Question 46

Showing comments and forms 1 to 10 of 10

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29298

Received: 10/12/2014

Respondent: Management Process Systems Limited

Representation Summary:

Sensible.

Full text:

Sensible.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29718

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

The early stages of the delivery of any 'masterplanning' scheme generally has a higher burden of infrastructure costs. The cost of bringing sufficient utility infrastructure (gas, water, electricity, telecoms and drainage) to the service the site is likely to be significant in terms of on-site and off-site upgrading of pipelines, sub stations etc. The delivery of the AAP needs to minimise the upfront infrastructure costs (utilities, highways, remediation etc.) associated with the early phases of the build out of the CNFE. Failure to do this could affect the overall deliverability of the CNFE.

Full text:

The early stages of the delivery of any 'masterplanning' scheme generally has a higher burden of infrastructure costs. The cost of bringing sufficient utility infrastructure (gas, water, electricity, telecoms and drainage) to the service the site is likely to be significant in terms of on-site and off-site upgrading of pipelines, sub stations etc. The delivery of the AAP needs to minimise the upfront infrastructure costs (utilities, highways, remediation etc.) associated with the early phases of the build out of the CNFE. Failure to do this could affect the overall deliverability of the CNFE.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29802

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Representation Summary:

The statements contained in paragraphs 10.1-10.5 are benign and contain little to object to but considerable further assessment is required to understand the infrastructure requirements and identify viable and appropriately phased funding streams

Full text:

The statements contained in paragraphs 10.1-10.5 are benign and contain little to object to but considerable further assessment is required to understand the infrastructure requirements and identify viable and appropriately phased funding streams

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29951

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation Summary:

Recommend addition of 'waste infrastructure' for consistency with the approach set out within the RECAP Waste Management Design Guide SPD(2012) which highlights the importance of designing in waste infrastructure at the outset to support a sustainable community.
Involve all elements of waste infrastructure and storage requirements for housing and businesses, right up to the Household Recycling Centre provision.

Although Para 10.5 states that infrastructure provision will be funded through a number of sources, we are still concerned that the viability of some of the options is still unclear, which questions the delivery of some of the proposals. Further clarification needed.

Full text:

We would recommend that 'waste infrastructure' is added to this section. The inclusion of waste would be consistent with the approach set out within the RECAP Waste Management Design Guide SPD (2012) which highlights the importance of designing in waste infrastructure at the outset to support a sustainable community. This would involve all elements of waste infrastructure and storage requirements for housing and businesses, right up to the Household Recycling Centre provision.

Furthermore, although Para 10.5 states that infrastructure provision will be funded through a number of sources, we are still concerned that the viability of some of the options is still unclear, which questions the delivery of some of the proposals. This needs to be clarified going forward.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30091

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management LLP

Agent: Beacon Planning

Representation Summary:

Provided obligations clearly set out and explained to ensure parity across the site and city-wide.

Full text:

Provided obligations clearly set out and explained to ensure parity across the site and city-wide.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30210

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Grosvenor Developments Limited

Agent: AECOM

Representation Summary:

Requires a more specific approach in particular with regard to the WWTW consolidation or relocation to maximise opportunity.

Full text:

Requires a more specific approach in particular with regard to the WWTW consolidation or relocation to maximise opportunity.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30296

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

Turnstone considers that the Council's general approach to infrastructure is broadly sound, and recognises the possibility of the need for the relocation of the aggregates rail head and the retention of the Water Recycling Centre (WRC), at least in part. Turnstone however believes that, should scope exist, then a relocation of the aggregates rail head away from the CNFE area would be desirable, and should not be ruled out.

Full text:

Turnstone considers that the Council's general approach to infrastructure is broadly sound, and recognises the possibility of the need for the relocation of the aggregates rail head and the retention of the Water Recycling Centre (WRC), at least in part. Turnstone however believes that, should scope exist, then a relocation of the aggregates rail head away from the CNFE area would be desirable, and should not be ruled out.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30534

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Representation Summary:

The CNFE is a bounded by key routes into and around Cambridge. The scale of development proposed here could potentially put significant pressure on these key routes if the infrastructure is not right in terms of approach and/or timing. This could affect not just the CNFE but existing traffic as well and so impact the objective to keep traffic to existing levels...

Full text:

See attached document

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30685

Received: 01/02/2015

Respondent: Ms Lisa Buchholz

Representation Summary:

Proper investigation needed into the adequacy of water supply in general for new developments such of this has been determined. This seems to be the elephant in the room on a lot of wider regional development.

Full text:

See attached document

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30687

Received: 27/01/2015

Respondent: Cllr Anna Bradnam

Representation Summary:

A road bridge across the railway should link to Fen Road, or the planned foot/cycle bridge should be extended to Fen Road giving access for Fen Road residents.

Full text:

1) Whilst I support the principle of regeneration of this site, the development of the new railway station and extension of the guided busway, I believe the Sewage Treatment Works should be moved elsewhere in order to permit a greater proportion of sustainable urban living than commercial and industrial premises. The opportunity should be taken to remove this source of odour from the north of Cambridge. It may be appropriate to develop commercial units on the northern part of the site, against the A14, to provide a sound and pollution barrier for the residents further south in the site.
2)There is an excess of industrial units un-let in and around Cambridge. I doubt that more industrial units on this site would be used. I feel there is more need for housing.
3) Whilst the aggregates railhead is required I believe road access should be provided by means of a westbound off-slip from the A14 and a westbound on-slip to the A14. Aggregates lorries should NOT travel via the Milton Road onto or off the CNFE site. Whatever the solution, aggregate lorries should be restricted to the northern fringe of the site, to separate them from domestic traffic and they should not travel into Cambridge on the Milton Road.
4) The Household Waste Recycling Centre should NOT be moved from Butt Lane to this valuable site. The operation at Butt Lane is required to be monitored for as many years as it takes for the waste to completely decompose, so there is no compelling reason to move the HWRC from Butt Lane to the CNFE area.
5)A road bridge across the railway should be provide access to the northern end of Fen Road. Alternatively, since a foot and cycle bridge is planned for the railway station, I suggest it should be extended across the tracks, with appropriate gates, to provide pedestrian and cycle access for the residents of Fen Road.