Question 13

No need for this for now, we can provide all the housing we need at Cambridge North and Fen Meadows, but can look at relocation in 7+ years' time, or even 15+ years' time. It is not necessary with the plan I have attached.

Let's think strategically and holistically.

I strongly object to moving the sewage works to a different site, for the following reasons:
a) Huge investment has already been made into the existing site - not only in the site itself but into all the piping connections to and from the site; and
b) Moving it would be likely to use up good greenfield site elsewhere, and destroying greenfield with a sewage works is every bit as bad as destroying it with buildings.

See attached document

Options 2, 3 and 4 show heavy goods vehicle access through the middle of my property. With the planned expansion of public transport as part of the City Deal, how do you propose we achieve this without a bus depot?
If we are to be relocated who pays for the building for the new bus depot?

This seems to maximise housing provision and open spaces and is therefore my preferred option.

If option 4 is not possible due to the difficulties of re-siting the waste management facility, then this is the second best option in my opinion.

This would allow the area to be looked at/redeveloped properly without any restrictions.

Support for Questions 7A, 10 and 11. Object to Questions 12 and 13.

See attached document.

See attached document

Partsof only

The Parish Council objects to Option 4 due to the lack of clarity on the location of a new sewage works.

Marshall Group Properties Ltd objects to Redevelopment Option 4 on the basis it assumes relocation of the sewage treatment works.

Our view at the present time is that this is unproven, and until such time as a feasible site has been identified and has a real prospect of delivery, the AAP should not assume further land can be made available for development.

This is supported by text include in the submission Local Plans for both Cambridge City (Policy
14) and South Cambridgeshire (Policy SS/4). This states:
"Exploration of the viability and feasibility of development of the Waste Water Treatment Works within Cambridge City to provide a new treatment works facility at a smaller scale on the current site will be undertaken as part of the feasibility investigations in drawing up the AAP."

The implication here is that when defining any policy in the AAP it will be necessary to fully understand the implications.

Equally, under the requirements of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive, the full policy implications of any decision to rationalise or relocate the sewage works would need to be taken into account including, for example, impacts arising at any alternative locations proposed.

Brookgate have serious concerns regarding the viability and deliverability of Option 4, which is entirely reliant upon the relocation of the Water Recycling Centre offsite. The viability of this relocation is unknown and there are significant technical, financial and operational constraints. Furthermore, an alternative site has not been identified. The proposed mix of land uses is unbalanced and Option 4 will not facilitate early delivery. Due to some parts of the site coming forward later, piecemeal development would be likely to occur, contrary to the proposed CNFE vison of a comprehensively planned area.

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.

Redevelopment Option 4 as put forwarded within the Plan is based on the assumption that Anglian Water will choose to relocate the whole of the Water Recycling Centre off site. In this context, it is noted that an alternative site has not been identified. We are aware that an alternative site was mooted many years ago but there were significant objections raised in terns of the chosen relocation of the site in addition to other infrastructural concerns that related to logistical and technical matters..

However, in the event that such an Option is pursued, the opportunity afforded by the relocation means that rather than having a constraining land use which has an impact on the nature, scale and type of surrounding land uses, it means that a more comprehensive view can be taken on appropriate development proposals. It remains the case that the CNFE is appropriately identified for largely employment uses with the more residential themes being located in and around any new railway station. The St John's College land around the Innovation Park has been identified within this Option for further development in the context of plot densification. In the circumstances where the Cambridge Business Park has been specifically identified for such a policy approach in this option 4, then it is entirely appropriate that the College land is also included. Certainly there is no difference in terms of the ability of this site to accommodate additional employment floorspace and therefore this should be made clear if this option is to be pursued. To this end we fail to understand why the Innovation Park is not included for plot intensification in Options 1 and 2.

Additionally within Option 4, the proposed household waste recycling centre and inert recycling facility has now been positioned in the north-western corner of the former AW site which means it is adjacent to the Vitrium Building on the Innovation Park. In the absence of a clear definition of what the actual facility is going to look like and indeed its specific functions, it is assumed that the facility is in effect a relocation of the existing facility at Butt Lane in Milton. In the instances where new technology and the policy requirement is for a covered facility, we cannot see how such a use given the nature of the activity and the characteristics of such a centre are compatible with adjacent B1 offices and research and development uses on one of the most important research parks in this part of Cambridge. The location of such a facility in close proximity to the College's land holdings does not make for proper planning and this is especially the case when alternative locations exist across the whole of the land area within the CNFE. Indeed, this option as well as the other options acknowledge that alternative locations exist and in the situation where there is a well established clean, commercial area, it makes no sense in our view to locate such a use adjacent to the existing commercial uses.

Consequently, we object to Option 4.

The relocation 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 a key asset in an area of population growth when there is no clear and deliverable plan on the relocation of this essential infrastructure asset.
The Waste Water Recycling Centre which is identified for redevelopment 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 how long they will take to be implemented, given that many have not reached a final design stage.
The development outcome would be for 630 dwellings in an area which would provide for 27,600 jobs. This is not considered to be a sustainable balance of homes to jobs.

The Water Recycling Centre is a blight on the area and its surroundings. Relocating it would be the best possible outcome. However I would be concerned if attempting this meant it took longer to improve the area nearer the station.

Evidence has not been provided to illustrate that moving the Water Recycling Centre is financially viable. If this evidence were provided, we would support the proposal for a mixed use site, with more housing meeting the Cities objectives - subject to the issues raised in our 'overarching concerns' about connectivity being addressed. There could be more residential included in this option. Our comments on options three about design of the residential area also relate to this option.The current zonal planning of the residential areas as shown on the plan need a more detailed urban design framework.

See attached [below]

13.1 Redevelopment Option 4 as put forwarded within the Plan is based on the assumption that Anglian Water will choose to relocate the whole of the Water Recycling Centre off site. We note that an alternative site has not been identified.

13.2 However, if relocation is undertaken, it means that rather than having a major constraining activity affecting the nature and scale of surrounding land uses, a more comprehensive view can be taken on appropriate development proposals. CNFE is rightly identified largely for employment uses, with the more residential themes being located in and around any new railway station. Land in and around the St John's Innovation Park has been identified within this Option for further development by way of plot densification. Since the Cambridge Business Park has been specifically identified for such a policy approach, it is entirely appropriate that the St John's Innovation Park is equally identified. No meaningful difference arises between the two sites in terms of their ability to accommodate additional employment floorspace.

13.3 Furthermore, the proposed household waste recycling centre/inert recycling facility has been positioned in the north-western corner of the (former) Anglia Water site, adjacent to the Vitrum Building on the St John's Innovation Park. In the absence clarity on the functions and appearance of the facility, we assume that it is in effect a relocation of the existing facility at Butt Lane in Milton. We cannot see how such a use is compatible with adjacent B1 offices and research and development uses on one of the most important research parks in Cambridge. Alternative locations exist across the land area within the CNFE.

13.4 We therefore object to Option 4 until these issues are suitably addressed.

All options will require more detailed transport assessment work to understand the transport implications, across all modes, of the proposals including their interrelationship with emerging proposals under development by the County Council as part of the City Deal programme. Although this is true of all options, this is particularly the case for those that propose higher levels of development which might require significant transport intervention, over and above existing investment plans, to ensure that transport impacts are not severe. This applies to both the local networks (walk, cycle, bus, and highway) and also the strategic road (ie. Highways Agency) and rail
(ie: Network Rail} networks.

The retention of the strategic aggregate railhead is supported. It's relocation onto land which is currently on the eastern side of the Water Recycling Centre would be consistent with the allocation for a new Transport Zone made by the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan.

The inclusion of an indicative location for the new Household Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility is also supported, together with the caveat that gives the flexibility for this to be located on alternative 82, 88 or sui generis land in the vicinity of Cowley Road.

It is noted that the Veolia Waste Transfer Station site would be redeveloped. This site is safeguarded through the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan, but scope exists for this use to be accommodated on other land proposed for 82, 88 and sui generis uses.

The existing inert waste recycling centre within the curtilage of the Water Recycling Centre would be displaced under this Option. This existing facility is time limited but lies within an allocated Area of Search for a permanent site for such a use (allocated by the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan). There may also be an opportunity for it to be accommodated within the proposed new areas for B2, B8 and Sui Generis uses.

The provision made for the temporary storage of aggregates for the improvement of the A14 is supported. A temporary facility in this location (with time restricted access directly on to the A14) will assist in the efficient movement of mineral for the scheme.

The provision of new heavy goods vehicle access and the new north-south route is supported; this will enable traffic movements associated with the railheads, waste management and other 82, 88 and sui generis uses to be separate from Cowley Road which will be subject to additional use by station and other users.

Option 4 is dependant upon the relocation of the Water Recycling Centre. As Anglian Water has no operational need to make such a change and their shareholders will not bear the costs of doing so, for this to take place a viable financial arrangement would need to be in place, potentially involving other land owners/developers in the wider CNFE.

The Employment Options Study (October 2014) sets out the results of the high level financial appraisal of the 4 development options. In the case the Option 4 (Maximum Development) the appraisal demonstrates that the development will deliver a surplus, after acquisition costs, of £354,6601gross acre (£21,988,933). Whilst this option generates a surplus this is less than 1 0% of the gross development value and consequently the viability could be considered marginal. A range of sensitivity tests were applied to consider variations to Option 4, e.g. increasing sales values, share of residential floor space or storey heights. Only the "Values up 1 0%" variant made positive impact on viability.

The relocation of the Water Recycling Centre has been considered in the past, if it is to be demonstrated at Examination that this Option is feasible evidence needs to be presented to show that a site(s) which meets Policy CS17 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy is deliverable in principle. It is suggested that this could be pursued through a bespoke study which considers potential sites against the criteria of the Policy and other relevant constraints.

The redevelopment of the Station car park following provision of a new multi-storey car park is noted. The new multi-storey car park lies in South Cambridgeshire, and if the County Council were not the developer a planning application for this use would need to be submitted to South Cambridgeshire District Council as it will not be a County Council development.

To conclude, Option 4 is not supported due to the significant viability concerns, previous experience of the difficulties of trying to move water recycling centres, concern that subsidy would be needed to move the water recycling centre and the highlighted concerns about the transport impacts.

See attached document

See attached document

Object to indicative location of Household Recycling Centre - which should be located further to the east within B2/B8 uses not adjacent to Offices/R&D

The lack of information about traffic and junction layout does not allow an assessment to be made about the impact on existing businesses.

Support removal of WWTW and proposed B1/R&D uses opposite St Johns Innovation Centre.

I object to both options 3 and 4 . I believe that it would not be a wise move to relocate the Water Recycling Centre and it would appear that no other site has been put forward to replace it.

This provides for an exacerbated imbalance between residential and employment uses and coupled with the focus on industrial and storage development will not lead to the successful regeneration of the wider area. Transport investment not exploited.

Appropriate scale of urban living not supported.

Sub-optimal (unviable) land uses provided on valuable site provided by WWTW relocation.

The new condition created and inappropriate emphasis of B2/B8 uses within City boundary does not maximise the opportunity created by the complete re-location of the WWTW.

All the options fail to consider pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users, including disabled on buses, by placing a Multi-storey carpark right next to the station. This replicates the horrendous conditions at Cambridge railway station where vehicles pick up and deposit people just a couple of metres from the front door, creating a fume-filled and dangerous approach, frequently gridlocked and preventing buses from completing a turning round a small roundabout. This delays the buses from arriving at their stops, delays the public travelling on them and makes it the poor relation.

The carpark should be sited a minimum of 100 metres away - a covered walkway could be provided, if one is also provided from public transport users - but priority must be given to pedestrians and users of public transport (excludes taxis). Similarly, a taxi rank should not be any closer than 100 metres to allow space for ordinary and guided buses.

One would hope that after so much publicity cyclists would be considered too and allowed a traffic free approach where the interaction with LGVs/buses is eliminated. This is the chance to prevent the distressing and needless deaths one sees so often in London and the cities.

There are no strong preferences on the options but the overarching objective to create a transformative gateway with a strong employment focus should remain consistent. Option 4 (Maximum Level of Redevelopment) is likely to encounter more delivery risks associated with the potential relocation of the WRC (identifying a site, funding and timing)and this could impede the overall development.

Ridgeons do not object to the principle of redevelopment set out within the AAP. Ridgeons however occupy a 1.9ha site that falls within the designated area. The site is identified for redevelopment. Ridgeons have confirmed that the site could only be released early from the terms of the lease if a replacement location for a Builder's Merchant store could be secured. More details are provided within the attached statement.

Montagu Evans has been instructed by Stagecoach to prepare representations to the above consultation. Stagecoach operates a bus depot located within the Cambridge Northern Fringe East area which is identified on the attached site location plan.

The bus depot forms a key facility for Stagecoach, used as premises for the maintenance and repair of buses and bus parking.

The loss of the bus depot would seriously inhibit Stagecoach's ability to operate a bus service. Clearly this would cause a significance and long term impact on the provision of bus services for the local and wider community.

Stagecoach has considerable concerns about the ability to identify an alternative site that is suitable for bus depot use within Cambridge.

Therefore, Stagecoach's preferred option is option 1 : The lower level of redevelopment. This allocates the area occupied by Stagecoach as an existing industrial and sui generis use (bus depots fall into the latter category).

Conversely, the options 2 ,3 and 4 identify the area currently occupied by the Stagecoach Depot as areas for proposed industry, storage and sui generis uses. Stagecoach does not support any of these options, as they potentially result in the loss of the bus depot with site identified for re-provision.

Any adopted policy for the Cambridge Northern Fringe East area must acknowledge the presence and importance of the Stagecoach Bus Depot and any polices for this area must allow for its retention or must be contingent upon the identification of a suitable and deliverable relocation site. Without such provision, this would seriously impact on the ability of Stagecoach to operate a bus service serving Cambridge and surrounding rural areas which would have major implications for the delivery of a sustainable transport strategy in Cambridge and surrounding rural areas.

I hope that this representation is helpful and Stagecoach looks forward to further engaging with the Council as the policy develops. Please ensure that I am added to your consultation database. If in the meantime you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me on the details below.

We absolutely support the proposals for the CNFE area as included in option 4 as we believe the density has to be maximised in order to make the development as efficient as possible. We also support the associated need to relocate the water recycling centre and in principle any general improvement to the treatment works.