Question 16

Showing comments and forms 1 to 19 of 19

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29233

Received: 08/12/2014

Respondent: Ben Cofield

Representation Summary:

Please review attachments for my theories on densities.

Full text:

Please review attachments for my theories on densities.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29269

Received: 10/12/2014

Respondent: Management Process Systems Limited

Representation Summary:

Exploit the foot print capabilities through height.

Full text:

Exploit the foot print capabilities through height.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29323

Received: 16/12/2014

Respondent: Dr Roger Sewell

Representation Summary:

This is too vague and waffly, and gives too much scope for developers to profit by building excessively dense buildings. I would prefer something along the lines of "Densities should mirror those in other existing parts of Cambridge excluding e.g. the high density development around Woodhead Drive, and the ridiculous tall building at the junction of Hills Rd and Cherry Hinton Rd."

Full text:

This is too vague and waffly, and gives too much scope for developers to profit by building excessively dense buildings. I would prefer something along the lines of "Densities should mirror those in other existing parts of Cambridge excluding e.g. the high density development around Woodhead Drive, and the ridiculous tall building at the junction of Hills Rd and Cherry Hinton Rd."

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29396

Received: 09/01/2015

Respondent: Ms Anne Swinney

Representation Summary:

I support the higher density needed to enable more houses and employment opportunities. However, I am concerned about the impact on traffic.

Full text:

I support the higher density needed to enable more houses and employment opportunities. However, I am concerned about the impact on traffic.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29435

Received: 17/01/2015

Respondent: Nicky Morland

Representation Summary:

Current developments around Cambridge Station are too dense and high to be implemented in this area.

Full text:

Current developments around Cambridge Station are too dense and high to be implemented in this area.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29548

Received: 23/01/2015

Respondent: Mrs Sasha Wilson

Representation Summary:

Against tall buildings so against multi-storey

Full text:

Against tall buildings so against multi-storey

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29608

Received: 27/01/2015

Respondent: Cllr Anna Bradnam

Representation Summary:

I object to the proposal because it uses such ridiculous language and defines nothing. I quote, "The overall densities to be provided following a design-led approach reflecting the sustainable location and especially around the proposed new railway station interchange. The required density for employment and residential uses on a given site will need to have regard to its wider context, demand and supply consideration, viability and other policies of this plan.
Does this mean - We'll think about what is needed and appropriate, and build accordingly?

Full text:

I object to the proposal because it uses such ridiculous language and defines nothing. I quote, "The overall densities to be provided following a design-led approach reflecting the sustainable location and especially around the proposed new railway station interchange. The required density for employment and residential uses on a given site will need to have regard to its wider context, demand and supply consideration, viability and other policies of this plan.
Does this mean - We'll think about what is needed and appropriate, and build accordingly?

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29656

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

Brookgate support the proposed design-led approach on densities.

Full text:

Brookgate support the proposed design-led approach on densities.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29740

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: The Master Fellows and Scholars of the College of Saint John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge

Agent: Savills

Representation Summary:

We support an approach which provides a design led approach reflecting the different land uses and viabilities within the CNFE.

Full text:

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.

The proposed approach within the Plan is to provide a design-led approach which reflects the location within the City having regard to the different land uses, viability and other policies of the Plan. In this context, we support the Council's approach which does not seek to impose general densities across sites since there are many determining factors which affect density and these should be left to the design stage. The example of the Science Park and the application of percentage coverage figures as well as densities has been rejected more recently for a more sensible design led approach which looks critically at the site and its surroundings rather than applying a general density across a large site.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29761

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Representation Summary:

It is not appropriate to try and set design standards, including building heights and densities, before understanding the types of use and the quantum of each use that would be required to make the site deliverable / viable. It is accepted that the Draft Local Plan policies should form the baseline for the development of AAP specific policies.

Full text:

It is not appropriate to try and set design standards, including building heights and densities, before understanding the types of use and the quantum of each use that would be required to make the site deliverable / viable. It is accepted that the Draft Local Plan policies should form the baseline for the development of AAP specific policies.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29853

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: St John's Innovation Centre

Representation Summary:

The Plan proposes a design-led approach consistent with location, different land uses, viability and other policies. We support the Councils' approach, which does not seek to impose general densities across sites with numerous disparate factors affecting density, which should be left to the design stage. At the Science Park, the application of percentage coverage figures and densities has been rejected recently in favour of a more sensible design-led approach, which looks critically at the site and its surroundings rather than applying a general density across a large site.

Full text:

The Plan proposes a design-led approach consistent with location, different land uses, viability and other policies. We support the Councils' approach, which does not seek to impose general densities across sites with numerous disparate factors affecting density, which should be left to the design stage. At the Science Park, the application of percentage coverage figures and densities has been rejected recently in favour of a more sensible design-led approach, which looks critically at the site and its surroundings rather than applying a general density across a large site.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29880

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation Summary:

Support from an economic development perspective

Full text:

Support from an economic development perspective

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29999

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management LLP

Agent: Beacon Planning

Representation Summary:

Design led approach supported.

Full text:

Design led approach supported.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30142

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Grosvenor Developments Limited

Agent: AECOM

Representation Summary:

We support the high density approach to respond to the transportation investment. A bespoke approach is required to respond to the particular conditions, within and adjoining the site.

Full text:

We support the high density approach to respond to the transportation investment. A bespoke approach is required to respond to the particular conditions, within and adjoining the site.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30267

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

No, whilst Turnstone consider that there is plainly scope for higher density development on the CNFE site, for reasons that are stated, it objects to the assertion that this is "especially around the proposed new railway station interchange". There is simply no logic to this assertion and the 'arrival' at this new station is wholly unlike the arrival one would expect or anticipate having at the Central Cambridge train station where the CB1 development is emerging.

Full text:

No, whilst Turnstone consider that there is plainly scope for higher density development on the CNFE site, for reasons that are stated, it objects to the assertion that this is "especially around the proposed new railway station interchange". There is simply no logic to this assertion and the 'arrival' at this new station is wholly unlike the arrival one would expect or anticipate having at the Central Cambridge train station where the CB1 development is emerging. In response to other questions, we have raised the point that the station site is in fact very peripheral within the CNFE area; this does not indicate in our mind that there should be a focus of taller or denser development in this location. Rather, development should 'scale up' from this location into the interior of the site where it juxtaposes with pre-existing large scale commercial buildings. It is in these locations, with strong and well-defined connections and links to the station area, where greatest density should occur.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30307

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Coulson Building Group

Representation Summary:

Seems OK.

Full text:

Seems OK.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30471

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

TCE supports the approach on densities subject to consideration of access and impact on existing uses and the existing townscape.

Full text:

See attached document

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30502

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Representation Summary:

Support. It is important to optimise density in City like Cambridge given the pressures on land and desire to reduce travel. This is not a City centre location though and so although density should be high, it should reflect the surrounding edge of city location, allowing for things such as open space and cycle/pedestrian routes to reflect contemporary provision in these respects.

Full text:

See attached document

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30576

Received: 19/01/2015

Respondent: Silke Scheler

Representation Summary:

No clear explanations, which means meaning will be defined later.

Full text:

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.