Question 17

Showing comments and forms 1 to 19 of 19

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29234

Received: 08/12/2014

Respondent: Ben Cofield

Representation Summary:

Please see attached documents for proposed building heights.

Full text:

Please see attached documents for proposed building heights.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29270

Received: 10/12/2014

Respondent: Management Process Systems Limited

Representation Summary:

Let's be innovative and not constrained by policy.

Full text:

Let's be innovative and not constrained by policy.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29324

Received: 16/12/2014

Respondent: Dr Roger Sewell

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29368

Received: 06/01/2015

Respondent: Historic England

Agent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29397

Received: 09/01/2015

Respondent: Ms Anne Swinney

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29549

Received: 23/01/2015

Respondent: Mrs Sasha Wilson

Representation Summary:

No higher than 6 storeys

Full text:

No higher than 6 storeys

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29657

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29741

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:

It is the context of the buildings and the surrounding areas that should be the key criteria of assessing the acceptability of building heights within the CNFE. A list of criteria would be appropriate to provide the policy context for development proposals coming forward.

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.

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.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29762

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

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29836

Received: 31/01/2015

Respondent: Cambridge Association of Architects

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29854

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: St John's Innovation Centre

Representation Summary:

Developments within CNFE AP area will need to be in accordance with Policy 60 and Appendix F of the Adopted Local Plan, which is currently at Examination stage.

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.

Full text:

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.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29881

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30002

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management LLP

Agent: Beacon Planning

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30143

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Grosvenor Developments Limited

Agent: AECOM

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30268

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30308

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Coulson Building Group

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30472

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

TCE supports the approach to tall buildings, in accordance with adopted Local Plan policies. TCE further supports the inclusion of additional policies relating to tall buildings in this location. However, this is on the basis that the policy wording is to the effect that the existing building form is taken into consideration.

Full text:

See attached document

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30503

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Representation Summary:

Support

Full text:

See attached document

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30577

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.