Question 21

Whilst I agree there should be considerable leisure activities, I believe that Cambridge North should be a destination for everyone in Cambridge, to give us more activities/areas to choose from, and therefore should be diverse and inclusive. I would hope that room could be found for an ice rink/venue, similar to the National Ice Centre in Nottingham. We could have larger acts than we do at the Corn Exchange (and people could come here from Kings Lynn/Norwich/Audley End etc), provide a leisure facility to be enjoyed by people throughout the city and beyond, and could even have a small cinema here too. Please do not think of just local amenities - THINK BIG! Coupled with the new square and pedestrianised boulevard, we could have a really exciting destination for locals and people from the wider region.

Laudable.

Appropriate given the context.

Good idea

Appropriate for the area, anything more would impact on neighbourhood significantly

Share social space with green spaces especially

Brookgate support the provision of a local centre to provide shared social space. It should be of a sufficient size to provide a range of facilities and services and the proposed approach should make it clear that the centre is to serve CNFE businesses and residents. A local centre will increase the attractiveness of the area to business and residents and will significantly enhance the sustainability of the CNFE, reducing the need to travel from the area to access such facilities whilst fostering a strong new mixed use neighbourhood.

Shared social spaces contribute to open innovation. It is highly questionable if an atmosphere of social interaction and open innovation could be fostered at a site which is heavily constrained through noise, odour, insects, vibration and HGV traffic.
Open Innovation has become the 'best practice' approach to product and service development for R&D intensive businesses over the last ten years and Cambridge has become a global magnet for this activity, because of the opportunity to work alongside such outstanding research and R&D activity.
Not the only but the most recent and perhaps most notable example of the approach as it applies to Cambridge has emerged since the Draft Local Plans' evidence base was prepared. Astra Zeneca's announcement of a relocation of its HQ (2,000 employees) to the Cambridge Bio-medical Campus reinforces the substantial impact the 'open innovation' approach is having on Cambridge's R&D sector. The immediate further interest and commitment from other companies and organisations preparing to develop new operations on the immediately adjacent land at CBC and the allocated CBC Phase 2 is testament to the impact of the approach.

Support but the viability of such leisure/social facilities may depend on which option/mix of options is selected and the pace of re-development.

The concept of shared space is to be encouraged. The new community including businesses should be consulted on what type of shared space they would like.

Will provide valuable on site facilities.

Greater potential here could be created by increased residential provision. The approach does not recognise that the local centre with shops and services could have an important role in serving the new residential community. It is currently stated that this is "primarily for the needs of the workers in the area".

Turnstone supports the approach taken on this issue.

No comment.

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.