The Introduction states that ‘This SPD has been prepared by the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning service’. However, parts of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD read more like a promotional brochure for the campus rather than simply ‘providing detailed guidance’ on the 2018 local plans. I note that the SPDs for other specific planning and development sites (such as that for the Ridgeon’s site) have been prepared jointly by the council and the partner or consultant (for example, the University for the New Museums Site) – if this is true for the Campus SPD this should be made clear.

We are concerned that the aspirations and goals of the SPD will only be achieved with a spatial strategy set out in a master plan. The SPD states good decisions need to be made but does not set parameters for those decision other than these worthy aspirations.
The SPD currently lack details on where development is going to go and what its going to look like. The master plan needs to set out specific requirements such as

• What the constraints
• Where is development expected to happen
• What are the heights going to be
• What is the quality going to be
• How to achieve design equality across the site, bridging design gap between Addenbrookes and world class laboratories.
• Where are the areas for improvement
• Where are the safeguarded areas for eg Greenspace.

We are concerned about the lack of joined up thinking. For instance, we understand that there is planning permission for a further car park, which will attract more people to drive to the campus, but the SPD talks about managing congestion.

We consider that it is difficult to move around the CBC by all modes of transport. Solving this is more than just additional signage. There needs to a clear, legible route for active travel and buses.

There is a need for other uses such as hotel and conference facilities which will relieve pressure on surrounding communities where we’ve seen applications for aparthotels etc which have impact the character and vitality of these communities.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for consulting us on the abovementioned document.

As you may be aware National Highways (formerly Highways England) is a strategic highway company under the provisions of the infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN). As such we have responsibilities for managing the SRN in accordance of our licence and in general conformity with the requirements of the Highways Act 1980 and to satisfy the reasonable requirements of road safety.

It is noted that once adopted, this SPD will become a material consideration in the determining of planning applications. Where relevant, National Highways will be a statutory consultee on future planning applications within the area and will assess the impact on the SRN of a planning application accordingly.

Notwithstanding the above comments, we have reviewed the document and note that the details set out within the document are unlikely to have an severe impact on the operation of the trunk road and we offer No Comment.

Kind regards,


Philip Porter

Assistant Spatial Planner
Operations (East) | National Highways
Woodlands | Manton Lane | Bedford | MK41 7LW
Web: www.nationalhighways.co.uk

The scope of the SPD is clearly defined and appropriate to present circumstances.

SPD doesn’t seem to celebrate any of the positives since fist allocation for development in the 2006 local plan. For example, there is no reference to examples of the public art, delivered by a very sophisticated City Public Art Delivery Plan and administered by a campus Public Art Steering Group that Nadine Black was part of.
photography isnt fantastic quality and doesn’t feel equitable or balanced for such a significant planning document. 1000 Discovery Drive which might provide some balance and is significant as it’s the first speculative development on the biomedical campus with open house amenity.

See Letter

In the interests of clarity, it is important that the Rosie Hospital is recognised as a separate hospital on the campus in the same way as both Addenbrooke’s Hospital and the Royal Papworth Hospital. It is therefore requested that Paragraph 1.4 of the document be reworded to read: “References to ‘the Campus’ made throughout this SPD refer to Phases 1-3 of development that are allocated within the adopted Local Plans and to the existing Addenbrooke’s, Rosie and Royal Papworth Hospitals and related buildings.”

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please see the attached documents for Natural England’s response.

Yours faithfully,

Dominic Rogers
Consultations Team
Natural England
Hornbeam House, Electra Way
Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ

Please confirm submission received and included for GCSP CBC SPD Consultation

Firstly the Ambition Statement for CBC does not address it is not a Campus it is a site
"A campus university is a British term for one organisation namely a university situated on one site, with student accommodation, teaching and research facilities, and leisure activities all together belonging to the one organisation namely a university."
• Cambridge Biomedical Campus Site - it is clearly a site not a Campus as it is made up of different elements with no one organisations having financial management or accountability - one of the weaknesses of the site;
• It also contains commercial organisations/ventures so this needs to be recognised and acknowledged;
• It has UC education/reseach/charitable elements so these too need to be included.
In line with the Cambridge Local Plan Strategic Objectives around promoting and supporting economic growth there should be consideration given how to make this vision a concrete outcome within the local context of Queen Edith’s Ward which the Cambridge Biomedical corporate/commercial/research/UC and NHS hospitals development site sits alongside. "Planning Gain" and financial contributions from the development of the site by each organisation needs to be fed back into the local economy to build infrastructure/civic enforcement/skills and employment plans etc. that mitigate for the unintended negative impacts of this size of CBC site growth within small residential areas by fitting the population of an Urban Town next to what would be considered 2 small village populations.

All development past, present and future need to be assessed as one joining the dots on all developments, if the Vision Statement 2050 is purporting it is one site - not piecemeal as if each is a single planning application. If it continues in this way Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 then if a site wide development then more emphasis needs to be put on the water issues of the whole site and how these impact on Cambridge and the UK. One cannot have it both ways stating it is one site, one development, has global significance then not address water in this same context of whole site development. Likewise the green belt and the land taken by the site need to be seen as one so all can identify what and how much green belt land is being used to build more on the site.
Some elements of good practice can be seen at the Railpen Beehive development in Cambridge one example would be a single accountable developer another being a community skills hub embedded alongside local community/organisations. The CBC site is not a Campus it does not have 1 overarching developer accountable for the whole site, it is a piecemeal site with many different organisations engaged in development for their own needs
With the NHS being an anchor institution, it must be recognised that it is a NHS Hospital site, and within the larger site is the UC, research/commercial and corporate organisations. They are not a single entity nor do they have a singular focus, no one organisation taking responsibility for the unintended negative impacts the site has on its near neighbours.
My particular focus as a resident is around youth employment opportunities. I would l like to see major commercial developers making provision for community facilities either through pump priming contributions or facilitation of community support and education workers. Building local skill levels is in line with the City Councils Community Wealth Building Strategy 2024 which encourages employers to contribute to provide local employment, apprenticeships and skills training programmes.
With reference to the next stages of development of the site I would like to see preference given to the local young people of Queen Edith’s in the provision of training and skills opportunities during both construction both by commercial developers and the NHS in development of the new Children’ Hospital and the Cancer hospital.
A further way for developers both commercial, research via the UC and the NHS to support the Community Wealth Building Strategy with a particular local focus on Queen Edith’s is the implementation by developers of an Employment and Skills Plan. This should be based on a recognition developments on the site will have over spill impacts beyond the proposal’s boundaries.
An Employment and Skills Plan should be in place at the pre planning stage and should allow for local Queen Edith’s school, college and community engagement beyond websites and job fairs. With a focus on promoting programmes of skills, training and employment opportunities on the site with particular reference to local young people.
These mitigation's will help support the Council’s ambition for the site i.e. for it to be a world leading location for health care that is well integrated with its surrounding communities. Whilst acknowledging the site plays an important role locally particularly in its ability to provide employment and skills opportunities for local young people starting out on their career, by opportunities both at constructions and when the site builds become operational.
The further element required of developers both commercial/research, UC/NHS is a recognition that the sites development needs to recognise and facilitate community cohesion. With 37,000 (over 50,000 when you include construction staff, visitor, patients, deliveries) visits daily many by car over the years considerable parking stress has been caused to the areas the site sits within. Queen Edith's has negative impacts coming in via Babraham Road and over spilling out of the site with many anti-social behaviours which have been exacerbated by staff/ patients/visitors seeking to smoke and undertake other activities which could bring the NHS and companies into disrepute due to these happening in local streets. One example is the removal of a fenced entrance from a residential street to Addenbrooke's on Red Cross Lane. Now 7% of CBC site movements use this and it has become a rat run for illegal dangerously ridden motorbikes and a whole range of criminal activity from movement of stolen CBC site bikes/packages and county line activity, lower level parking stress which blights locals lives daily. These issues are occurring around all roads abutting the site from Queen Edith's to Trumpington Wards. This over spill sometimes leads to an intimidating atmosphere for locals due to excessive numbers entering and exiting the CBC site into small residential areas. These behaviours have had an adverse effect on community cohesion and require mitigation's through strategies to address onsite parking issues, taxi use/PHVs and mitigation's to prevent the negative cumulative impacts of anti-social and other illegal concerning behaviours.
With particular regard to the building of the Cambridge South Station, believed by who to be built as a destination not a suburban station, already the villages are saying they will find it helpful to use and family can pick them up easily on local Queen Edith's streets saving them having to go into Cambridge station. Through to the Children then the Cancer Hospitals from 2025 onward, plus redevelopment of Addenbrooke's hospital I would refer the NHS and developers to the Get Britain Working White Paper where the NHS role as an employer is part of the focus in offering people work experience and employment opportunities. These initiatives should be adopted at the earliest stage of the pre application process to inform a development that both promotes local economic growth and maintains the quality of life of local Queen Edith’s residents through the health benefits of work and an effectively well managed site can bring.
Yours sincerely,
Mr Blackburn
1 Greenlands
Cambridge CB2 0QY

This document usefully fills a gap that has been left by the failure of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus ("CBC") to update its 2010 Strategic Masterplan and Vision following release of the Phase 3 land through the adoption of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2018). I was part of a Local Liaison Group established by Cambridge Biomedical Campus Limited ("CBC Ltd") and was asked to comment on an emerging Spatial Framework in 2022. Members of that Group urged CBC Ltd to prepare such a framework for the existing Campus and Phases 1, 2 and 3 alone, but they were not prepared to do so. I note that the emerging Spatial Framework is not mentioned in the SPD; a summary remains on the CBC website.

In paragraph 1.1, “Some proposals will be in response to urgent and changing needs and priorities on the Campus..” is slightly alarming at large and would benefit from a cross-reference to the example in paragraph 4.3.
Does the description in paragraph 1.4 match the plan on page 18?

Attached please find the response on behalf of the British Horse Society to the above consultation.


Lynda Warth
County Access & Bridleways Officer - Cambridgeshire
British Horse Society

Good afternoon,

Please find attached a consultation response on the draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on behalf of my client, East West Railway Company Limited (EWR Co).

If you have any questions or require any clarification on this representation, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,

Matthew


Matthew Barron
Principal Planner

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above document. The following comments are submitted
by NHS Property Services (NHSPS) for and on behalf of NHS Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB (C&P
ICB). C&P ICB has delegated authority from NHS England for the commissioning of most NHS health
services in the Greater Cambridgeshire area.

We note that whilst the SPD is principally design focussed, the area is globally significant in terms of its
clinical and research status and its growth is underpinned by both public and private sector investment.

The campus is identified at paragraph 2.3 as being the largest employment site in Cambridge and the NHS
is a key landowner and employer in the area with Addenbrooke’s Hospital, the Rosie Maternity Hospital, the
Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation
Trust on site. To support the level of growth already achieved as well as expected in the future, it is of
paramount importance that the interconnected nature of supporting land uses, including suitable and
affordable accommodation for staff, to support the levels of employment in the area is fully considered.

As acknowledged at page 17 of the consultation document, there is existing worker accommodation on the
northern part of the campus, which is managed by Sanctuary Housing Association. This provides a valuable
resource of short- and longer-term accommodation but further accommodation across the local authority
area will be required to support the level of growth envisaged.

One of the greatest challenges facing the NHS in this location is the recruitment and retention of staff, which
is exacerbated by high housing costs in the area. Several studies have been undertaken examining this
issue including, but not limited to, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus Housing Study (Lichfields, 2024) and
Assessing the Housing Need of Hospital Workers (Savills, 2020). The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
ICS have also undertaken a survey of staff accommodation needs and have published a subsequent
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Housing Need Evaluation Report (2024), which highlights the acute need
for high quality and affordable housing across a range of tenures.

It is acknowledged that a key driver of the SPD is the “collective desire to improve health outcomes for
patients” (p.11). Without ensuring that the emerging Local Plan and other planning policy documents
acknowledge and address the need for suitable and affordable housing for NHS staff this objective would
be difficult to accomplish.

A further aspiration of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD is to adapt to climate change and reduce
carbon emissions. Ensuring that campus employees are accommodated within a reasonable commuting
distance of their place of work not only supports this objective but encourages future modal shift.

We therefore encourage any suitable housing sites in the emerging Local Plan to consider its suitability to
provide affordable housing options for health/campus staff, which could encompass a range of housing
tenures. Any relevant evidence base documents, including housing needs studies should also examine the
requirement for affordable homes for NHS staff given its importance to the local and national economy.

We also welcome future discussions at the site-specific level to identify and progress sites that may be
appropriate for accommodation for NHS staff working at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB and NHSPS thank the Council for the opportunity to comment on
the Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD consultation. Should you have any queries or require any further
information, please don’t hesitate to contact us. NHSPS would be grateful to be kept informed of the
progression of the SPD via our dedicated email address, town.planning@property.nhs.uk.

Hi,

Please find attached response from Great Shelford Parish Council to the consultation regarding the Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document. Can you please confirm receipt?


Kind regards
Nicola

Nicola Webster CertHE PSLCC
Clerk to Great Shelford Parish Council

Dear Sirs

Please find attached comment made on behalf of Cambridgeshire County Council in response to the consultation on the draft Planning Obligations SPD, Heath Impact Assessment SPD and Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD.

Regards
Colum

Colum Fitzsimons
Development and Policy Manager
Tel: 01223 728175

Good afternoon,

Please find attached a letter submission from Hobson's Conduit Trust in response to the consultation on the CBC SPD which closes later today.

Many thanks

Kind regards

John Latham

Chairman
Hobson's Conduit Trust

Draft SPD Consultation CBC Site- Comments Cllr Immy B-H

Thank you for consulting Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) on the following Supplementary Planning Documents:
• Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations SPD
• Draft Greater Cambridge Health Impact Assessment SPD
• Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD

CBC welcome the opportunity to comment on the SPDs and we hope you find our comments relating to the Planning Obligations SPD useful. We do not have any specific comments to make in relation to the Draft Health Impact Assessment SPD and Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD. Please accept this letter as our formal response.

Kind Regards

Local Plans Team

Hello GCSP

Just in case I forget, I'd like to submit the following responses so far on the SPD consultations:

1) Please read Mitchelltree and Valentine at https://www.dezeen.com/2024/12/09/neuroarchitecture-cleo-valentine-heather-mitcheltree-opinion/ and ensure you consult with Cleo Valentine at the University of Cambridge and invite her to submit a consultation response on her research on how our built environment and building design/aesthetics impacts our mental health (https://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/research/phd-research/cleo-valentine-architectural-neuroimmunology-assessing-impact-architectural)

2) Please ensure there is something specific about financial contributions towards both a new large concert hall and new lifelong learning centre for Greater Cambridge for the planning obligations for both, and something about a new lifelong learning and skills centre on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus - ideally negotiating with them to allocate a site suitable for it with decent public transport.

3) Please ensure there is something about much more walking-first-friendly routes through the CBC along with a significant expansion of sports and leisure facilities given that the Frank Lee Centre was built at a time when the number of people working on the campus was much lower. Would an enlarged sports/leisure centre in the direction of Cambridge South Station provide a wider facility not just for campus users but also for the neighbouring communities?

Chances are I'll come up with more over the next few weeks.

Thank you

Antony Carpen

From: Trumpington Residents' Association

Good evening

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Supplementary Planning Document for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. Our response is attached. We will be grateful for your acknowledgement of receipt.

Best wishes
David Plank
For Trumpington Residents' Association

Attached please find the response on behalf of the British Horse Society to the above consultation.


Lynda Warth
County Access & Bridleways Officer - Cambridgeshire
British Horse Society

Good afternoon,

Please find attached a letter submission from Hobson's Conduit Trust in response to the consultation on the CBC SPD which closes later today.

Many thanks

Kind regards

John Latham

Chairman
Hobson's Conduit Trust

Good afternoon,

Please find attached a letter submission from Hobson's Conduit Trust in response to the consultation on the CBC SPD which closes later today.

Many thanks

Kind regards

John Latham

Chairman
Hobson's Conduit Trust

Dear Terry,

With thanks to Ed, please find attached the CBC Ltd response to the SPD consultation. This has been reviewed by CBC Ltd directors and reflects input received by members.

Let me know if you would like to discuss anything further.

Best wishes,

Nick


Nick Kirby
Managing Director
CBC Ltd