Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Support

Representation ID: 30517

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Option A. If there is evidence of demand for student accommodation in this location or some of the proposals for the CNFE create such demand, then it would be sensible to make such provision. It is considered that as there are no educational institutions in the immediate vicinity, there would seem to be limited demand for student accommodation in this location. This location could also leave students isolated as there are limited facilities available unless there is significant provision on site within the AAP area.

Support

Representation ID: 30518

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Support. Balanced, sustainable community requires such services and facilities as do the employees working locally. It is considered important that these are not too fragmented across the CNFE as that could reduce their viability or contribution to extended opening hours and thus service provision.

Support

Representation ID: 30519

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Support. The provision of such facilities together is likely to be more sustainable and viable.

Support

Representation ID: 30520

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Support. Open space is very important in high density schemes and can also help to reduce the impact of tall buildings.

Support

Representation ID: 30521

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Support. Transport will be a key issue for this area given the pressures on capacity locally. Transport and improvements to infrastructure need to consider the whole CNFE AAP area so that any improvements needed reflect the future needs of the whole area and not individual land ownerships. Incremental improvements by various land owners based on demand and phasing related only to that land ownership should be resisted as that may lead to greater disruption over the period in which the CNFE is developed, both to those with the CNFE area and outside as offsite improvements are likely to be required.

Support

Representation ID: 30522

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Option A. This may be challenging to deliver given the potential employment levels created here and the regional draw to such employment. It is considered that a target is required but this needs to be realistic and challenging.

Comment

Representation ID: 30523

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

This really depends upon the final option chosen for CNFE. As with Question 34 above, this needs to be considered in the context of the whole CNFE area and not individual land ownerships or phasing. There may be advantages to each of the road access options. Separation of cyclists and pedestrians from vehicles should be an aim.

Support

Representation ID: 30524

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Option B. This maximises land use, potentially enables a wider range of land uses and should enable more residential development away from the odour footprint.

Support

Representation ID: 30525

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Option B. This seems to be a sensible approach if to maximise more sustainable forms of transport as well as encouraging employers to support more sustainable forms of transport for travel to work.

Support

Representation ID: 30526

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Option C. The station will inevitably be used for commuting and encouraging travel to the station by cycle should be supported and provided for. The Guided Busway links will also encourage the use of cycling from possibly further than may otherwise be the case.