Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Search representations
Results for St John's Innovation Centre search
New searchComment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Question 41a
Representation ID: 29883
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: St John's Innovation Centre
41.1 Option A relates to sustainable design and construction and floodrisk at the CNFE. It suggests that reliance be placed on Local Plan policies relating to climate change and sustainable design and construction. We support such an approach because Development Plan policies should guide development across the whole of the District. Creating a separate, more onerous policy regime compared is entirely inappropriate. This is particularly true if significant costs are involved in complying with more stringent policy guidance in the AAP
41.2 In our view, there should be no "special treatment" of sites within the CNFE; and if more onerous policies apply as legal obligations, then we object strongly to the St John's Innovation Park being included within the plan area.
41.1 Option A relates to sustainable design and construction and floodrisk at the CNFE. It suggests that reliance be placed on Local Plan policies relating to climate change and sustainable design and construction. We support such an approach because Development Plan policies should guide development across the whole of the District. Creating a separate, more onerous policy regime compared is entirely inappropriate. This is particularly true if significant costs are involved in complying with more stringent policy guidance in the AAP
41.2 In our view, there should be no "special treatment" of sites within the CNFE; and if more onerous policies apply as legal obligations, then we object strongly to the St John's Innovation Park being included within the plan area.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Question 47b
Representation ID: 29890
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: St John's Innovation Centre
47.1 Option B on phasing and delivery approach set out in the Issues and Options Report implies that any planning application for the first phase of development will need to provide a Masterplan for the whole of the AAP area. It is unclear where the first phase of development will take place and we have seen nothing in the plan as published for consultation that suggests a phased approach to the development. The redevelopment options are not phasing plans and therefore it is difficult to
understand why a developer of any area of land within the Plan should be made responsible for providing a Masterplan for the whole of the area. The AAP as drafted and set out in Option A on page 68 of the report should provide the principles for a development framework against which a specific phase of redevelopment can come forward as part of its own individual, detailed planning application. We object to the onus placed on the first developer to set out a Masterplan for the whole of the CNFE as it is entirely unreasonable.
47.1 Option B on phasing and delivery approach set out in the Issues and Options Report implies that any planning application for the first phase of development will need to provide a Masterplan for the whole of the AAP area. It is unclear where the first phase of development will take place and we have seen nothing in the plan as published for consultation that suggests a phased approach to the development. The redevelopment options are not phasing plans and therefore it is difficult to
understand why a developer of any area of land within the Plan should be made responsible for providing a Masterplan for the whole of the area. The AAP as drafted and set out in Option A on page 68 of the report should provide the principles for a development framework against which a specific phase of redevelopment can come forward as part of its own individual, detailed planning application. We object to the onus placed on the first developer to set out a Masterplan for the whole of the CNFE as it is entirely unreasonable.
