Group
This or option 2 should go forward.
This or option 2 should go forward.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30362
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future
This is our second preference option. We support it as a reserve option in the event that Option 4 is not deliverable. Reconfiguring the water treatment plant as proposed will greatly improve the development potential of the overall site, but not as optimally as Option 4.
This is our second preference option. We support it as a reserve option in the event that Option 4 is not deliverable. Reconfiguring the water treatment plant as proposed will greatly improve the development potential of the overall site, but not as optimally as Option 4.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30389
Received: 04/02/2015
Respondent: Milton Parish Council
We would like to see the Waste Water Treatment Centre moved away or significantly modernised to stop any odour-nuisance to neighbours. The aggregates area in this option effectively blocks any possible level crossing to Fen Road. We approve of the housing development, must insist on 40% affordable.
See attached document
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30414
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Histon & Impington Parish Council
Histon & Impington Parish Council support Option 1 : Lower level of redevelopment
Object to options 2 , 3 and 4
See attached document
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30436
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Frimstone Ltd.
The provision of a re configured and enlarged aggregates railhead and sidings is supported to replace the existing aggregates railhead lost by the development of the new station. The replacement of this railhead is paramount to the continued supply of aggregates for development of both the local and wider Cambridgeshire area.
The provision of a new Heavy Goods Vehicle access is supported to provide a more efficient, direct and safe access to the railhead and other industrial areas.
The provision of a re configured and enlarged aggregates railhead and sidings is supported to replace the existing aggregates railhead lost by the development of the new station. The replacement of this railhead is paramount to the continued supply of aggregates for development of both the local and wider Cambridgeshire area.
The provision of a new Heavy Goods Vehicle access is supported to provide a more efficient, direct and safe access to the railhead and other industrial areas.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30468
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd
Overall, TCE supports the high level options for redevelopment of the site (options 2-4) only if the detailed evidence base work/studies demonstrate that these development options will not cause negative impacts on existing residents, workers and investors. These concerns are set out as follows.
Mix of uses
A mix of uses is proposed for the site including residential uses, a mix of B class/employment uses, new open space, a local centre and the aggregates/railhead sidings use. TCE broadly supports this approach subject to concerns about access and infrastructure, but would like to see inclusion of wording to the effect that the primary function of this area is to be the leading R&D/technology quarter/destination in Cambridge. Any activity to dilute this core/distinctive and valuable focus of the area would be a loss/step backwards,
given its regional/national status. Whilst it is appropriate to have supporting and complementary uses, larger-scale developments should not be permitted.
TCE supports the identification of CBP as offices/R&D with potential for intensification.
Linkages
TCE broadly supports the principle of promoting sustainable transport and movement through the idea of improving permeability and access to key routes, although TCE object to public access and new walkways being provided
through CBP as shown within development options 2-4. For security and health and safety reasons, the general public cannot have access to and through CBP.
However, TCE would like to see improved pedestrian and cycle access between the new railway station and the CBP, for both the occupiers and their customers/visitors. This should be identified and supported in the AAP. Potential options for improving access from CBP to the Station have been previously worked up by Scott Brownrigg and HED and are enclosed for information.
Landscaping
TCE also supports the inclusion of hard and soft landscaping with the AAP area. However, it should be noted that a comprehensive landscaping scheme within CBP has been implemented and this is a matter for TCE. It is worth mentioning that TCE are implementing a Sustainability Action Plan at CBP which includes improving the landscaping/green corridors, promoting biodiversity areas, promoting green travel and other such initiatives. TCE also broadly support the aspiration for a 'green boulevard' along Cowley Road, which would tie in well with the aforementioned initiatives.
See attached document
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30498
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridge City Council
The improved links with Cambridge Business Park are good but need improving by integrating with the wider CNFE.
The heavy goods vehicle access route is understandable but difficult to deliver as it serves other land owners not sit owner (City Council). The principle is supported if landowners can agree suitable terms and it can better serve B2/B8 uses.
This option should allow greater residential development: maximising the density; improving the sustainability aspects of the area; increasing the possibility of some employees not travelling to work by car, helping to meet the intended target of reducing car use by employees within the City. The odour footprint should be updated.
The Guided Busway makes it difficult to fully integrate the Nuffield Road and Trinity Hall Industrial Estates with the rest of the CNFE area. The multiple ownerships and legal interests make this challenging to deliver.
See attached document
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30543
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: R Richardson
The usual mess, more houses, more cars blocking an already problem area for cars on to the A14 or in to Cambridge.
The usual mess, more houses, more cars blocking an already problem area for cars on to the A14 or in to Cambridge.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30552
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Ian Tyes
Object to option 3.
- Cambs United Football Ground
- New road along side A14 to access site from the north.
- P&R like shuttle bus from Milton P&R.
- Left turn lanes on A14 / A10 roundabout bypassing roundabout.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30559
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Shirley Fieldhouse
Object to option 3.
See attached document
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30572
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Silke Scheler
Object.
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.
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.