Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Support

Representation ID: 30478

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

As set out above we support the inclusion of the Science Park within the AAP area. However, the issues related to the Science Park are not unique and there is no requirement for additional policy guidance for Cambridge Science Park. Site specific policies may be required to control the type and quality of development on opportunity sites within the AAP area.

Support

Representation ID: 30479

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

TCE support the provision of a hotel and/or conference facilities within the mixed-use development of land around the proposed new railway station, on the basis that this would be a supporting use with the focus remaining on employment and office floor space.

Support

Representation ID: 30480

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

TCE broadly support the inclusion of student accommodation in the CNFE area; however, this must be as a complementary use with the focus being on employment and research and development uses, and any large scale developments should not be permitted.

Support

Representation ID: 30481

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

TCE support the approach set out for the new local centre and welcome the proposals to include retail and other uses within this location. These new uses should be located in one area (as part of the local centre) so as not to dilute the existing office and employment functions of the CNFE area.

Object

Representation ID: 30482

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

As set out in the Issues and Options report, TCE 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. However, until this modelling data is available and understood, there is no benefit in progressing the AAP further. In addition, TCE do not support the proposals to allow public access through CBP as set out previously.

Comment

Representation ID: 30483

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

In addition to the vehicular options proposed through the CNFE AAP, in order to relieve traffic congestion around the existing A14/Milton Road junction, TTP Consulting have considered whether an additional access from the A14 to the station could be included within the AAP and delivered as part of the redevelopment as illustrated on the enclosed sketch TTP-SK1540A-0001. We would be grateful if CCC and SCDC would consider this as an important option to address existing and future transport, highways and access issues.

Support

Representation ID: 30484

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

TCE do not support a restriction in car parking standards or further cycle parking spaces. TCE support Option A for the CNFE AAP to include CCC adopted car parking standards and cycle parking standards.

Support

Representation ID: 30485

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

TCE do not support a restriction in car parking standards or further cycle parking spaces. TCE support Option A for the CNFE AAP to include CCC adopted car parking standards and cycle parking standards.

Comment

Representation ID: 30651

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

The element is crucial because it will be important to link the existing offices within the AAP with the proposed station. As set out above, TCE would like to see improved access between the new railway station and CBP. Potential pedestrian/cycle access options have previously been worked up by Scott Brownrigg and HED and are enclosed for information. These options have then been shared with the occupiers at CBP who responded positively to the proposals. We would therefore like to see these options included within the next stage of the AAP.

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 30652

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

The draft AAP is broadly supported by TCE, subject to the two main concerns set out within these representations being addressed.

Firstly, clarification must be provided with regards to the employment uses which will be encouraged on the site. As set out under 'vision' above, we would like to see a greater emphasis on the area being developed further as an internationally recognised business, research and development cluster, as per the existing character of this part of Cambridge. This must not be diluted by the AAP.

Secondly, we have significant concerns regarding the traffic and movement principles set out within the AAP which have been developed without an understanding of the baseline position for the area. The traffic modelling and sensitivity testing which has been identified as necessary must be undertaken to establish the baseline position for the development of the area. Until this modelling has been undertaken, TCE are of the view that the AAP should not be further progressed.

Lastly, it is essential that the AAP ensures mechanisms to ensure that the new station is effectively linked to the existing businesses within the AAP area, including CBP; however, there should be no public access through CBP.