Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Comment

Representation ID: 30458

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

TCE support the overall vision for CNFE as an employment led, mixed use neighbourhood. However, we would like to see a greater emphasis on the area being developed further as an internationally recognised business, research and development cluster. Cambridge Business Park, the Science Park and the St. Johns Innovation Centre already create the character of this part of Cambridge and this should not be diluted by the AAP.

Facilitating and encouraging research and development and high tech uses will enhance the 'critical mass' of the cluster and create further opportunities for collaboration and innovation, enhancing the city's reputation as a world leader for research and development.

Whilst it is appropriate to have complementary and supporting uses (including housing), the focus should be on high quality business uses.

However, any proposals to intensify the use of the area must address current access and infrastructure difficulties. If these matters, (particularly highway access), cannot be fully addressed, the area does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate further significant development.

Support

Representation ID: 30459

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

TCE broadly support the objectives identified for the AAP area. As set out above, we would like to see more clarification on the quality and type of employment uses proposed for the AAP area within these objectives. It is important to ensure that the current business research and development and technology function is not diluted.

It would be useful to identify 'character areas' to confirm the established nature of different parts of the AAP area.

Support

Representation ID: 30460

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

TCE support the suggested boundary for the AAP area. It is important to include the consented railway station within this boundary and the Guided Busway extension linking to the new railway station.

TCE support the principle of extending the CNFE AAP area to include Option A.

The Cambridge Science Park area should also be included on the basis that tenants on the Science Park will be utilising the new station once it has been completed and, therefore, these journeys will need to be taken into account within the transport modelling which will be undertaken as part of the evidence base.

Comment

Representation ID: 30461

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

We support the change in the name to Cambridge North or North Cambridge, to reflect the wider area.

Object

Representation ID: 30462

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

TCE object to the new station being named 'Cambridge Science Park Station'.
As we have set out in previous representations, this name is misleading and
would be confusing, given that the location of the station will be divorced from Cambridge Science Park, approximately 1km away.

Support

Representation ID: 30463

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

As the closest development to the station, it could be called Cambridge Business Park Station. However, we consider that a less specific name, tied to the wider geographical area that it serves is more inclusive and more appropriate. Therefore, we support the re-naming of the new station and view that Cambridge North Station (or North Cambridge) is the most appropriate name.

Comment

Representation ID: 30464

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

During the determination of the railway station application, TTP Consulting on behalf of TCE engaged with the County Council regarding the Transport Assessment submitted with the application and requested further information relating to the modelling which had been undertaken. TTP recommended that the transport modelling did not fully account for the wider development, and felt that the number of trips by sustainable modes had been overestimated. The County Council did not provide this information and their concerns have not been addressed.

During the meeting on 23 January, CCC advised that an updated evidence
base including sensitivity testing and transport modelling is being undertaken in parallel with the AAP being developed. TCE support this and are of the view that transport modelling of the wider development area and mitigation strategies/new road infrastructure will be crucial in the development of the AAP. As such, transportation is rightly identified as a key site constraint. Until this modelling data is available and understood, there is no benefit in progressing the AAP further.

Support

Representation ID: 30465

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

Principle A - D: TCE broadly welcomes the principles to deliver sustainable development on the site by way of an employment led, mixed use area (subject to consideration of our comments under 'vision') above. TCE supports the inclusion of R&D and similar uses within these principles to ensure that the existing character of the area is not diluted. TCE also supports the principle of locating higher density development in close proximity to the transport hubs, subject to consideration of access and the existing townscape and landscape.

Principle E - G: TCE, subject to highways access issues highlighted above, support these principles to maximise employment opportunities, but would like
to see further emphasis on the B1(b) uses, including high tech and R&D uses to reinforce Cambridge North as global leader in R&D and technology.

Principle H: TCE welcomes the addition of a new local centre within the AAP
area which will meet the needs of existing and future workers and residents.

Principles I - P: TCE supports the development of the AAP area in a sustainable manner, protecting the natural environment and encouraging sustainable modes of transport.

However, in planning the future of the area, aspirations must be tempered with realism. For example, justifying development capacity on the basis of unrealistic or overly ambitious assumptions on use of sustainable modes of transport is not acceptable and will be counterproductive.

TCE supports the proposed design principles which should be of a high quality and at an appropriate scale.

Object

Representation ID: 30466

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

Overall, TCE supports the high level options for redevelopment of the site (options 2-4) only if the detailed evidence base work/studies demonstrate that these development options will not cause negative impacts on existing residents, workers and investors. These concerns are set out as follows.


Mix of uses

A mix of uses is proposed for the site including residential uses, a mix of B class/employment uses, new open space, a local centre and the aggregates/railhead sidings use. TCE broadly supports this approach subject to concerns about access and infrastructure, but would like to see inclusion of wording to the effect that the primary function of this area is to be the leading R&D/technology quarter/destination in Cambridge. Any activity to dilute this core/distinctive and valuable focus of the area would be a loss/step backwards,
given its regional/national status. Whilst it is appropriate to have supporting and complementary uses, larger-scale developments should not be permitted.

TCE supports the identification of CBP as offices/R&D with potential for intensification.

Linkages

TCE broadly supports the principle of promoting sustainable transport and movement through the idea of improving permeability and access to key routes, although TCE object to public access and new walkways being provided
through CBP as shown within development options 2-4. For security and health and safety reasons, the general public cannot have access to and through CBP.

However, TCE would like to see improved pedestrian and cycle access between the new railway station and the CBP, for both the occupiers and their customers/visitors. This should be identified and supported in the AAP. Potential options for improving access from CBP to the Station have been previously worked up by Scott Brownrigg and HED and are enclosed for information.

Landscaping

TCE also supports the inclusion of hard and soft landscaping with the AAP area. However, it should be noted that a comprehensive landscaping scheme within CBP has been implemented and this is a matter for TCE. It is worth mentioning that TCE are implementing a Sustainability Action Plan at CBP which includes improving the landscaping/green corridors, promoting biodiversity areas, promoting green travel and other such initiatives. TCE also broadly support the aspiration for a 'green boulevard' along Cowley Road, which would tie in well with the aforementioned initiatives.

Support

Representation ID: 30467

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

Overall, TCE supports the high level options for redevelopment of the site (options 2-4) only if the detailed evidence base work/studies demonstrate that these development options will not cause negative impacts on existing residents, workers and investors. These concerns are set out as follows.


Mix of uses

A mix of uses is proposed for the site including residential uses, a mix of B class/employment uses, new open space, a local centre and the aggregates/railhead sidings use. TCE broadly supports this approach subject to concerns about access and infrastructure, but would like to see inclusion of wording to the effect that the primary function of this area is to be the leading R&D/technology quarter/destination in Cambridge. Any activity to dilute this core/distinctive and valuable focus of the area would be a loss/step backwards,
given its regional/national status. Whilst it is appropriate to have supporting and complementary uses, larger-scale developments should not be permitted.

TCE supports the identification of CBP as offices/R&D with potential for intensification.

Linkages

TCE broadly supports the principle of promoting sustainable transport and movement through the idea of improving permeability and access to key routes, although TCE object to public access and new walkways being provided
through CBP as shown within development options 2-4. For security and health and safety reasons, the general public cannot have access to and through CBP.

However, TCE would like to see improved pedestrian and cycle access between the new railway station and the CBP, for both the occupiers and their customers/visitors. This should be identified and supported in the AAP. Potential options for improving access from CBP to the Station have been previously worked up by Scott Brownrigg and HED and are enclosed for information.

Landscaping

TCE also supports the inclusion of hard and soft landscaping with the AAP area. However, it should be noted that a comprehensive landscaping scheme within CBP has been implemented and this is a matter for TCE. It is worth mentioning that TCE are implementing a Sustainability Action Plan at CBP which includes improving the landscaping/green corridors, promoting biodiversity areas, promoting green travel and other such initiatives. TCE also broadly support the aspiration for a 'green boulevard' along Cowley Road, which would tie in well with the aforementioned initiatives.