Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Support

Representation ID: 30486

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

As a major landowner within CNFE, the Council supports the vision as set out.
It is essential CNFE AAP is properly master planned avoiding piecemeal developments.
The AAP area has some significant physical barriers (e.g. the A14, planned Guided Busway extension, Milton Road and the railway line) meaning that any development here could potentially be relatively isolated.
More specific references needed in vision regarding: scale and type of development; good transport links; and creating a permeable site.
Piecemeal and incremental infrastructure improvement should be avoided to bring the whole site forward in a timely and cohesive way.

Support

Representation ID: 30487

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Proposed Objective 1 Support.
Proposed Objective 2 Support.
Proposed Objective 3 Support.
Proposed Objective 4 Support.
Proposed Objective 5 Support.
Proposed Objective 6 Support.
Proposed Objective 7 Support.
Proposed Objective 8 Support.

Support

Representation ID: 30488

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

The deliverability within a reasonable timeframe of the AAP is important in this regard and given the potential significant scale of the AAP, focus should be on those aspects most likely to be delivered.

Object

Representation ID: 30489

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

No. The Science Park is recognised globally in its own right, is well managed, and it is likely that its owners will seek to maximise opportunity without the need to be part of the CNFE AAP. It is unlikely that large scale redevelopment would be driven by including it in the AAP.

Support

Representation ID: 30490

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Yes, this would seem to be a logical extension and may give access to the adjoining communities.

Comment

Representation ID: 30491

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

No view other than it should not be driven by an individual landowner.

Support

Representation ID: 30492

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Cambridge North Station. This describes what it will be and if at a later date a new station is proposed beside Addenbrookes Hospital, there could logically be Cambridge North, Central and South Stations.

Comment

Representation ID: 30494

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Protection of the waste uses seems contrary to some aims of the AAP.
The Transport Strategy could possibly be too insular.
Greater focus needed on access to the wider region.
Public transport needs to adequately serve people travelling from west and south west of Cambridge if additional car journeys are to be reduced.
What is the relationship between any new local centre and the new station?
Housing is dependent upon the Water Recycling Centre relocation.
What is the transport impact of people commuting to/from CNFE?
The use of this area for higher density, tall buildings is supported.

Support

Representation ID: 30495

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Support development principles.

Support

Representation ID: 30496

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Definitive line between odour zones defining uses within the CNFE. The AAP should consider individual applications on merit.
The odour footprint should be updated.
Access road serving the B2 uses to the north of Cowley Road could be separate from the B1 use, possibly with access from the Milton Road end avoiding "B1"use.
The relocation of the station car park with a multi-storey car park could allow residential development in AAP, maximising density, improving the site's sustainability and allowing some employees to live locally, helping to meet the intended target of reducing car use by employees within the City.