Question 22a

Showing comments and forms 1 to 13 of 13

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29512

Received: 23/01/2015

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Smith

Representation Summary:

When an area has been carefully considered at AAP level and facilities to support certain uses have been planned in, increasing residential uses at a later stage without the space for extra green areas, school places, parking, etc just leads to sub-standard development.

Full text:

When an area has been carefully considered at AAP level and facilities to support certain uses have been planned in, increasing residential uses at a later stage without the space for extra green areas, school places, parking, etc just leads to sub-standard development.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29556

Received: 23/01/2015

Respondent: Mrs Sasha Wilson

Representation Summary:

Don't understand the question

Full text:

Don't understand the question

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29664

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

The land has not yet been re-developed and it would be counter-productive to introduce restraints which would result in a loss of flexibility at this stage. Commercial buildings will not be constructed for commercial use without an inbuilt and inherently long lifespan for such a use. Alternative uses will not therefore be forthcoming and additional policy restraint is not necessary.

Full text:

The land has not yet been re-developed and it would be counter-productive to introduce restraints which would result in a loss of flexibility at this stage. Commercial buildings will not be constructed for commercial use without an inbuilt and inherently long lifespan for such a use. Alternative uses will not therefore be forthcoming and additional policy restraint is not necessary.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29771

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Representation Summary:

No Comment.

Full text:

No Comment.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29891

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation Summary:

Change of use from employment to residential use in a mixed use area could potentially give rise to issues if the property to be changed is in an area where amenity issues may subsequently arise. Removal of prior notification rights is therefore supported.

The employment land should be protected as employment uses. There can be conflicts with some business uses and residential and therefore the master plan will have considered this, allowing change of use may have the effect of pepper potting residential dwellings within established employment areas potentially leading to social isolation.

Full text:

Change of use from employment to residential use in a mixed use area could potentially give rise to issues if the property to be changed is in an area where amenity issues may subsequently arise. Removal of prior notification rights is therefore supported.

The employment land should be protected as employment uses. There can be conflicts with some business uses and residential and therefore the master plan will have considered this, allowing change of use may have the effect of pepper potting residential dwellings within established employment areas potentially leading to social isolation.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30017

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management LLP

Agent: Beacon Planning

Representation Summary:

AAP aims to create employment hub - this Option would allow piecemeal housing for which buildings not specifically designed and could lead to areas of isolated housing not compatible with in an employment area.

Full text:

AAP aims to create employment hub - this Option would allow piecemeal housing for which buildings not specifically designed and could lead to areas of isolated housing not compatible with in an employment area.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30152

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Grosvenor Developments

Agent: AECOM

Representation Summary:

No additional comment

Full text:

No additional comment

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30274

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

Yes, Turnstone do not consider there to be any particular reason for protecting employment uses beyond normal planning rules. It is considered that the market will determine what is appropriate over time, and it is not considered very likely that there will be any great pressure to achieve non-commercial uses on sites in the CNFE.

Full text:

Yes, Turnstone do not consider there to be any particular reason for protecting employment uses beyond normal planning rules. It is considered that the market will determine what is appropriate over time, and it is not considered very likely that there will be any great pressure to achieve non-commercial uses on sites in the CNFE.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30315

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Coulson Building Group

Representation Summary:

The market should decide.

Full text:

The market should decide.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30393

Received: 04/02/2015

Respondent: Milton Parish Council

Representation Summary:

When an area has been carefully considered at AAP level and facilities to support certain uses have been planned in, increasing residential uses at a later stage without the space for extra green areas, school places, parking, etc just leads to sub-standard development.

Full text:

See attached document

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30477

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

An option is included to include specific policies and potentially article 4 directions to protect office space in this area from conversion to residential use under new permitted development rights. TCE do not support this. There is currently a great deal of demand for employment uses and related business uses1 and further control is not necessary at this stage.

Full text:

See attached document

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30583

Received: 19/01/2015

Respondent: Silke Scheler

Representation Summary:

Yes.

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.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30623

Received: 03/02/2015

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

Representation Summary:

We object to Option A (reliance upon normal planning rules), as it is considered that the presence of significant constraints to residential development (primarily the odour levels in existence) and the objective of maximising employment development, means that it would be highly desirable for increased protective measures to prevent permitted change of use from office to residential or other uses.

Full text:

See attached document