Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Comment

Representation ID: 30615

Received: 03/02/2015

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

RLW supports the proposed vision, in particular the references to:
-embracing "modern commercial business needs and buildings";
-"the proposed new railway station and extension to the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway to create a well- connected and vibrant place";
-acknowledgement given to the importance of the regeneration of this area in contributing to the wider growth agenda.

Part of the vision is incompatible with identified priorities:
-the site's continued use for aggregates and waste management will detract from the key objective to deliver a high quality business centre;
-given the employment-led focus, 'sustainable urban living' will comprise part of the overall vision

Comment

Representation ID: 30616

Received: 03/02/2015

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

RLW supports the proposed development objectives as an appropriate means of articulating the broad development principles for the area that will assist in guiding delivery of the vision for CNFE. RLW strongly support Objective 3 (maximisation of employment opportunities) and Objective 6 (creation of an accessible and well-connected neighbourhood) as being key to securing the over-arching objective.

Support

Representation ID: 30617

Received: 03/02/2015

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

The AAP boundary is defined in the respective draft Local Plans for Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire and therefore in procedural terms any amendments may be problematic and should only be contemplated if there are clear and convincing merits in so doing.

Object

Representation ID: 30618

Received: 03/02/2015

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

We do not support extension of the AAP boundary to include the Cambridge Science Park, both in procedural terms (see Question 3) and because this is felt to be unnecessary. Whilst the continued success and evolution of the Science Park is fully supported, it is noted in the Issues and Options consultation document that proposal Policy E/1 of the draft South Cambridgeshire Local Plan would facilitate this in any event.

Support

Representation ID: 30619

Received: 03/02/2015

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

The Triangle site is important in terms of facilitating pedestrian and cycle links to the south which is a critical component of delivering a sustainable transport strategy.

This would no doubt be assisted by inclusion of the Triangle within the AAP area and if deemed necessary an amendment to the relevant Local Plan could be advanced through the current examination process to ensure consistency between these development plan documents. However if that is problematic procedurally, it will be important to ensure that the provision of cycle (and pedestrian) linkage is safeguarded by an alternative planning policy device.

Comment

Representation ID: 30620

Received: 03/02/2015

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

RLW agrees with the analysis of the various constraints affecting the CNFE site, including the mapping of these (such as odour and noise) within Figure 5.
In particular it is noted that the odour issues associated with the water recycling centre had previously led to any aspiration for delivery of residential development being abandoned, in the context of the previous round of development plan documents. Figure 5 appears to show, based on the odour contours, that only a small proportion of the site, towards the southern boundaries, would be suitable for residential (C3) uses uses, at less than 1.5 OUe per cubic metre. It is evident that much of this part of the site would be required for provision of a car park to serve the new station, or is currently in open space use (allotments, and a Site of Local Conservation Importance), further limiting scope for residential development.
It is considered that, having identified these significant constraints, the implications of these for the mix and extent of particular land uses are not outlined sufficiently explicitly, nor appropriately reflected within the development options. In this connection we would highlight that whilst there is reference to the railway line in para 6.16 (Infrastructure), there is no mention of the station itself. This is a key element of the infrastructure to serve both CNFE and the wider area and should be added to the text at this point.

Comment

Representation ID: 30621

Received: 03/02/2015

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

RLW Estates broadly support the development principles as an appropriate articulation of the proposed objectives for the CNFE AAP. In line with our comments on the vision we question two aspects: 2C does not give adequate emphasis to the employment-led priority for the area and appears to give too much encouragement to residential uses; 3G gives unqualified support for difficult uses (aggregates and waste) without recognising their potential to compromise the quality of the development achievable.

Comment

Representation ID: 30622

Received: 03/02/2015

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

RLW Estates does not wish to comment in detail on Options 1 - 4. However, consistent with our earlier comments we wish to highlight the principles which we believe should underpin the selected strategy:
* The priority should be to optimise the development of the area as a high quality employment hub;
* The new station should be recognised as a key piece of infrastructure to support this role;
* Provision of all sustainable transport modes (including walking and cycling) must be encouraged and safeguarded, both to serve CNFE itself and as part of the wider strategy for the Ely corridor, including Waterbeach new town;
* Careful consideration should be given to the potential to relocate or re-configure constraining uses so as to enhance the overall objectives. If that is not possible the land use strategy will need to reflect how best to accommodate them whilst minimising any prejudicial impacts.

As regards the last of these points RLW Estates notes that Option 4 is entirely dependent upon relocation of the Water Recycling Centre off-site, with no certainty that this is either viable or deliverable. It is acknowledged within the consultation document that no alternative sites for this facility, which is itself regarded as a vital item of infrastructure for the Greater Cambridge area, have yet been identified. Furthermore it is noted that exercises aimed at finding an appropriate alternative location in the relatively recent past were unsuccessful, and on this basis this option must be considered unlikely to be deliverable, potentially risking the regeneration of this area as a whole. That does not, though, preclude the possibility of reconfiguring and modernising the Water Recycling Centre to reduce its negative impacts on development.

Nevertheless, given the constraints clearly in evidence, and in line with our responses to earlier questions, it is not considered that additional residential development would be feasible.

Moreover this could not be achieved without diluting the employment focus for the area in accordance with Local Plan policy.

Object

Representation ID: 30623

Received: 03/02/2015

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

We object to Option A (reliance upon normal planning rules), as it is considered that the presence of significant constraints to residential development (primarily the odour levels in existence) and the objective of maximising employment development, means that it would be highly desirable for increased protective measures to prevent permitted change of use from office to residential or other uses.

Support

Representation ID: 30624

Received: 03/02/2015

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

We support Option B, the introduction of additional measures to prevent permitted change of use from office to residential or other uses as the presence of significant constraints to residential development (primarily the odour levels in existence) and the objective of maximising employment development make this highly desirable, as noted in our response to Question 22a.