Question 18d

Showing comments and forms 1 to 12 of 12

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29238

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:

As in my comment for 18c: 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, although I added one feature building of 6 storeys as I feel this would be the best location for it.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29372

Received: 06/01/2015

Respondent: Historic England

Agent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

Question 18 is concerned with building heights within the area to be covered by the AAP and is divided into 3 parts. 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. It is therefore difficult to objectively comment on the potential impact of 16 metre, 24 metre or taller buildings.
However, it is likely that new buildings of similar heights to those on the existing Cambridge Business Park would not adversely impact on the setting of nearby heritage assets. But the new station is located in the southeast corner of the site and tall buildings in the vicinity of this station would have an increased potential to adversely impact on the character and appearance of the Cambridge central conservation area (and in particular the eastward arm that extends along the river corridor to the south of this site), the Fen Ditton conservation area to the east and the setting of listed buildings within both conservation areas. Without a robust evidence base English Heritage could not support either Option B or C that would permit a more flexible approach to the issue of building heights within the AAP.

Full text:

Please see attached letter

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29628

Received: 27/01/2015

Respondent: Marshall Group of Companies

Representation Summary:

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.

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.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29661

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

CNFE is bounded by the railway line (east), the A14 (north), Milton Road (west) and Chesterton (south). The City Centre is 3.5km from the site. This physical context presents opportunities to investigate heights and densities which might not be supported in other Cambridge locations: taller buildings wouldn't impact on existing residential properties with regard to sunlight/daylight but could release significant development pressure from the historic city core and create an opportunity to define the NE corner of Cambridge with striking buildings visible from the A14. The AAP requires some form of masterplan in whole/part and this should inform building heights.

Full text:

CNFE is bounded by the railway line (east), the A14 (north), Milton Road (west) and Chesterton (south). The City Centre is 3.5km from the site. This physical context presents opportunities to investigate heights and densities which might not be supported in other Cambridge locations: taller buildings wouldn't impact on existing residential properties with regard to sunlight/daylight but could release significant development pressure from the historic city core and create an opportunity to define the NE corner of Cambridge with striking buildings visible from the A14. The AAP requires some form of masterplan in whole/part and this should inform building heights.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29766

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Representation Summary:

No

Full text:

No

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29886

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.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30010

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.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30148

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Grosvenor Developments Limited

Agent: AECOM

Representation Summary:

We would advocate flexibility in this regard that aligns with the promotion of quality design and placemaking promoted in the AAP.

Full text:

We would advocate flexibility in this regard that aligns with the promotion of quality design and placemaking promoted in the AAP.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30269

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

Turnstone takes the view that there is scope for different development densities and heights on different parts of the CNFE site. However, Turnstone take issue with the suggestion, repeated here in the AAP document, that there is scope for "occasional taller 'landmark' buildings around the new station" i.e. in excess of 6 storeys. Whilst it is considered that there may indeed be scope for taller 'landmark' buildings, the logic of placing any such buildings in a peripheral part of the wider CNFE site is not readily followed or agreed with.

Full text:

Turnstone will answer these questions collectively. As indicated in other responses, Turnstone takes the view that there is scope for different development densities and heights on different parts of the CNFE site. However, Turnstone take issue with the suggestion, repeated here in the AAP document, that there is scope for "occasional taller 'landmark' buildings around the new station" i.e. in excess of 6 storeys. Whilst it is considered that there may indeed be scope for taller 'landmark' buildings, the logic of placing any such buildings in a peripheral part of the wider CNFE site is not readily followed or agreed with. In Turnstone's opinion these taller buildings should be proposed more centrally within the CNFE site where there is an interface with existing taller development. The City Council should not be trying to recreate a further development on this site which echoes the 'arrival' as the Central Cambridge station with the taller buildings as are emerging at CB1.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30367

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:

see CambridgePPF comments made under Q18c [below].

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.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30473

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

TCE supports the approach to tall buildings, in accordance with adopted Local Plan policies. TCE further supports the inclusion of additional policies relating to tall buildings in this location. However, this is on the basis that the policy wording is to the effect that the existing building form is taken into consideration.

Full text:

See attached document

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30686

Received: 17/12/2014

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Representation Summary:

Proposed site is encompassed by the stautory safeguarding aerodrome height consultation plan. The main concern of the MOD is to ensure tall structures do not disrupt or inhibit air traffic operations on site. On reviewing the proposed Cambridge Northern Fringe East Area Action Plan, the proposed area falls within the 15.2m height consultation zone. This means no development should exceed 15.2m.

Full text:

The MOD has no objections to the proposed Area Action Plan. However, it is important to recognise that the proposed site is encompassed by the stautory safeguarding aerodrome height consultation plan. The main concern of the MOD is to ensure tall structures do not disrupt or inhibit air traffic operations on site. On reviewing the proposed Cambridge Northern Fringe East Area Action Plan, the proposed area falls within the 15.2m height consultation zone. This means no development should exceed 15.2m. This office requests to be kept informed of any proposed applications within this area for review.