Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Comment

Representation ID: 29677

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

No further comment.

Object

Representation ID: 29678

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Brookgate object to the proposed approach on housing mix. There is no reference to PRS within the proposed approach and it is not explicitly recognised. The significant increase in demand for PRS needs to be accounted for and its provision actively encouraged within the AAP. Constraints on the CNFE site must be recognised and a realistic housing mix provided. PRS will play an important role in achieving this outcome.

Comment

Representation ID: 29679

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Subject to viability testing the policy should be applied as proposed. The very heavy infrastructure costs and brownfield nature of the land with associated remediation costs must be recognised and viability is of key importance. Brookgate support the City Council's affordable housing requirements which offer a graduated approach to affordable provision which differentiates between different scales of development. South Cambridgeshire policy is less flexible. Consideration should however be given to PRS developments where a different approach may be required, such as discounted market rents, off-site contributions toward affordable housing provision etc

Support

Representation ID: 29680

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Option A is our preferred option but Option A can also deliver excellent places to live with no adverse impacts on the economic/social mix of the future residential community. This is clearly demonstrated in numerous schemes across the country, such as East Village in Stratford and Clippers Quay in Salford, Manchester.
We do not believe that detailed guidance is necessary as existing policies aim to deliver quality places to live. In addition, there is significant guidance already published that could be beneficially referenced by the authorities.

Object

Representation ID: 29681

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Option A is our preferred option but Option A can also deliver excellent places to live with no adverse impacts on the economic/social mix of the future residential community. This is clearly demonstrated in numerous schemes across the country, such as East Village in Stratford and Clippers Quay in Salford, Manchester.
We do not believe that detailed guidance is necessary as existing policies aim to deliver quality places to live. In addition, there is significant guidance already published that could be beneficially referenced by the authorities.

Comment

Representation ID: 29682

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

The ability of PRS schemes to create quality places to live cannot be doubted, it is no different to any development in the built environment. It needs a clear brief, good design, delivery and collaborative working to make it successful architecturally and in urban design terms. Many authorities are developing PRS design guides to assist developers. The authorities may wish to follow a similar route, producing guidance in association with the developer as part of the AAP but the ULI UK residential council has recently produced "Build to Rent, A Best Practice Guide" which represents significant expertise in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 29683

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

The market has expressed an interest in the provision of student housing in the CNFE area and this need should be accommodated.

Object

Representation ID: 29684

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

A limit should not be set on the amount of student accommodation that would be allowed in the CNFE area. This would result in an inflexible approach which could fail to meet market demand and unnecessarily restrict appropriate development/re-development in the CNFE area, potentially jeopardising both the supply of student accommodation within Cambridge and the successful creation of a mixed and balanced community at CNFE.

Support

Representation ID: 29685

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Brookgate support proposed Option C. It would maintain a flexible approach to the provision of student accommodation within the CNFE area, reflecting the markets existing interest in the locality. The introduction of a new policy requiring student accommodation proposals to demonstrate how the benefits could outweigh possible negative impacts/mitigation of such impacts is a sensible safeguard which will not result in unnecessary restrictions being placed upon the CNFE area, whilst ensuring that student housing forms part of a balanced, well planned new community.

Object

Representation ID: 29686

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Option D would restrict new student accommodation to specified locations only, resulting in a loss of flexibility for the evolution of the CFNE area. There is no need to impose such a restriction which could have a detrimental impact upon both the provision of student accommodation to meet market demand and upon sites which are safeguarded for student development, when alternative uses may be more appropriate. A new policy as suggested under Option C offers a more flexible approach which will result in student accommodation being developed in suitable locations