Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Comment

Representation ID: 29647

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Brookgate proposes that the new station should be named Cambridge Park Station and the existing City station be named as Cambridge Station. This will ensure that the area is legible, particularly given the high volume of tourists who visit the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 29648

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

The transport network is a key constraint in bringing forward development at CNFE. The Milton Road corridor and A14 Milton Interchange currently operate at capacity during peak travel periods. The CNFE has the potential to become highly sustainable due to the new railway station, extended Guided Busway and pedestrian/cycle enhancements, however highway capacity remains a significant constraint requiring further investigation with a mitigation strategy developed as part of any future development proposals.

Contamination should not be overstated and seen as a barrier to development. The current odour maps do not reflect Anglian Water's proposed WRC upgrades and should be re-visited.

Support

Representation ID: 29649

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Brookgate supports the proposed development principles subject to the following amendments. Objective 2 should be amended to make explicit reference to high densities given the highly sustainable location of CNFE. Specific reference should also be made to the provision of residential development within CNFE, given that 'providing new homes to meet the pressing needs of the local community' is identified as one of the key opportunities for the CNFE area at para. 1.13 of the proposed AAP.

Object

Representation ID: 29650

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Option 1 proposes a lower level of development on a brownfield site which is situated in a highly sustainable location. This represents inefficient use of the land and does not accord with the NPPF which seeks to maximise the use of previously developed land (para.111). Furthermore, Option 1 does not propose any new residential development or a local service hub and will not provide a mix of land uses at densities that make best use of the site. Option 1 does not therefore accord with the development objectives identified to guide the delivery of the vision for the CNFE.

Comment

Representation ID: 29651

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Brookgate support some aspects of Option 2, however an alternative Option 2a is proposed and is appended to this submission. Residential development, particularly near the station is supported as is the proposed increase in Offices/R & D with associated job creation and the development of a local centre. The proposed increase in informal open space provision is also supported but could be improved. Option 2 proposes a more balanced mix of land uses and maintains the potential for early delivery, however there remains scope to further improve upon the efficiency of the use of the land.

Object

Representation ID: 29652

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Brookgate have serious concerns regarding the viability and deliverability of Option 3, which is reliant upon the upgrading and reduction in area of the Water Recycling Centre. This is a significant issue and the deliverability of Option 3 is therefore questionable. Early deliverability will be impracticable and meeting the CNFE vision of a comprehensively planned area will be difficult due to the likelihood of some parts of the development coming forward significantly later than others. More significant highway works will also be required due to the increased quantum of development providing further viability and deliverability issues.

Object

Representation ID: 29653

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Brookgate have serious concerns regarding the viability and deliverability of Option 4, which is entirely reliant upon the relocation of the Water Recycling Centre offsite. The viability of this relocation is unknown and there are significant technical, financial and operational constraints. Furthermore, an alternative site has not been identified. The proposed mix of land uses is unbalanced and Option 4 will not facilitate early delivery. Due to some parts of the site coming forward later, piecemeal development would be likely to occur, contrary to the proposed CNFE vison of a comprehensively planned area.

Comment

Representation ID: 29654

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Brookgate propose Option 2a, an enhanced medium level of redevelopment. Option 2a would facilitate a significantly greater number of dwellings near the station, increased Offices/RD provision with associated increase in job creation and an increased amount of new informal open space. Option 2a facilitates the more efficient use of the land, with a balanced mix of land uses at densities which make the best use of the highly sustainable location. A hotel is proposed adjacent to the station and overall early delivery remains achievable. The submitted plan provides further detail.

Support

Representation ID: 29655

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Brookgate strongly support the aspiration to create a place with real character and quality and support the principle of a basic urban design strategy which sets out key design parameters such as access, scale and distribution of uses. Brookgate are however concerned that developing and agreeing a detailed design strategy for all the CNFE sites with all stakeholders is not deliverable due to the diverse landholdings. Brookgate therefore suggest a design led approach which defines the detailed urban design parameters on the CB4 site which can then inform the future phases of the CNFE area

Support

Representation ID: 29656

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Brookgate support the proposed design-led approach on densities.