Question 42

Showing comments and forms 1 to 15 of 15

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29293

Received: 10/12/2014

Respondent: Management Process Systems Limited

Representation Summary:

It has to be done to protect the future

Full text:

It has to be done to protect the future

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29477

Received: 20/01/2015

Respondent: Mr Tom McKeown

Representation Summary:

It would be irresponsible to ignore energy efficiency and generation with new buildings.

Full text:

It would be irresponsible to ignore energy efficiency and generation with new buildings.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29529

Received: 23/01/2015

Respondent: Cllr Hazel Smith

Representation Summary:

Some sort of CHP plant may be appropriate.

1.b.Municipal organic waste processing could be a very antisocial neighbour. Milton currently suffers from smells from putrified organic waste in landfill, and we would not wish this area to be a dumping ground for antisocial industrial processes - put these away from residential areas.

Full text:

Some sort of CHP plant may be appropriate.

1.b.Municipal organic waste processing could be a very antisocial neighbour. Milton currently suffers from smells from putrified organic waste in landfill, and we would not wish this area to be a dumping ground for antisocial industrial processes - put these away from residential areas.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29582

Received: 23/01/2015

Respondent: Mrs Sasha Wilson

Representation Summary:

This has to be done

Full text:

This has to be done

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29624

Received: 27/01/2015

Respondent: Cllr Anna Bradnam

Representation Summary:

I would not support anaerobic digestion facilities (option B) as these can be very smelly.
I would support every building being roofed with having integral solar PV generation tiles, high quality insulation and double glazing.

Full text:

I would not support anaerobic digestion facilities (option B) as these can be very smelly.
I would support every building being roofed with having integral solar PV generation tiles, high quality insulation and double glazing.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29714

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

Developments should be required to meet the current Building Regulations standards at the point of delivering the development. The removal of the requirement to achieve a 10% reduction due to LZC's/passive solar design is however welcome. It would be useful to clarify what is meant by suitable LZC's for the area. All technologies should be technically and economically viable.

Full text:

Developments should be required to meet the current Building Regulations standards at the point of delivering the development. The removal of the requirement to achieve a 10% reduction due to LZC's/passive solar design is however welcome. It would be useful to clarify what is meant by suitable LZC's for the area. All technologies should be technically and economically viable.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29947

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation Summary:

The requirement for new waste management processing facilities to carry out a feasibility study for the potential for anaerobic digestion is onerous and inappropriate. The waste management uses proposed for this area through the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Plan are a Household Recycling Centre (dealing with bulky household waste items) and a permanent inert waste recycling facility; neither of these facilities would be treating organic municipal waste. The only suitable location for anaerobic digestion would appear to be the Water Recycling Centre where sludge treatment works, involving the importation of sludge from elsewhere, is already in place.

Full text:

The requirement for new waste management processing facilities to carry out a feasibility study for the potential for anaerobic digestion is onerous and inappropriate. The waste management uses proposed for this area through the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Plan are a Household Recycling Centre (dealing with bulky household waste items) and a permanent inert waste recycling facility; neither of these facilities would be treating organic municipal waste. As part of the Waste Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract with AmeyCespa arrangements are already in place for the treatment of municipal organic waste until 2036, which means that this aspiration is unlikely to be deliverable. In order for an anaerobic digestion facility to be viable a significant quantity of organic waste would be required, a municipal waste contract is likely to be needed to give surety of supply before other sources of waste are secured. Such a facility would also give rise to additional HCV movements and potentially amenity issues, depending on access arrangements and the location of the facility. The only suitable location for anaerobic digestion would appear to be the Water Recycling Centre where sludge treatment works, involving the importation of sludge from elsewhere, is already in place.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30086

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management LLP

Agent: Beacon Planning

Representation Summary:

Site wide provision of energy generation gives economies of scale, but needs careful consideration re technologies promoted to ensure no adverse impacts. Whilst anaerobic digester suggested for waste industries, such technologies must fit with surrounding uses.

Full text:

Site wide provision of energy generation gives economies of scale, but needs careful consideration re technologies promoted to ensure no adverse impacts. Whilst anaerobic digester suggested for waste industries, such technologies must fit with surrounding uses.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30208

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Grosvenor Developments Limited

Agent: AECOM

Representation Summary:

Support approach but object to anaerobic digestion in this location due to potential impacts on quality of new community and amenity.

Full text:

Support approach but object to anaerobic digestion in this location due to potential impacts on quality of new community and amenity.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30294

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

Turnstone considers that the principle of area based approach towards renewables and low carbon energy generation is worthy of further consideration. However, much will depend on the manner in which the CNFE development as a whole is delivered, by whom and over what timescale. There is no reason why the AAP should not reference the potential desirability of such an approach, however, it may be inappropriate to be overly prescriptive on this particular issue.

Full text:

Turnstone considers that the principle of area based approach towards renewables and low carbon energy generation is worthy of further consideration. However, much will depend on the manner in which the CNFE development as a whole is delivered, by whom and over what timescale. There is no reason why the AAP should not reference the potential desirability of such an approach, however, it may be inappropriate to be overly prescriptive on this particular issue.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30352

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Coulson Building Group

Representation Summary:

These types of schemes need encouragement.

Full text:

These types of schemes need encouragement.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30410

Received: 04/02/2015

Respondent: Milton Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Some sort of CHP plant may be appropriate.
1.b.Municipal organic waste processing could be a very antisocial neighbour. Milton currently suffers from smells from putrefied organic waste in landfill, and we would not wish this area to be a dumping ground for antisocial industrial processes - put these away from residential areas.

Full text:

See attached document

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30420

Received: 29/01/2015

Respondent: Natural England

Representation Summary:

We welcome proposals to develop policies for renewable and low carbon energy generation and sustainable design and construction. We advise that these should be worded to ensure benefits for the natural environment are maximised.

Full text:

See attached document

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30529

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Representation Summary:

It is agreed that the CNFE may present opportunities for a site wide approach to renewable and low carbon generation. It may be that this is not completely site wide but it should certainly be considered for substantial areas, for example, combined heat and power plants. While phasing may be challenging in terms of capacity in the early stages, consideration to such provision should be made.
With regard to waste processing facilities, further work in this respect would be supported.

Full text:

See attached document

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30612

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.