Question 18c

Showing comments and forms 1 to 18 of 18

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29237

Received: 08/12/2014

Respondent: Ben Cofield

Representation Summary:

As high as possible in this extremely well-connected area. If there is anywhere in the UK to build high, it is here.

Full text:

If there was ever an area in the UK where large-scale development should take place, it is here. Adjacent to A10, A14, 2 minutes to M11/A428, 15 minutes on bus to city centre, on the guided bus, 50 minutes by train to London, and on the river with excellent cycle tracks. We should build as tall as possible. If someone wants to build a 400m tall building, let them, it will become a feature of Cambridge and show how progressive we are, being far enough out of the centre to have no impact on views there, plus would make the whole of Cambridge North a real destination. I have put in up to 25 storeys on my diagram as I believe this would be extremely viable.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29271

Received: 10/12/2014

Respondent: Management Process Systems Limited

Representation Summary:

Be innovative.

Full text:

Be innovative.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29327

Received: 16/12/2014

Respondent: Dr Roger Sewell

Representation Summary:

Removing restrictions on building heights would create a free-for-all for developers interested only in their own financial gain, and hence result in the destruction of the character of the area currently typified by the Science Park.

Full text:

Removing restrictions on building heights would create a free-for-all for developers interested only in their own financial gain, and hence result in the destruction of the character of the area currently typified by the Science Park.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29371

Received: 06/01/2015

Respondent: Historic England

Agent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

Unfortunately there is no evidence base included with the document to explain the impact that the varying heights of buildings might have on designated heritage assets to the south west, south and east of this site. Without a robust evidence base that clearly demonstrates the impact of buildings of varying heights, English Heritage could not support dealing with bulding heights and skyline in the manner set out in Option C.

Full text:

Unfortunately there is no evidence base included with the document to explain the impact that the varying heights of buildings might have on designated heritage assets to the south west, south and east of this site. Without a robust evidence base that clearly demonstrates the impact of buildings of varying heights, English Heritage could not support dealing with bulding heights and skyline in the manner set out in Option C.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29399

Received: 09/01/2015

Respondent: Ms Anne Swinney

Representation Summary:

Presumably this would allow very tall buildings to be built which I do not favour.

Full text:

Presumably this would allow very tall buildings to be built which I do not favour.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29438

Received: 17/01/2015

Respondent: Nicky Morland

Representation Summary:

Agree with previous comment
Removing restrictions on building heights would create a free-for-all for developers interested only in their own financial gain, and hence result in the destruction of the character of the area currently typified by the Science Park.

Full text:

Agree with previous comment
Removing restrictions on building heights would create a free-for-all for developers interested only in their own financial gain, and hence result in the destruction of the character of the area currently typified by the Science Park.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29550

Received: 23/01/2015

Respondent: Mrs Sasha Wilson

Representation Summary:

Round the station taller buildings will reduce sunlight for buildings further south and west

Full text:

Round the station taller buildings will reduce sunlight for buildings further south and west

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29627

Received: 27/01/2015

Respondent: Marshall Group of Companies

Representation Summary:

Building heights in Option A (heights up to 16m) may be acceptable, but Options B (heights up to 24m) and C (including "significantly taller forms of development") in particular have potential to cause conflicts with safe airport and aircraft operations. In order to ensure that any development principles established through the AAP are deliverable and compatible with the safe operation of the airport, Marshall Group requests that the joint Councils (or any prospective developer) engages early with the Airport to ensure any building heights proposed are compatible with airport operations, including the operation of cranes throughout the development.

Full text:

These comments are provided on behalf of Marshall Group, which includes Cambridge International Airport. We understand that the area defined as Cambridge Northern Fringe East (CNFE) is located between the A14 to the North, the A10 Milton Road to the West, the Cambridge to Kings Lynn railway line to the east, and residential areas of Chesterton to the south. We also note that the consultation document seeks views on the potential to extend the boundary to include the Cambridge Science Park.

As an operational airport, Cambridge International Airport is under a statutory duty to ensure the safe operation of the airport in accordance with guidance from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as set out in:
CAP 168 (Licensing of Aerodromes);
CAP 738 (Safeguarding of Aerodromes); CAP 1096 (Crane Guidance);
Ministry of Defence (Cambridge Airport) Technical Site Safeguarding signed and dated 23 July 2003.

As part of this process, Cambridge International Airport has lodged formal safeguarding maps with Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. The safeguarding map shows that the area to be covered by the CNFE Area Action Plan falls within the area hatched green on the safeguarding map. Any development proposed with a maximum height in excess of 15 metres above ground level (AGL) requires consultation with the Airport. The site is also within 2.5 nautical miles of the airport and as such falls within the Air Traffic Zone (ATZ) which is controlled by the Air Traffic Controllers at Cambridge International Airport.

Our expectation is that building heights in Option A (heights up to 16m) may be acceptable, but Options B (heights up to 24m) and C (including "significantly taller forms of development") in particular have potential to cause conflicts with safe airport and aircraft operations. In order to ensure that any development principles established through the AAP are deliverable and compatible with the safe operation of the airport, Marshall Group requests that the joint Councils (or any prospective developer) engages early with the Airport to ensure any building
heights proposed are compatible with airport operations, including the operation of cranes throughout the development.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29660

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

Brookgate support this option. The highly sustainable location, relative distance to the historic core of the City and proximity to the A14 provides an opportunity to investigate higher densities and heights which in other locations in Cambridge would not support.

Full text:

Brookgate support this option. The highly sustainable location, relative distance to the historic core of the City and proximity to the A14 provides an opportunity to investigate higher densities and heights which in other locations in Cambridge would not support.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29765

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Representation Summary:

It is not appropriate to try and set design standards, including building heights and densities, before understanding the types of use and the quantum of each use that would be required to make the site deliverable / viable. It is accepted that the Draft Local Plan policies should form the baseline for the development of AAP specific policies

Full text:

It is not appropriate to try and set design standards, including building heights and densities, before understanding the types of use and the quantum of each use that would be required to make the site deliverable / viable. It is accepted that the Draft Local Plan policies should form the baseline for the development of AAP specific policies

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29885

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation Summary:

Any proposals will need to take into account the requirements placed upon development by the Safeguarding Zone for Cambridge Airport (referral for 15m and above in this area). In addition to this consideration needs to be given to the views from taller buildings across existing and proposed mineral and waste development to avoid the need for additional / unnecessary screening and landscaping.

Full text:

Any proposals will need to take into account the requirements placed upon development by the Safeguarding Zone for Cambridge Airport (referral for 15m and above in this area). In addition to this consideration needs to be given to the views from taller buildings across existing and proposed mineral and waste development to avoid the need for additional / unnecessary screening and landscaping.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30009

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management LLP

Agent: Beacon Planning

Representation Summary:

Consideration of building heights should be part of a site specific masterplanning exercise and should take account of all the relevant considerations.

Full text:

Consideration of building heights should be part of a site specific masterplanning exercise and should take account of all the relevant considerations.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30147

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Grosvenor Developments Limited

Agent: AECOM

Representation Summary:

Potential to maximise opportunity and make best use of location.

Full text:

Potential to maximise opportunity and make best use of location.

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30240

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Maciej W Rozycki

Representation Summary:

Strongly objecting. Cambridgeshire is not an industrial area and Cambridge is not urbanised enough to justify tall buildings. Allowing them here or indeed anywhere around would spoil the landscape and break the friendly, humane character of the city and its surroundings.

Full text:

Strongly objecting. Cambridgeshire is not an industrial area and Cambridge is not urbanised enough to justify tall buildings. Allowing them here or indeed anywhere around would spoil the landscape and break the friendly, humane character of the city and its surroundings.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30244

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge Sport Lakes Trust

Representation Summary:

Although Cambridge has historically not been developed upwards it will be important to maximise the commercial value of this development and there is no immediate historic skyline that we feel must be protected.

Full text:

Although Cambridge has historically not been developed upwards it will be important to maximise the commercial value of this development and there is no immediate historic skyline that we feel must be protected.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30311

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Coulson Building Group

Representation Summary:

Option C. Cambridge has a strange aversion to tall buildings which can make much more efficient use of land and add a dramatic and eye catching aspect to a development. With the fens to the north tall buildings will not affect the view of Cambridge and will add a feature to the skyline.

Full text:

See answer to Q17 [below]

Question 17 response: Option C. Cambridge has a strange aversion to tall buildings which can make much more efficient use of land and add a dramatic and eye catching aspect to a development. With the fens to the north tall buildings will not affect the view of Cambridge and will add a feature to the skyline.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30366

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future

Representation Summary:

This option will enable denser and taller development of high quality to create a modern vibrant imaginative city quarter. This would also contribute to the financial viability of Development Options 3 and 4. Equally, it will enhance the environmental quality of the area and surrounding existing neighbourhoods (especially Milton and Milton Country Park). Higher viability and critical mass are essential to achieve excellent master planning of the site and community benefits through development levies applied.

Full text:

This option will enable denser and taller development of high quality to create a modern vibrant imaginative city quarter. This would also contribute to the financial viability of Development Options 3 and 4. Equally, it will enhance the environmental quality of the area and surrounding existing neighbourhoods (especially Milton and Milton Country Park). Higher viability and critical mass are essential to achieve excellent master planning of the site and community benefits through development levies applied.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30505

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Representation Summary:

Option B or Option C would be acceptable and would optimise density across the site.

Full text:

See attached document