Question 28
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29248
Received: 08/12/2014
Respondent: Ben Cofield
As per my diagrams, I would rather see a mixture of high-quality Council housing and student accommodation, rather than affordable housing, although it would be possible to include both, however I feel to make developments as attractive as possible to developers, we need to allow them to make reasonable profits on extremely high quality buildings, not like the mess we have at CB1, which, including The Triangle, is a real mess and embarrassment to Cambridge.
As per my diagrams, I would rather see a mixture of high-quality Council housing and student accommodation, rather than affordable housing, although it would be possible to include both, however I feel to make developments as attractive as possible to developers, we need to allow them to make reasonable profits on extremely high quality buildings, not like the mess we have at CB1, which, including The Triangle, is a real mess and embarrassment to Cambridge.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29280
Received: 10/12/2014
Respondent: Management Process Systems Limited
Let the market function policy free.
Let the market function policy free.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29409
Received: 09/01/2015
Respondent: Ms Anne Swinney
Or even increase the amount to 50% affordable or more. Affordable = less than 4x average Cambridge salary.
Or even increase the amount to 50% affordable or more. Affordable = less than 4x average Cambridge salary.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29519
Received: 23/01/2015
Respondent: Mrs Hazel Smith
40% affordable housing should apply.
40% affordable housing should apply.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29568
Received: 23/01/2015
Respondent: Mrs Sasha Wilson
Yes and must be adhered to
Yes and must be adhered to
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29612
Received: 27/01/2015
Respondent: Cllr Anna Bradnam
40% affordable housing should be provided throughout the site.
40% affordable housing should be provided throughout the site.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29679
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Brookgate
Agent: Bidwells
Subject to viability testing the policy should be applied as proposed. The very heavy infrastructure costs and brownfield nature of the land with associated remediation costs must be recognised and viability is of key importance. Brookgate support the City Council's affordable housing requirements which offer a graduated approach to affordable provision which differentiates between different scales of development. South Cambridgeshire policy is less flexible. Consideration should however be given to PRS developments where a different approach may be required, such as discounted market rents, off-site contributions toward affordable housing provision etc
Subject to viability testing the policy should be applied as proposed. The very heavy infrastructure costs and brownfield nature of the land with associated remediation costs must be recognised and viability is of key importance. Brookgate support the City Council's affordable housing requirements which offer a graduated approach to affordable provision which differentiates between different scales of development. South Cambridgeshire policy is less flexible. Consideration should however be given to PRS developments where a different approach may be required, such as discounted market rents, off-site contributions toward affordable housing provision etc
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29787
Received: 30/01/2015
Respondent: CODE Development Planners Ltd
Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd
No comment.
No comment.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29907
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council
If housing (of any type) is to be provided it should be in a location where amenity issues from the Water Recycling Centre, aggregate railheads and existing and planned waste uses will not arise and / or can be satisfactorily mitigated.
Affordable housing requirements should be subject to viability and development will need to mitigate a range of services such as education and transport.
If housing (of any type) is to be provided it should be in a location where amenity issues from the Water Recycling Centre, aggregate railheads and existing and planned waste uses will not arise and / or can be satisfactorily mitigated.
Affordable housing requirements should be subject to viability and development will need to mitigate a range of services such as education and transport.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30174
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Grosvenor Developments
Agent: AECOM
Support subject to a detailed testing of viability to ensure delivery across a significant timeframe and meet the vision and objectives.
Support subject to a detailed testing of viability to ensure delivery across a significant timeframe and meet the vision and objectives.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30327
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Coulson Building Group
No comment.
No comment.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30400
Received: 04/02/2015
Respondent: Milton Parish Council
40% affordable housing should apply.
See attached document
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30515
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridge City Council
Support. The CNFE should be treated in the same way as any other development and this supports a more balanced community as well as housing located by employment use.
See attached document
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30595
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Silke Scheler
Yes.
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.