Comment

Representation ID: 200666

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

The relevant purposes of the Green Belt should also be repeated in this SPD, namely:
“ to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns;”.

Applicants should be required to have express regard to these matters. We are also concerned that CBC will never be satisfied with land allocated to it for expansion and will continue to ask for more.

Comment

Representation ID: 200667

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We wonder whether the draft SPD could drawing developers’ attention to both the Hobson’s Conduit Trust website (and especially its annual bioblitz information) and to the relevant parts of the 2020 Greater Cambridge Chalk Streams Project Report.

The draft document does not mention the Red Cross Lane Drain City Wildlife Site.

CBC’s recently released Travel and Transport Plan 2024 to 2029 has identified that there is “no clear east-west active travel or public transport links at [CBC]”. This, plus poor wayfinding signage, significantly contributes to CBC’s lack of legibility. We would suggest that this is also referred to in the draft SPD.

Comment

Representation ID: 200669

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

- The map in paragraph 3.17 is useful, but should also show
(i) the site reserved for the new acute hospital,
(ii) the sites of Cambridge Surgical Hospital, the East of England Ambulance Service, the Addenbrooke’s Centre for Clinical Investigation, GSK’s Experimental Medicine and Clinical Pharmacology Unit and IdeaSpace,
(iii) use 2000 and 3000 Discovery Drive for “Discovery Drive development”. The “Plot 9” description is not particularly meaningful. Labels such as “due 2025”, “due 2028” and “in development” should be avoided and, in any event, are already not accurate. In addition, the occupiers listed in paragraph 3.19 should be the same as those shown on the map and names should be used consistently throughout the draft SPD (e.g. Victor Dadaleh is not).

In paragraph 3.19, some places shown on the map (e.g. the NHS Blood and Transplant Cambridge Donor Centre) are not listed. Internet research suggests that Iota Pharmaceuticals is at the St John’s Innovation Centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 200670

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

-Are all the “outposts with catering facilities” open to the public (paragraph 3.20)? There will be more retail in the Cambridge South station.

Comment

Representation ID: 200671

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

- Which employees is the Frank Lee Centre open to (paragraph 3.21)?

Comment

Representation ID: 200672

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

- 3.24 does not mention White Hill and the Gog Magog Hills, and the extent to which urban Cambridge wraps around the East of CBC is limited.

Comment

Representation ID: 200673

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

- 3.28 'northwest' and 'northeast' is confusing. The incinerator chimney is also distinctive seen from the A1307.

Comment

Representation ID: 200674

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

- 3.29 the railway is West Anglia Main Line not London to Kings Lynn railway. The description of where the existing MSCPs is appears inaccurate.

Comment

Representation ID: 200675

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

- 3.30 could include updates figures from the CBC Travel and Transport Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 200676

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

-3.31 the relationship between the guided buses and the bus station is unclear. The walk between Cambridge South station and the eastern parts of the campus will be significant.

Comment

Representation ID: 200692

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cllr Immy Blackburn-Horgan

3.25 Forvie is noted as being a site with many trees supporting the biodiversity of the Site. Yet these very trees are being reviewed by redevelopment of the Forvie site underway currently and planned for in the short 2025 and long term 2035, in addition works being undertaken to nearby housing note works they will undertake on Forvie tree roots.

Comment

Representation ID: 200693

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cllr Immy Blackburn-Horgan

3.26 Due to most users of the Campus not having direct access to high quality public realm or green open space for play, recuperation, sports or any other outdoor activities to support health and wellbeing there is a large overspill of thousands 24/7 into small residential areas abutting the Site resulting in unintended negative impacts for residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 200694

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cllr Immy Blackburn-Horgan

3.32 There is significant parking stress which continues to grow from the CBC Site on the streets in QE Ward, this needs to reduce whilst wayfinding/lighting to/from the P&R to and around the Site requires significant improvement. This has unintended negative impacts on the health and well-being of the communities namely QEW the Site sits in.

Comment

Representation ID: 200708

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Hobson's Conduit Trust

Paragraph 3.24: We are disappointed to find no reference to Nine Wells, White Hill and the Gog Magogs. The relationship of the built environment of Addenbrookes and the CBC with all of these surrounding landscape features such as the Magog Down is very important. The scale and impact of the whole of the mass of hospital and CBC buildings, their height and increasingly dense and industrial texture is very significant and of high sensitivity, and needs to be given appropriate weighting in the SPD which is currently completely missing.

Comment

Representation ID: 200709

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Hobson's Conduit Trust

Paragraph 3.26 highlights the importance of ensuring that Nine Wells is properly and comprehensively safeguarded, and remains readily accessible and its footprint is expanded sufficiently to absorb greater numbers of people working at the CBC. It also emphasises the important role that Hobson’s Park can play, and the potential value of walking routes in the Park including beside Hobson’s Brook. The Trustees are currently aiming to complete a continuous walking route from the City Centre to Nine Wells, part of which would provide an excellent and attractive circular walking route from CBC.

Comment

Representation ID: 200710

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Hobson's Conduit Trust

The incinerator chimney’s height has made it a recognised landmark for 60 years, but this should not be used as an excuse for a generalised uplift in building height beyond that of the main hospital building. We therefore believe that the SPD should be much more explicit about limitations on maximum building heights, and much more specifically than what is set out in Policy 60 quoted on page 52. This is particularly important in relation to our point 2 above, especially in relation to views from Magog Down over the CBC and Addenbrook’s site towards the city, and to the northern skyline as seen from Nine Wells. This is also relevant to Clay Farm and other Trumpington and Shelford residents, and visitors to Hobson’s Park.

Comment

Representation ID: 200726

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Prologis

3.18 Is "Expansion" an occupier?

Comment

Representation ID: 200727

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Prologis

3.20 cafe operator is Stir.

Comment

Representation ID: 200728

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Prologis

3.23 reads as though AZ and RPH are on Phase 2. they are Phase 1.

Comment

Representation ID: 200729

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Prologis

3.27 Piecemeal is unfair - it is "Phased."

Comment

Representation ID: 200730

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: University of Cambridge

We believe that the text in paragraph 3.23 relates to development on the Phase 1 land rather than Phase 2.

Comment

Representation ID: 200731

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: University of Cambridge

Paragraph 3.27: The reference to ‘the…piecemeal approach to development’ is slightly unfair to the campus developers. Land allocations have taken place in stages and planning requirements have changed over time since the 1960s; it is therefore inevitable that design responses have evolved over time.

Proposed change to read: "There is more consistency in use of materials and more active facades at ground
level in these more recent buildings but overall, due to the phased delivery of development to meet changing needs and to deliver a greater mix of uses over a period of six decades, with evolution in approaches to design, the Campus architecture lacks coherency".