Question 47a

Showing comments and forms 1 to 8 of 8

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29719

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

Brookgate agree the multiple ownership of the CNFE will result in phased development. The Chesterton Partnership can deliver CB4 at an early stage, allowing Phase 1 to constitute the largest possible area. The ability for individual phases to come forward with their own masterplan is supported, however requiring contributions to meet the needs of development at all stages of implementation is overly onerous.

Full text:

Brookgate agree the multiple ownership of the CNFE will result in phased development. The Chesterton Partnership can deliver CB4 at an early stage, allowing Phase 1 to constitute the largest possible area. The ability for individual phases to come forward with their own masterplan is supported, however requiring contributions to meet the needs of development at all stages of implementation is overly onerous.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29803

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Representation Summary:

The Council need to take ownership for the delivery of the AAP site and provide clear guidelines on how the necessary infrastructure will be funded and delivered.

Full text:

The Council need to take ownership for the delivery of the AAP site and provide clear guidelines on how the necessary infrastructure will be funded and delivered.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29952

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation Summary:

Option A is realistic as it accepts that development will come forward in the different areas of the CNFE at different times. This is particularly the case if Options 3 or 4 were pursued, both of which foresee major changes to the Water Recycling Centre. These options are dependent upon a viable financial arrangement being in place, and may take a considerable time to deliver.

Full text:

Option A is realistic as it accepts that development will come forward in the different areas of the CNFE at different times. This is particularly the case if Options 3 or 4 were pursued, both of which foresee major changes to the Water Recycling Centre. These options are dependent upon a viable financial arrangement being in place, and may take a considerable time to deliver.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30093

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management LLP

Agent: Beacon Planning

Representation Summary:

More direct and provides clarity at early stage.

Full text:

More direct and provides clarity at early stage.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30211

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Grosvenor Developments Limited

Agent: AECOM

Representation Summary:

No additional comment

Full text:

No additional comment

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30353

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Coulson Building Group

Representation Summary:

I support Option B.

Full text:

I support Option B.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30373

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future

Representation Summary:

This option will create ad-hoc development picking the best development options for the early phase and leaving less viable options for later phases.

Full text:

This option will create ad-hoc development picking the best development options for the early phase and leaving less viable options for later phases.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30614

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.