Support
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200160
Received: 08/12/2024
Respondent: Mr Paul Cutmore
I support your statement "Improve the integration between the Campus and the surrounding communities by enhancing walking...". However, you should be aware that the currently proposed CSET guided busway will replace the DNA cycle path with the busway and remove the current footpath access to Nine Wells. This will have a negative impact on the Campus (as well as nearby Hobson's Park & Clay Farm) preventing people accessing Nine Wells and the surrounding countryside. It would be good if you could advise the CSET project against such a strategy.
I support your statement "Improve the integration between the Campus and the surrounding communities
by enhancing walking...". However, you should be aware that the currently proposed CSET guided busway will replace the DNA cycle path with the busway and remove the current footpath access to Nine Wells. This will have a negative impact on the Campus (as well as nearby Hobson's Park & Clay Farm) preventing people accessing Nine Wells and the surrounding countryside. It would be good if you could advise the CSET project against such a strategy.
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200170
Received: 03/01/2025
Respondent: Mr Antony Carpen
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?
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
Support
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200205
Received: 14/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority support statements around improving active travel and making it accessible and connected as well as working towards shared transport and reducing the dependency on private car use. The Combined Authority also supports the parking measures with the aim to improve model shift.
Hi
Please find the response to the consultation from strategi transport at the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority
Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document
The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority note reference to their strategic document the Local Transport and Connectivity Plan. This is the basis of the overarching strategy to transport and connectivity and all policies, strategies and schemes need to align with the vision, goals and objectives.
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority support statements around improving active travel and making it accessible and connected as well as working towards shared transport and reducing the dependency on private car use. The Combined Authority also supports the parking measures with the aim to improve model shift.
Greater Cambridge Health Impact Assessment Supplementary Planning Document
Stated in document : Theme 3: Active Travel and Inclusive Mobility 3a. Promoting Walking and Cycling • Does the proposed development promote accessibility via walking and cycling? • Does the proposed development seek to reduce car use (e.g. by using Travel Plans)? Answers should be accompanied by evidence/data sources, assessment of potential Health Impacts (positive, negative, neutral, unknown) and recommended enhancement or mitigation actions.
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough recommend the inclusion of wheeling in active travel - please see Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Local Transport and Connectivity Plan for active travel.
Stated in document: Policy TI/2 (a) on the provision of safe transport routes between destinations
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough recommend the inclusion of Vision Zero - please see Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Local Transport and Connectivity
Thanks
Emma
Object
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200211
Received: 22/01/2025
Respondent: Dr Stephen Davies
Treatment of the need to improve existing hospital infrastructure (Addenbrooke’s) in 4b.1 is extremely thin, especially considering that the SPD claims to aspire to excellence in healthcare. This is, of course, reflective of the NPPF which is equally thin in its discussion of healthcare infrastructure, preferring to major on ‘healthy places’. GCSP needs to do more than just cut and paste NPPF into this chapter for this SPD to offer an adequate response to the challenges posed by the existing CBC.
Treatment of the need to improve existing hospital infrastructure (Addenbrooke’s) in 4b.1 is extremely thin, especially considering that the SPD claims to aspire to excellence in healthcare. This is, of course, reflective of the NPPF which is equally thin in its discussion of healthcare infrastructure, preferring to major on ‘healthy places’. GCSP needs to do more than just cut and paste NPPF into this chapter for this SPD to offer an adequate response to the challenges posed by the existing CBC.
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200232
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
Paragraph 4.12 looks to create a homogenous public realm that ties the campus together; however, such an approach risks creating an institutional feel rather than a diversity of design and the creation of character areas, which can aid legibility. It is proposed that the final sentence of paragraph 4.12 is reworded to read “A coherent approach to the public realm through the use of materials and street furniture is key to lifting the quality and coordinating streets and spaces on the Campus, while recognising that some variation in style across the campus can aid legibility and create character areas.”
Paragraph 4.12 looks to create a homogenous public realm that ties the campus together; however, such an approach risks creating an institutional feel rather than a diversity of design and the creation of character areas,
which can aid legibility. It is proposed that the final sentence of paragraph 4.12 is reworded to read “A coherent approach to the public realm through the use of materials and street furniture is key to lifting the quality and coordinating streets and spaces on the Campus, while recognising that some variation in style across the campus can aid legibility and create character areas.”
Support
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200233
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
The recognition that there is a great variety of projects coming forward on the campus and that a flexible and proportionate approach will be taken when implementing the guidelines based on the scale, function, location and nature of the individual proposal is welcomed.
The recognition that there is a great variety of projects coming forward on the campus and that a flexible and proportionate approach will be taken when implementing the guidelines based on the scale, function, location and nature of the individual proposal is welcomed.
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200240
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
Paragraph 4a.1.5 – given that the reference to “all users” includes all members of society regardless of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, level of mobility it is proposed that the paragraph is reworded to read: “Given the 24-hour nature of the Campus, open spaces should feel safe and inclusive throughout the day and night for all users.”
Paragraph 4a.1.5 – given that the reference to “all users” includes all members of society regardless of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, level of mobility it is proposed that the paragraph is reworded to read: “Given the 24-hour nature of the Campus, open spaces should feel safe and inclusive throughout the day and night for all users.”
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200241
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
Paragraph 4b.1.6 to re reworded to read: “Identify opportunities to improve wayfinding through additional or improved signage, and use of materials.”
Paragraph 4b.1.6 to re reworded to read: “Identify opportunities to improve wayfinding through additional or improved signage, and use of materials.”
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200242
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
Paragraph 4d.1.3 – reword the final sentence to read “This should minimise the impact of servicing and deliveries on pedestrians, cyclists and public transport and limit peak time travel demand on the Campus whilst supporting the delivery of materials to all buildings.”
Paragraph 4d.1.3 – reword the final sentence to read “This should minimise the impact of servicing and deliveries on pedestrians, cyclists and public transport and limit peak time travel demand on the Campus whilst supporting the delivery of materials to all buildings.”
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200243
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
Paragraph 4d.2.2 – reword first sentence to read “Integrate new development with new and emerging transport schemes and projects to create a joined-up approach to wayfinding and connectivity and across the Campus and to nearby areas.”
Paragraph 4d.2.2 – reword first sentence to read “Integrate new development with new and emerging transport schemes and projects to create a joined-up approach to wayfinding and connectivity and across the Campus and to nearby areas.”
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200244
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
Paragraph 4d.3.1 – reworded to read “Promotion of Active Travel measures should underpin travel planning for the Campus with opportunities to connect into existing and future sustainable travel modes (such as Cambridge South Station and CSETS) maximised to meet the needs of all mobility levels.”
Paragraph 4d.3.1 – reworded to read “Promotion of Active Travel measures should underpin travel planning for the Campus with opportunities to connect into existing and future sustainable travel modes (such as Cambridge South Station and CSETS) maximised to meet the needs of all mobility levels.”
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200245
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
Paragraph 4.21 to be reworded to read “Permanent proposals should adhere to or go beyond requirements for sustainability set out in the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD to design and deliver more sustainable forms of development.”
Paragraph 4.21 to be reworded to read “Permanent proposals should adhere to or go beyond requirements for sustainability set out in the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD to design and deliver more sustainable forms of development.”
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200246
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
Paragraph 4.23 – should be reworded to read: “All qualifying proposals should include an Air Quality Statement detailing how this has been achieved.”
Paragraph 4.23 – should be reworded to read: “All qualifying proposals should include an Air Quality Statement detailing how this has been achieved.”
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200247
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
Paragraph 4e.2.3 – the first line should be amended to read “Seek opportunity for buildings to be set out and orientated to minimise energy…”
Paragraph 4e.2.3 – the first line should be amended to read “Seek opportunity for buildings to be set out and orientated to minimise energy…”
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200248
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
Paragraph 4f.3.2 – reword final line to read “community wide benefit."
Paragraph 4f.3.2 – reword final line to read “community wide benefit."
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200252
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Prologis
4.10 isnt giving regard to amount of green coming with new plots on commercial phase 2 . its the highest quality, coordinated that means the green courts link to provide necklace of attractive green spaces as phase2 gets built out.
4c1.1 some acknowledgement this needs balancing with need for ground floor space for vibrationally sensitive R&D work to be undertaken.
4c2.4 needs to recognise unique importance back up generators have to R&D users. They are fundamental campus infrastructure for regulatory/legal compliance in some life science operations.
4f.1.3 this gives impression of "spare" land for meanwhile uses and that isnt correct.
4.10 isnt giving regard to amount of green coming with new plots on commercial phase 2 . its the highest quality, coordinated that means the green courts link to provide necklace of attractive green spaces as phase2 gets built out.
4c1.1 some acknowledgement this needs balancing with need for ground floor space for vibrationally sensitive R&D work to be undertaken.
4c2.4 needs to recognise unique importance back up generators have to R&D users. They are fundamental campus infrastructure for regulatory/legal compliance in some life science operations.
4f.1.3 this gives impression of "spare" land for meanwhile uses and that isnt correct.
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200259
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge City Council
I generally support the objectives of this document and think it will materially help the planning officers and committees and also developers. I wish to comment only on the development principle of the public realm, and in particular para 4b.3 Culture, services and facilities. I think this is the area where there will be most benefit to the residents nearby and make the site more permeable. It is vital that there are adequate community services. A public sports area would be great such as a swimming pool or gym. I also support retail offerings and suggest a supermarket also.
I generally support the objectives of this document and think it will materially help the planning officers and committees and also developers. I wish to comment only on the development principle of the public realm, and in particular para 4b.3 Culture, services and facilities. I think this is the area where there will be most benefit to the residents nearby and make the site more permeable. It is vital that there are adequate community services. A public sports area would be great such as a swimming pool or gym. I also support retail offerings and suggest a supermarket also.
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200263
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridgeshire Geological Society
The word “Geodiversity” appears in the Policy 69 title, but not in the text. Alongside “biodiversity”, more weight should be given to geodiversity (the variety of rocks, minerals, fossils, landforms, sediments, and soils, together with the natural processes which form and alter them) and also to geodiversity conservation.
Policy BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity which seems to be linked to ‘Policy 69’ mentions geodiversity in the title/heading, but has no subsequent reference to it in the body of the text.
Local Geological Sites (LGSs) also deserve mention as they are equivalent to County Wildlife Sites (CWS). LGSs, as designated by the County Sites Panel, have significant geological value.
The Nine Wells LGS was designated because of its unique blend of geology, geomorphology, hydrology, ecology, history and education value. It is also a Local Nature Reserve (LNR) managed by the Cambridge City Council for conservation and public access. It is important historically as its springs are the main source of water for Hobson’s Conduit. We suggest specific reference is made to this LGS and the need to ensure the site itself, its natural water supply, and public accessibility to it are not
adversely affected by the further development of the biomedical campus.
• The word “Geodiversity” appears in the Policy 69 title, but not in the text. We suggest that, alongside “biodiversity”, more weight is given to geodiversity (the variety of rocks, minerals, fossils, landforms, sediments, and soils, together with the natural processes which form and alter them) and also to geodiversity conservation.
• In the list of designated sites in Table 1-2g, Local Geological Sites (LGSs) also deserve mention as they are equivalent to County Wildlife Sites (CWS). LGSs, as designated by the County Sites Panel, have significant geological value. The records are held by CPERC.
CAMBRIDGSHIRE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY www.cambsgeology.org
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200264
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Historic England
We broadly welcome the development principles in Chapter 4 and we make a number of suggestions below to strengthen those principles and provide greater reference to the historic environment.
We advise that the conservation and archaeological staff of the Council are involved
in the preparation of the SPD and its assessment.
4a.1 We recommend that this section should mention the overlap between the
natural and historic environment. A particular example next to the CBC would be the area of Nine wells. We recommend that the SPD makes clearer recommendations for enhancement measures in this area immediately to the south of the campus to enhance open space, landscape and the historic environment.
4a.3 We recommend that this section of the SPD should include more specific
requirements for landscaping and softening along the southern edge of the Campus
and the wider landscape.
We recommend that this section of the SPD should provide clearer
recommendations for the mitigation of impacts CBC on longer range views into the City such as from Little Trees Hill and Wandlebury.
4b.1 we recommend that some text is added to the SPD to highlight the
potential for positive impacts of heritage in relation to health and wellbeing.
4b.2 We recommend that some text should be added to the SPD to capture the advice
within Streets for All to improve public spaces without harming their valued
character
4b.3 Historic England supports the promotion cultural facilities.
4c.2 We recommend that paragraph 4c.2.1 of the SPD should be strengthened to make
reference to the sensitive city edge, the need for a contextual approach and also set
out what considerations will be needed for proposals in terms of visualisations and
parameters for development in terms of scale, mass and height.
We recommend that additional pointers should also be given to appropriate materials
and finishes across the campus in the SPD.
4c.3 We welcome the inclusion of this section but it is currently very short. Opportunities for mitigation and enhancement around Nine Wells grade II listed monument and also the wider setting of the scheduled monument to the south of the campus, as well as the wider views of the townscape from the elevated land to the south of the City could be referenced in this section.
4d.2 We recommend that the SPD should recognise and seek to address the potential
pinch point for EWR, CSET, DNA cycle path as well as the potential cumulative
impacts of all these proposals on the scheduled monument in the area around the
Addenbrookes Road bridge in the wider planning for the CBC.
4e.1 Historic England broadly welcomes the measures set out in the Strategy. We particularly refer you to our recent advice note Adapting Historic Buildings for
Energy and Carbon Efficiency and recommend including this link within this section.
Dear Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Policy Team
Please see attached Historic England’s response to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD.
Please confirm receipt of our response.
Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Debbie Mack
Mrs Debbie Mack BA MSc MRTPI
Historic Environment Planning Adviser
Development Advice | East of England
Historic England
Direct Dial: 01223 582775 Mobile: 07826 532954
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200306
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: Ms Annabel Sykes
The development principles need to reflect the state of the acute and district general hospital at the heart of CBC and the need for it to be rebuilt and scaled to provide sufficient health care facilities for the population its serves and to allow it to play its part in the CBC's mission. They also do not acknowledge important infrastructure issues with development. A number of detailed observations are also included.
Paragraph 101 of NPPF(2024) says “To ensure faster delivery of … public service infrastructure such as health, blue light…, local planning authorities should also work proactively and positively with promoters, delivery partners and statutory bodies to plan for required facilities and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted. Significant weight should be placed on the importance of new, expanded or upgraded public service infrastructure when considering proposals for development”. We do not believe that the development principles adequately reflect the dilapidated state of Addenbrookes and the urgent need for its redevelopment to be planned and then implemented.
The main flavour of the principles, as drafted, is to promote commercial development, rather than to promote balanced and sustainable development between different sectors and different strands of CBC’s mission. As the SPD comments elsewhere (paragraph 3.7) on the poor design and condition of the existing hospital, it would be logical to attach more weight to the imperative of improving NHS facilities’. Instead the development principles are silent on this requirement. The document is thus internally inconsistent, unacceptably skewed towards commercial priorities, and neglectful of an issue that will be essential for realisation of the Campus vision.
I am in favour of greater permeability on the part of CBC in its relationship with its neighbouring communities, but would not like to see, for example, retail offerings on the site that take away custom from the business in Great Shelford (paragraph 4b.3.1 is relevant in this regard). Other more detailed comments are:
(a) who will be able to access the spaces within the Children’s and Cancer Research hospitals (paragraph 4.10)? Presumably access will be limited to patients and their visitors and staff.
(b) we wonder whether allotments and community grow and food planting spaces are realistic (paragraph 4a.1.4 and 5.5).
(c) meanwhile uses of land reserved for healthcare provision should not distract from the basic need for that provision.
(d) proper wayfinding provision around CBC is also relevant to paragraph 4.12. Good, but not excessive, signage makes a huge difference to the public realm (the objective in paragraph 4d.1.1 that arrangements should “allow users to navigate the Campus with ease” is absolutely appropriate).
(e) the meaning of paragraph 4b.1.7 is not clear.
(f) none of the proposed additional services and facilities contemplated by paragraphs 4b.3 should encourage additional vehicles to come onto CBC.
(g) as regards paragraph 4d.1.2 – will the building of the Cancer Research and Children’s hospitals make any difference to blue light routes?
(h) paragraph 4e.1.2 appears inappropriate in relation to old hospital buildings.
(i) as regards paragraph 4e.1.4 can clinical buildings harvest rainwater for use by non-clinical users?
(j) paragraph 4e.3.2 may need to acknowledge the need to light cycle paths appropriately. For example, the existing lighting on NCN11 is inadequate.
(k) paragraph 4.19 addresses car parking provision but lacks clarity. The first sentence states: “… in order for the Campus to continue to reduce its modal shift ambitions and to recognise the significantly enhanced public transport opportunities…”. This phrasing is ambiguous and should be clarified. It may mean CBC is aiming to reduce planned or permitted car parking spaces, increase the use of public transport and active travel, and significantly cut single-occupancy car trips. If correct, this should be expressed clearly in plain language. The second sentence is also unclear, particularly the phrase “a careful balance.” Further explanation is needed to clarify its meaning.
(l) paragraph 4.25 misunderstands the nature of CBC. It is not a single landowner or employer, although some members of CBC Ltd clearly are “anchor organization[s] and key employer[s] in the region”. The remainder of that sentence should also say something about CBC owners and occupiers playing their part to ensure that proposals for healthcare facilities are brought forward and implemented in a timely fashion to bring an end to the current inequality on CBC.
Further development at CBC will place further strain on our already stressed infrastructure:
(i) water - “Greater Cambridge external guidance note for planning applications - Drafted by Environment Agency, March 2023 - Water Resources and Growth in Greater Cambridge” remains relevant and should be expressly referred to in the draft SPD; Cambridge Water does not yet have a finalised and published Water Resources Management Plan 2024. Further, future development may be able to help with or fund future reductions to overall water use at CBC. Its 29 November 2024 letter to the Environment Agency, Ofwat and DeFRA, Cambridge Water notes that “[water usage] has outstripped our WRMP19 forecasts, particularly for non-household demand for water. Cambridge has a high level of Research and Development (R&D) users”. It has also “engaged with Addenbrookes hospital to provide water efficiency advice to support identification of water reuse or reduction opportunities across the estate”.
(ii) electricity - various Great Shelford residents have been experiencing power outages (generally brief) for several months now. The CPCA’s recently adopted Infrastructure Development Framework notes that inadequate electricity supply has the potential to be a barrier to development, unless planned, permitted and implemented in a timely manner. The need to ensure that there is a sufficient electricity supply for any planning application should be highlighted in the draft SPD.
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200310
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council
43.1 This section could be strengthened by the inclusion of a request to ensure the development is resilient to future climate risks such as increased frequency of extreme weather events.
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
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200385
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council
4a.3 does not adequately capture the need to consider the appearance of CBC itself (as a whole), and the city edge it creates, from the Green Belt and from nearby hills or approach roads.
We do not believe that the development principles adequately reflect the dilapidated state of Addenbrookes and the urgent need for its redevelopment to be planned and then implemented.
Paragraph 4e.1.2 appears inappropriate in relation to old hospital buildings.
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
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200392
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: University of Cambridge
The guidance in paragraph 4e.1.4 is not clear: ‘For non clinical uses, seek to exceed water efficiency targets by including non-potable water supply, harvested rainwater or re-used greywater and including sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS)’. Water efficiency standards in
the adopted Cambridge Local Plan already require the full five credits for BREEAM category Wat01 to be achieved for non-residential development. In addition, supplementary guidance should not exceed
planning standards as set out in adopted planning policy.
Dear Lizzie,
Please find attached a response from the University of Cambridge to the CBC SPD consultation.
Best wishes,
Paul
Paul Milliner MRTPI I Head of Planning
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200406
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge Biomedical Campus
The six themes and principles contained within them are welcome. They are consistent with a range of issues which CBC Ltd has argued need to be addressed across the campus as it develops.
While these principles are welcome there are some areas where the wording could be stronger or further requirements added.
Para 4a 1.4: This addresses the ‘Multi-Purpose Role of Open Spaces’ and the SPD suggests that new open spaces should be designed to support their flexible use eg for events and meanwhile uses. This is welcome but CBC Ltd believe this could be strengthened by specific reference to meanwhile use and the need to provide access to power and water in and around these spaces. This would help facilitate the desired flexibility
Additionally the SPD should include a requirement for the provision of:
i) an incubator facility with subsidised/affordable lab space for start-ups.
iii) a hotel.
Provision of these uses on the campus would complement its core purpose and would cement its ability to attract and retain world global investment and talent
See document attached for further information and justification
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
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200411
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: Hobson's Conduit Trust
Paragraph 4.10 - We do not consider the wording to be sufficient. Nine Wells LNR needs to be expanded to include areas currently in agricultural use around it in order to absorb greater footfall, as well as to safeguard the fragile environment around the springheads. We have set this out in our Nine Wells Vision document, currently being updated, a copy of which follows this letter. However, although s106 funds were previously assembled for this purpose, the expansion of Nine Wells LNR did not proceed. It is of great importance given the nature of the work that takes place at the hospitals and on the Biomedical Campus, that staff have access to green space nearby where they can find tranquility and decompress. Nine Wells offers this, complementing Hobson’s Park. In this context, please also see, for example, ‘The Nature of Cambridge,’ ISBN 978-1-87435707-5 pages 262 et seq., and https://johnmeed.net/ecology/nine-wells/
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
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200414
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: Environment Agency
The Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD is referred to in section 4e Sustainability. Although most of the guidance in this document on how to manage flood risk is still
relevant, the climate change allowances included in section 5 are out-of-date. The most recent guidance on using climate change allowances in FRAs can be found on the governments website.
There is no mention of flood risk under the ‘Key principles for sustainability’ heading on pages 37-38 and there are no questions relating to flood risk under the sustainability
heading on page 44. Flood risk should be an important consideration for any new development in the area given that there are some areas of Flood Zone 3 (high risk) within the preferred site options. As such, flood risk considerations should be included the sustainability section of the SPD. We would like to see reference to avoiding new development in any areas at risk of flooding and seeking opportunities to reduce flood risk both on site and elsewhere. The SPD should make it clear that if any development is proposed within sites that include areas of Flood Zone 3, hydraulic modelling of relevant watercourses will need be undertaken as part of a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).
Dear Planning Policy Team,
Please see attached our comments on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD.
Kind regards,
Alison Craggs
Sustainable Places Advisor
East Anglia Area (West)
Environment Agency, Bromholme Lane, Brampton, Huntingdon, Cambs. PE28 4NE
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200434
Received: 24/01/2025
Respondent: Cllr Immy Blackburn-Horgan
4.2 A laudable aim for the SPD – “It is important to recognise principles of good design in the early stages of the planning process in order to deliver high quality development.”
This fits with the Addenbrooke’s NHS Trust 2008 Masterplan which aimed “To maximise the quality of the hospital environment, the masterplan aimed to bring an urbanism to the campus rarely seen in healthcare at that time: high quality architecture, public spaces and landscape. Alongside clinical considerations we considered adjacencies, entrances, access, wayfinding and outdoor space. This holistic approach to the campus helps the hospital extract best value from its existing buildings while planning for future growth. The masterplan begins by setting out a legible hierarchy of streets and spaces, which have become the underlying pattern for development. It aimed to define a relationship with the Biomedical Campus whereby Addenbrooke's and the Rosie Hospital have a highly distinctive identity within the overall site.” Was this not put in place? As a more piecemeal development of the Site appears to have taken place until 2025 over the past four decades, so good design principles are required to be applied to enable this laudable aims to be met.
Draft SPD Consultation CBC Site- Comments Cllr Immy B-H
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200442
Received: 14/01/2025
Respondent: Trumpington Residents Association
We would like to see reference to reduction in rat running in the development principles. We ask that consideration is given to the inclusion of a development principle which encourages applicants to offer a contribution to public costs arising from their proposed development.
To reduce rat running on the CBC’s roads, the installation and effective operation of an ANPR system or alternative is a planning matter.
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
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200492
Received: 14/01/2025
Respondent: Trumpington Residents Association
We appreciate that the draft SPD makes various references to water. These references, not all of which relate to water supply, are dispersed throughout the draft
SPD thus lessening their impact. The water supply crisis warrants a high profile in this SPD.
The SPD should make direct reference to the Environment Agency’s “Guidance note for planning applications”, and make clear that CBC applicants are expected to demonstrate satisfactorily the account they have taken of the Guidance.
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
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 200536
Received: 22/01/2025
Respondent: Ramblers Association Cambridge Group
We support your statement "Improve the integration between the Campus and the surrounding communities by enhancing walking...". However, you should be aware that the currently proposed CSET guided busway will replace the DNA cycle path with the busway and remove the current footpath access to Nine Wells. It would be good if you could advise the CSET project against such a strategy.
The car parking policy fails to take account of the impact that the lack of parking space provided has on the area surrounding the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, particularly the residential streets.
The SPD should recognise that the charges levied on car park users have a significant impact on whether they will park on-site or off-site. It should be a requirement that such charges on any car park on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus should not be so high as to encourage off-site car parking and ideally there should be no charge on employees working at Cambridge Biomedical Campus.
The SPD should require clear separation of walking and cycling routes, including potential
use of different surfaces and heights.
Dear Sir/Madam
Attached is the response to the draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document on behalf of the Ramblers Association Cambridge Group.
Kind regards
Jane Crawford-White
Chair
Ramblers Association Cambridge Group