Comment

Representation ID: 200605

Received: 14/01/2025

Respondent: Trumpington Residents Association

Paragraph 4.10 of the draft SPD refers to Nine Wells LNR, which is part of the Green Belt. The phase two and three developments yet to come forward may be particularly relevant here given their proximity to the fragile and vulnerable LNR. The issue remains and we suggest its importance is reflected in the addition to the wording of the SPD: “and needs greater protection by extension of its area or other means.”

Comment

Representation ID: 200612

Received: 14/01/2025

Respondent: Trumpington Residents Association

“The questions to consider” under “The built form”, asks “Does the proposal… Make a positive contribution to the city’s skyline through careful consideration of its visual impact?” Use of the word “skyline” meaning “the outline of hills, buildings etc, defined against the sky; the visible horizon” seems unclear. Looking at this part of the city’s edge from the fields and Magog Hills outside, it is the whole impression of the buildings that strikes one – their unattractiveness, certainly amongst the older buildings, and their disordered appearance – in so important a view of Cambridge. It is this that new development should seek to modify and improve – and certainly not aggravate. We suggest that the text is amended to capture this meaning more accurately.

Comment

Representation ID: 200619

Received: 14/01/2025

Respondent: Trumpington Residents Association

Paragraph 4.19 is an important statement on car parking provision. Its meaning is not clearly expressed in the first sentence and should be expressed more clearly.

As we understand it, CBC aims to reduce the number of car parking spaces planned/permitted and increase the proportion travelling to/from the Campus by public transport and active travel, together with significant further reduction of single occupancy car trips. If this is what is meant, the wording should reflect this in plain English.

The meaning of the second sentence is also unclear: what does “a careful balance” mean? This should be explained.

Comment

Representation ID: 200620

Received: 14/01/2025

Respondent: Trumpington Residents Association

Paragraph 4e 3.2 should refer to the Hobson’s Brook/Vicar’s Brook Green Corridor including Hobson’s Park and Nine Wells Local Nature Reserve not just to Hobson’s Brook. This important point, not least for CBC phase three applications yet to come forward, is underlined by the recent JDCC debate and decision concerning appropriate form of lighting for the new shared use path crossing Hobson’s Park from the Cambridge Guided Busway to the western building of Cambridge South Station. We suggest the wording is amended to refer to all of the Hobson’s Brook/Vicar’s Brook Green Corridor including Hobson’s Park and not only to Hobson’s Brook.

Comment

Representation ID: 200649

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: British Horse Society

Future proofing is needed which could bring about a joined-up PROW network in the area.

1. The CSET busway design includes a grass bridleway within the transport corridor.
2. The Sawston Greenway includes equestrian access.
3. A DMMO Application has been submitted for a bridleway off Haverhill Road in Stapleford.
4. A bridleway is included in the plans for the Babraham Road Development which will deliver part of the route to link up to the Roman Road byway.
5. Permissive bridleway access part way up to the rear of the Roman Road.
6. A peripheral bridleway.
7. A designated bridleway where the route is now a cycling and walking route only.
8. A safe off road NMU path from Cambridge to Magog Down which has been recognised on the 'wish list' for decades.

Comment

Representation ID: 200654

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

4e.2 This follows good guidance using the net zero carbon toolkit’s energy hierarchy.

Comment

Representation ID: 200655

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

4e1.4 The LLFA is supportive of the promotion of rainwater harvesting systems which reduces existing stresses on potable water in Cambridgeshire.

Comment

Representation ID: 200656

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

4a4.10 The LLFA are pleased to see that consideration has also been given to Nine Wells local nature reserve as water quality of the chalk streams on this site are particularly important.

Comment

Representation ID: 200657

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

4e4.22 The reference to the Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD is supported by the LLFA as it covers the importance of managing surface water runoff in new developments using sustainable drainage systems. The LLFA would also encourage reference to Chapter 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG).

Comment

Representation ID: 200658

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

4b3.2 Although elsewhere in the document, there is reference to existing nursery provision on campus, there is no reference to the need for additional nursery provision, which will be required as the campus grows.

Comment

Representation ID: 200659

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

4e.3 The Waste Management Area for the Addenbrooke’s incinerator (implemented but not built out) is within the Cambridge Local Plan site allocation M15 and is protected by a Consultation Area. There is a gap in their Map 3 of current occupiers that includes the site of the incinerator.? Para 3.28 of the SPD refers to the existing incinerator chimney in the context of building heights (78m and a ‘distinctive landmark’) but not the new one (60m). The SPD should also consider the environmental health impacts of the proposed 60m incinerator chimney.

Comment

Representation ID: 200660

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

While the SPD encourages the integration of open spaces and enhancing ecology and biodiversity which is supported by the LLFA, there is no mention of the incorporation of above ground Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). It should be noted that as well as providing flood reduction benefits, SuDS can provide biodiversity, amenity, and water quality benefits. Therefore, the incorporation of SuDS directly contributes to the overarching themes and development principles of multi-purpose open space, ecology, and biodiversity, as well as climate resilience set out within the SPD. Encouraging well-designed SuDS that support biodiversity, amenity, and water quality aid the proposals of a more coherent approach ensuring that multi-functional open spaces embed biodiversity as part of the design whilst also providing flood reduction benefits.

Comment

Representation ID: 200661

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

The LLFA are pleased to see the promotion of permeable surfaces as in addition to controlling the rate of surface water leaving the site it also provides water quality treatment. The LLFA is supportive of the promotion of rainwater harvesting systems which reduces existing stresses on potable water in Cambridgeshire.

Comment

Representation ID: 200662

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

We welcome the inclusion of ecology and biodiversity net gain, with specific reference to looking for opportunities to enhance tree cover and biodiversity at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. However, we are surprised that a target of 20% Biodiversity Net Gain has not been including, particularly for phases that are yet to be built (e.g. Phase 3). Particularly given a 20% BNG aspiration is included within Greater Cambridge’s Biodiversity SPD, and incorporated into Design Codes for other areas of the city (e.g. Draft Cambridge Neighbourhoods Design Code for Arbury, King’s Hedges and parts of West Chesterton SPD).

Comment

Representation ID: 200677

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We would not like to see retail offerings on the site that take away custom from the business in Great Shelford (paragraph 4b.3.1 is relevant in this regard).

Comment

Representation ID: 200678

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 200679

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

We wonder whether allotments and community grow and food planting spaces are realistic (paragraph 4a.1.4 and 5.5).

Comment

Representation ID: 200680

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Meanwhile uses of land reserved for healthcare provision should not distract from the basic need for that provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 200681

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

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).

Comment

Representation ID: 200682

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

The meaning of paragraph 4b.1.7 is not clear.

Comment

Representation ID: 200683

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

None of the proposed additional services and facilities contemplated by paragraphs 4b.3 should encourage additional vehicles to come onto CBC.

Comment

Representation ID: 200684

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

As regards paragraph 4d.1.2 – will the building of the Cancer Research and Children’s hospitals make any difference to blue light routes?

Comment

Representation ID: 200685

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

As regards paragraph 4e.1.4 can clinical buildings harvest rainwater for use by non-clinical users?

Comment

Representation ID: 200686

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Paragraph 4e.3.2 may need to acknowledge the need to light cycle paths appropriately. For example, the existing lighting on NCN11 is inadequate.

Comment

Representation ID: 200687

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 200688

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Great Shelford Parish Council

Paragraph 4.19 addresses car parking provision but lacks clarity.

Comment

Representation ID: 200695

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cllr Immy Blackburn-Horgan

4d.1 Wayfinding and permeability:
Yesterday a patient spent the day on site having many procedures and was on the last one an MRI, I found them wandering around the site lost and confused as to how to find the MRI Dept. Luckily, I knew it was not in the hospitals but outside and was able to accompany them to the Mobile MRI Unit.

Comment

Representation ID: 200696

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cllr Immy Blackburn-Horgan

4b.2 Continually patients to the site get lost coming from the Babraham Park and Ride not knowing if to go ahead to Addenbrookes roundabout or if going via Ninewells when they reach the sunken playground and do not know that they can go straight ahead by Warburton House, exiting Addenbrooke’s patients find this route hard to find, small external details that mean thousands get redirected into smaller residential areas or get lost and confused.

Comment

Representation ID: 200697

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cllr Immy Blackburn-Horgan

Good Design Principles 4.c:
CBC development as a centre for scientific excellence Riba Journal (2024) “..the main impression is of dirty portacabins, streaked concrete, a hidden entrance and confusing signage.” National Model Design Code MHC&LG (2021) - could this be a useful tool to aid good design principles at CBC Site?

Comment

Representation ID: 200698

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cllr Immy Blackburn-Horgan

4d.2.1 Improve the integration between the Campus and the surrounding communities by enhancing walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport connections ….– recognising in 2025 37-55,000 movements to and from the CBC Site daily will create unintended negative impacts on small residential streets in QEW abutting the CBC Site e.g. a sample include Sedley Taylor, Fendon, Mobrary, Holbrook, Glebe, Hulett, Field/Bowers/Worts Causeway, Nightingale Ave/Hills Road Service road, Ninewells through to the nearest Red Cross Lane, Stansgate Avenue and Greenlands.