Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

A new development on a large, previously developed site in a highly sustainable location in one of the UK's leading growth locations is greatly welcomed. The vision set out in Section 2 of the consultation document is commendable because it seeks to make best use of a significant area of brownfield land for new development. This should alleviate pressures on housing, transport and commercial space generated through growing numbers of new businesses around Cambridge and the attraction of the city region to inward investment.

See attached [below]

2.1 We support the broad objectives for the new development within the boundary of the Area Action Plan. However, we consider that it is important to ensure an appropriate relationship between each of the land uses set out in the four options. Different areas may be developed in different timescales and it is vital that the consequences of staged development are assessed in terms of the impact upon the neighbouring land uses.

2.2 The plan refers to a new neighbourhood being "well integrated with the wider community":
we contend that references to "neighbourhood" should not simply relate to the new residential areas near the station. A more comprehensively-defined objective, which acknowledges the importance of securing appropriate relationships between different uses within the plan area, is required. We are concerned, for instance, about the proximity and impact of any proposed "Household Waste Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility" to existing buildings on the St John's Innovation Park .

2.3 To ensure appropriate land use relationships between both new and existing developments - and indeed new developments adjacent to one another - we recommend that Proposed Objective 1 be amended to read:
"Deliver a place that fosters a range of new developments which are integrated into the wider community and where appropriate land use relationships are secured between new and existing development."

The current AAP includes the St John's Innovation Park. Provided that the St John's site is acknowledged to have potential for further development - "plot intensification" as termed within the options - then inclusion of the St John's innovation Park is appropriate provided that no more onerous conditions or policies are applied to this plan area than to those which fall outside it. The St John's Innovation Park should have the same opportunity to create new and additional floorspace as would the Cambridge Business Park under the AAP.

We do not see the direct relevance of the Science Park to the significant development opportunities that exist further to the east. We accept that traffic entering and leaving the AAP area will affect traffic in and out of the Science Park, but we are unsure why its inclusion is relevant. This is particularly the case when a policy in the new emerging South Cambridgeshire Local Plan already supports additional floorspace on the Science Park site.

We are unsure how the inclusion of this site will affect provision of the development near the station. If the intention is to secure a comprehensive delivery of the railway station and the important connections to the south, including the Chisholm Trail, then it would be sensible to secure consistency of approach by including it in the plan area.

We consider that Cambridge North Station would be the best name. If "science park" emerges as part of this consultation as a key descriptor, we contend that it should be used in the plural - "Cambridge Science Parks" - in recognition of proximity of several relevant campuses.

We are concerned by the environmental impact of neighbouring land use, and in particular by the possible retention of the Anglian Water site in its present form but with the addition of a new Household Waste Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility. We cannot support a strategy which would make the relationship even worse than it is at present. We object strongly to the siting of such a new recycling centre as shown in the four options.

We have referred already to the need for the strategy to reflect plot densification, including on the St John's Innovation Park. Maximising employment opportunities (Objective 3) should include existing developments as well as brownfield regeneration sites.

See attached [below]

10.1 This option relates to the lower level of development whereby Anglian Water remains in situ. Its presence in the central and northern part of the site has a major bearing on potential adjacent land uses, having regard to the character of the infrastructure and the consequent cordon sanitaire in place within the minerals and Waste LDF plan, which provides for a safeguarding area around the edge of the site.

10.2 We have two main concerns. First, as stated in separate responses to other questions, we note that the St John's Innovation Park does not benefit from the proposal for plot densification applicable to the Cambridge Business Park. We cannot see why any differentiation is made when comparing the two areas and the opportunities afforded by increasing floorspace in both those areas are consistent with Objective 3 of the Plan. Furthermore, current density at the St John's Innovation Park is lower than that of the Business Park. The key and the plan need amending to ensure that plot densification also applies to the St John's Innovation Park. This will be consistent with the Councils' own consultants, SQW, who in their supporting documentation at paragraphs 1.229 and 1.34 confirm that the potential exists to introduce more employment floorspace on the area within the Innovation Park.

10.3 Secondly, Option 1 shows a new "Household Waste Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility" to be located to the north of the Anglian Water site. We are surprised that no definition of this facility appears in Appendix 3 (Glossary of Terms) and we consider that it requires specific reference. We are concerned to see Option 1 include such a facility close to offices at the St John's Innovation Park. Where alternative locations exist - either within the new or existing areas to the south of the Anglian Water landholding - they would be more appropriate for siting such a facility. A recycling centre - with its attendant characteristics of noise, dust and traffic - is inappropriate in close proximity to high technology offices and buildings. It degrades the standing of the St John's Innovation Park and consequently we cannot support Option 1.

As with our response to Q10, we maintain that the St John's Innovation Park should be considered as having the same potential for the intensification of employment provision as has been identified for the Cambridge Business Park, namely plot densification.

Additionally, the proposed location of the Household Waste Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility remains in the same location as shown in Option 1. We reiterate our strong concerns about the appropriateness of such a facility in that location, having regard to the proximity to offices and research activities at the St John's Innovation Park.

Question 10 response:
10.1 This option relates to the lower level of development whereby Anglian Water remains in situ. Its presence in the central and northern part of the site has a major bearing on potential adjacent land uses, having regard to the character of the infrastructure and the consequent cordon sanitaire in place within the Minerals and Waste LDF plan, which provides for a safeguarding area around the edge of the site.

10.2 We have two main concerns. First, as stated in separate responses to other questions, we note that the St John's Innovation Park does not benefit from the proposal for plot densification applicable to the Cambridge Business Park. We cannot see why any differentiation is made when comparing the two areas and the opportunities afforded by increasing floorspace in both those areas are consistent with Objective 3 of the Plan. Furthermore, current density at the St John's Innovation Park is lower than that of the Business Park. The key and the plan need amending to ensure that plot densification also applies to the St John's Innovation Park. This will be consistent with the Councils' own consultants, SQW, who in their supporting documentation at paragraphs 1.229 and 1.34 confirm that the potential exists to introduce more employment floorspace on the area within the Innovation Park.

10.3 Secondly, Option 1 shows a new "Household Waste Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility" to be located to the north of the Anglian Water site. We are surprised that no definition of this facility appears in Appendix 3 (Glossary of Terms) and we consider that it requires specific reference. We are concerned to see Option 1 include such a facility close to offices at the St John's Innovation Park. Where alternative locations exist - either within the new or existing areas to the south of the Anglian Water landholding - they would be more appropriate for siting such a facility. A recycling centre - with its attendant characteristics of noise, dust and traffic - is inappropriate in
close proximity to high technology offices and buildings. It degrades the standing of the St John's Innovation Park and consequently we cannot support Option 1.