Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

The vision states that 'the development will ensure the continued presence of the strategic aggregates railheads that will facilitate the wider growth of Greater Cambridge'. CNFE is the only location in the Cambridge area which has strategic railheads, and these are essential to the growth of the area as they are the means through which mineral which cannot be found locally i.e. hard rock, is brought into the area. The alternative would be to bring large quantities of hard rock by road which would not be sustainable. The Lafarge Tarmac railhead will also play an essential role in bringing in hard rock for the improvement of the A14, over the three year build period.

The intent to retain these railheads is therefore strongly supported and is consistent with the County Council's policy in the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2011) and Site Specific Proposals Plan (2012) which identifies the Lafarge Tarmac railhead as a Transport Zone and designates a Transport Safeguarding Areas around it, placing within it a presumption against any development which could prejudice its use for the transport of mineral and / or waste.

The vision box also states that the development will ensure 'existing and new waste management facilities can be safeguarded / delivered (including Household Recycling Centre and inert waste recycling facility)'. This is welcomed and is in line with the County Council's policy in the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2011) and Site Specific Proposals Plan (2012) which identifies an area of search for a Household Recycling Centre and a permanent inert waste recycling facility, alongside other new waste technologies where appropriate. As pointed out above, so long as the vision takes account of the relevant safeguarding areas and allocations set out within the Minerals and Waste Development Plan, and ensures that development is appropriate that will not prejudice the minerals and waste, plus related transport uses, it should be seen to be policy compliant.

Support from economic development perspective.

The vision would benefit from the inclusion of "health" as a concept.

The overarching objectives are supported. Considering these against the option scenarios it is apparent that the mix of land uses is wide ranging, comprising existing and new uses such as the Water Recycling Centre and housing. Some of these uses would not normally be located next to each other, with this is mind it is suggested that Proposed Objective 2 be slightly amended to incorporate the objective that these mixed uses be provided in such a way that they are located in a compatible way:
'Proposed Objective 2: Provide a mix of land uses in locations where they are compatible, and at densities that make best use of this highly sustainable location and regeneration opportunities'

In addition to the suggested change to proposed Objective 2, we would also point out that there is not currently reference to the minimising of waste in line with the RECAP Waste Management Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012). We would therefore recommend that this be built into proposed Objective 8 as follows, or a separate Objective set up to cover this issue:

'Encourage a low carbon lifestyle; the minimisation of waste both during construction and occupational phases of development; and addressing climate change'

Support from economic development perspective.

The objectives should include an object to secure "good health" through development.

The 'physical and visual envelope' in point (iv) makes reference to the 'screening landscape alongside the A14 to the north' and the 'highway environment along Milton Road to the west' both of which are supported as they show the level of screening already in place in parts of the CNFE AAP area currently identified. This existing screening should be taken into account for any waste application that should come forward on the Anglian Water site.

Support from economic development perspective.

The relationship to the Traveller and Gypsy site should be explored in order to protect the site and associated access.

If redevelopment guidance for the Science Park is thought necessary, a separate AAP should be prepared at the appropriate time as currently it is only Phase 1 of the Science Park that has potential for redevelopment. The two areas are different in their nature with the Science Park being virtually wholly for employment uses (primarily high-tech and R&D) whilst a mix of uses is proposed for CNFE. In addition, the Science Park's status and image as a significant brand in itself should warrant its own AAP rather than being part of another AAP for an area which has yet to create an identity for itself. If a combined AAP is undertaken for both the Science Park and CNFE, it could also hamper implementation of the CNFE proposals as developer interest is likely to be more focused on the Science Park, given its status.

The inclusion of this land is supported; provided that it maintains or improves access to the new rail station and / or assists local pedestrian and cycle access.

No comment

No comment

No comment

No comment

No comment