Support

Representation ID: 200234

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: Mr Michael Hendry

The recognition in paragraph 5.3 that “…not all projects will be able to meet all of these objectives” is welcomed, given the diversity in scale and complexity of the projects coming forward on the campus.

Comment

Representation ID: 200249

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: Mr Michael Hendry

Paragraph 5.5, Sustainability, bullet point five to be reworded to read “Design out air quality impacts ensuring contribution to the site’s overall emissions are reduced, preventing cumulative worsening of air quality across the site”

Comment

Representation ID: 200254

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Prologis

5.5 i dont believe this is appropriate for a healthcare campus. For example we have 14 and 16 wheel BOC tankers delivering gasses to various users. this clause poses a real health and safety challenge. Perhaps it has a place in Phase 3 and 4 when uses could be at the edge of the scheme.

Comment

Representation ID: 200407

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cambridge Biomedical Campus

CBC Ltd would like to see the requirement for the provision of an incubator facility
and hotel on the campus included here.
Under the section on built form on page 43 additional bullets should be added regarding the provision of these facilities as follows:
• “Does the proposal either provide in its entirety or make a material contribution to the provision of an incubator facility on the campus?”
• “Does the proposal either provide in its entirety or make a material contribution in some way to the provision of a hotel facility on the campus?”

Comment

Representation ID: 200412

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Hobson's Conduit Trust

We note that Chapter Five ‘sets out a list of questions that developers should consider when preparing a planning application in order to positively plan for wider impacts and mitigation measures beyond the boundary of the individual site.’ We believe that there are various points in Chapter 5 where reference should be made to Nine Wells and Hobson’s Brook, and to Hobson’s Park.

Comment

Representation ID: 200435

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cllr Immy Blackburn-Horgan

5.2 Cumulative impact beyond the Site boundaries – this has been well documented over the past 2 decades with
overspill activities having unintended negative consequences on Queen Edith’s Ward and its local residents.

To be addressed by CUH 2024 commitment to commission an independent 2025 Neighbourhood Impact Report.

Comment

Representation ID: 200476

Received: 14/01/2025

Respondent: Trumpington Residents Association

The development principles proposed in chapter 5 of the draft contain much good content including bullet point 6 under the heading connectivity and movement.

However, it does not encourage applicants to recognize and contribute to the public costs arising in part from their proposed development on the CBC. These costs can be substantial, for example in the as yet unfunded Cambridge South East Transport scheme planned by the Greater Cambridge Partnership in significant part to meet the transport needs of the CBC.

We ask that consideration is given to the inclusion of a development principle which encourages applicants to make/offer a contribution, albeit relatively small in most instances given the level of additional demand that may arise from an individual development.

Comment

Representation ID: 200599

Received: 03/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Antony Carpen

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 200650

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: British Horse Society

Connectivity and movement - Not only do these proposals not consider ‘all feasible options’ to link to the rights of way network, none are even considered. Cyclists are mostly male. Horse riders and carriage drivers are mostly female meaning that inclusion of cycling with total exclusion of equestrians does not meet Equality policies.

Comment

Representation ID: 200651

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: British Horse Society

The public realm and wellbeing - No attempt whatsoever despite the requirements of the two policies: Policy 73: Community, sports and leisure facilities and Policy NH/6: Green infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 200665

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Adams Hendry Consulting Ltd

EWR Co recommends a new paragraph 5.7 is added to Chapter 5 of the SPD, as follows: “It is strongly encouraged that developers bringing forward proposals for new development on the Campus take account of the East West Rail project in those proposals and liaise with EWR Co to facilitate coordination between the development proposals and East West Rail. Developers proposing development affecting land within the Campus which falls within the safeguarded area should engage with EWR Co at an early stage, alongside any pre-application engagement with the LPA. Early engagement will allow EWR Co to consider how the proposals interact with East West Rail and how they might be accommodated with the proposed railway project, helping to avoid the possibility of a recommendation for refusal being made to the LPA by EWR Co at the planning application stage. To discuss any relevant proposals, developers should contact EWR Co by email at: land@eastwestrail.co.uk.”

Comment

Representation ID: 200700

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cllr Immy Blackburn-Horgan

5.3 The outcome is that individual developments will be planned and considered in a holistic manner – this follows on from previous design guidance of designing out the dangers and is welcomed in QEW.

Comment

Representation ID: 200701

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cllr Immy Blackburn-Horgan

5.5 By asking 30 questions ‘does the proposal’ it starts the process to build some confidence for the Queen Edith’s
population. Where approximately 12,500 residents have had the equivalent population of an Urban Town situated right next to their homes 37,000 -55,000 daily journeys. One area I have direct experience of this unintended negative impact is Red Cross Lane where the latest CBC Travel Report identified 7% entering inappropriately side tracking swamping a small residential area of just 50 houses with up to 2,800 daily journeys of people through 2 small cul-de-sac streets with a population of 200 (on one day when a road was closed this reached 4,000 people going just into the site during the morning period). With currently up to 4 times the Ward population traveling in and out daily to the CBC Site an SPD implies designing out crime may be incorporated into the design principles which can only create safer streets for both locals and the staff and other persons visiting the CBC Site.
Crime is the product of many factors, however, research has shown that design is one element that can influence the occurrence of crime - both positively and negatively. The aim of ‘Designing Out Crime’ is to reduce the vulnerability of people and property to crime by removing opportunities that may be provided inadvertently by the built environment. It also aims to reduce fear of crime and, in doing so, helps to improve people’s quality of life.

Comment

Representation ID: 200702

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cllr Immy Blackburn-Horgan

Living adjacent to the CBC Site just 1 small example I receive first hand feedback on where mitigations are required in the planning process e.g. when residents on Red Cross Lane questioned the foul water for Rosie using their road sewers they did not request or want an approach from the Hospitals to purchase their homes. They wished assurances that infrastructure would be fit for purpose. Living with the smells and works on their road for four decades and projected to increase with Forvie and the two hospital developments has impacted on digging and road works from digital cabling, gas, reviews of utilities as not adequate for the site including up to and including yesterday works on their road sewers all in relation to the needs of the CBS Site.

Comment

Representation ID: 200705

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Environment Agency

Should applicants wish us to review any technical documents or want further advice prior to the submission of planning applications, we may do this as part of our charged for planning advice service.

Further engagement will provide the applicant with certainty of our position as to what our response to your planning application will be. It should also result in a better quality and more environmentally sensitive development.

Comment

Representation ID: 200722

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Cllr Immy Blackburn-Horgan

The Draft SPD appears to meet its aim to “Be focused on site specific mitigation of the impact of development by way of direct provision of infrastructure (both on and off site of the development) and through the payment of financial contributions to the local planning authority. But my overriding concern is to achieve “planning gain” specifically opportunities for skills, training, apprenticeships and jobs for local young people via a QEW Employment and Skills Scheme. Engaging with and targeting them through our local Queen Edith primary through to secondary schools, by offering a world class Science and Community Hub that reinforces the CBC Site commitment that local young people could have a career and future on their doorstep.