Question 17

Please see attached documents for proposed building heights.

Let's be innovative and not constrained by policy.

The referenced documents aim to protect the existing skyline, which is a good thing.

English Heritage has raised objections the Tall Buildings and Skyline Policy in the local plan and will be seeking amendments to it through the current examination in public (see out letter of 30 Sept 2013). While it might be logical for the issue of tall buildings and skyline to be dealt with in accordance with the eventual policy that emerges from the examination in public, English Heritage believes it is premature to agree at this stage to dealing with this matter in accordance with policy as set out in the Submission version of the Local Plan.

I would prefer no buildings to be built higher than 6 storeys.

I would consider buildings higher than 6 storeys in this area to be excessive.

No higher than 6 storeys

Brookgate are in support of the principle that the CB4 site and all CNFE future phases should be based on a landscape and visual assessment and have regard of the Tall Buildings and Skyline Policy.

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 the case that developments within any Cambridge Northern Fringe AAP area will need to be in accordance with the policy within the Adopted Local Plan which is currently at Examination at present. Policy 60 of that Plan together with Appendix F provides the detailed policy context for the policy applicable to Tall Buildings and the Skyline. The guidance within the emerging Local Plan provides a robust set of criteria to assist in assessing the likely impact of a tall building or buildings but in short, it is the intention of the guidance to ensure that the overall character and the qualities of the Cambridge skyline should be maintained and where appropriate enhanced as the City continues to grow and develop. In the context of the opportunities afforded by the CNFE Plan area, it is considered that the applicability of all of the various criteria contained within the Local Plan policy is appropriate and that as one would expect, applicants will be expected to provide a clear justification for tall buildings within any submitted Design and Access Statement accompanying the application. In the case where the Councils acknowledge the potential of plot densification on the St John's College landholdings around the Innovation Park (and which has been the subject of separate responses to your questions raised) then it is the context of those buildings and the surrounding areas that will be key criteria in assessing the acceptability of building heights in that local area.

In terms of supporting an objection to the policy, it is clear that whatever policy emerges from the APP that it must be in accordance with the policy in the Adopted Plan.

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

We support the addition of tall buildings (over six storeys) on this site.

See attached [below]

17.1 Developments within any Cambridge Northern Fringe AAP area will need to be in accordance with the Adopted Local Plan, which is currently at Examination stage. Policy 60 and Appendix F of that Plan provide the detailed policy applicable to Tall Buildings and the Skyline. Guidance in the emerging Local Plan stipulates a robust set of criteria to assist in assessing the likely impact of a tall building or buildings: it seeks to ensure that the overall character and the qualities of the Cambridge skyline should be maintained and where appropriate enhanced as the City develops. Within the CNFE Plan area, we consider it appropriate for the Local Plan criteria to apply; applicants should be expected to provide a clear justification for tall buildings within any submitted Design and Access Statement. If the Councils acknowledge the potential of plot densification on and around the St John's Innovation Park (for which we argue throughout this submission) the acceptability of building heights in the area should be assessed in the context of existing structures and the nature
and use of surrounding areas.

17.2 Whatever policy emerges from the APP must be in accordance with the policy in the Adopted Plan.

Any proposals will need to take into account the requirements placed upon development by the Safeguarding Zone for Cambridge Airport (referral for 15m and above in this area). In addition to this consideration needs to be given to the views from taller buildings across existing and proposed mineral and waste development to avoid the need for additional / unnecessary screening and landscaping.

Support from an economic development perspective

Consideration of building heights should be part of a site specific masterplanning exercise and should take account of all the relevant considerations.

Bespoke approach to the area needs to be established within the AAP. We support higher density development in this location, responding to transport investment.

Yes, following the approach that will be taken in the Local Plan is sound and logical.

Option C. Cambridge has a strange aversion to tall buildings which can make much more efficient use of land and add a dramatic and eye catching aspect to a development. With the fens to the north tall buildings will not affect the view of Cambridge and will add a feature to the skyline.

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.