Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Search representations
Results for Cambridge Association of Architects search
New searchComment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Question 10
Representation ID: 29832
Received: 31/01/2015
Respondent: Cambridge Association of Architects
If, at the current time, it is not feasible to move - or contain to an extent that makes the area habitable - the water recycling centre, then this option would be appropriate as it leaves provisions for sensible future development of the water recycling site. This development could include a major new 'green' area, relating to Fen Road, the river and Milton Country Park. This is a great opportunity for providing the City of Cambridge with a new green lung, which could include appropriate leisure opportunities and help to re-balance the current trend to over-development.
If, at the current time, it is not feasible to move - or contain to an extent that makes the area habitable - the water recycling centre, then this option would be appropriate as it leaves provisions for sensible future development of the water recycling site. This development could include a major new 'green' area, relating to Fen Road, the river and Milton Country Park. This is a great opportunity for providing the City of Cambridge with a new green lung, which could include appropriate leisure opportunities and help to re-balance the current trend to over-development.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Question 11
Representation ID: 29833
Received: 31/01/2015
Respondent: Cambridge Association of Architects
We can see how providing residential accommodation on the site is beneficial, given the City's priority to build housing, without mitigation works to the water recycling centre, however, it is not clear that this would be an attractive place to live - and therefore we are not convinced that this option is appropriate at this time.
We can see how providing residential accommodation on the site is beneficial, given the City's priority to build housing, without mitigation works to the water recycling centre, however, it is not clear that this would be an attractive place to live - and therefore we are not convinced that this option is appropriate at this time.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Question 12
Representation ID: 29834
Received: 31/01/2015
Respondent: Cambridge Association of Architects
Evidence has not been provided to illustrate that the Water Recycling Centre could be suitably contained to make the site an attractive area to live. Subject to this, we would support the proposal for a mixed use site. The current zonal planning of the residential areas as shown on the plan need additional design. It seems a shame not to pull the green protected open space over the busway and give the whole area around the station room to become a series of attractive public spaces relating to the new residential uses.
Evidence has not been provided to illustrate that the Water Recycling Centre could be suitably contained to make the site an attractive area to live. Subject to this, we would support the proposal for a mixed use site. The current zonal planning of the residential areas as shown on the plan need additional design. It seems a shame not to pull the green protected open space over the busway and give the whole area around the station room to become a series of attractive public spaces relating to the new residential uses.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Question 13
Representation ID: 29835
Received: 31/01/2015
Respondent: Cambridge Association of Architects
Evidence has not been provided to illustrate that moving the Water Recycling Centre is financially viable. If this evidence were provided, we would support the proposal for a mixed use site, with more housing meeting the Cities objectives - subject to the issues raised in our 'overarching concerns' about connectivity being addressed. There could be more residential included in this option. Our comments on options three about design of the residential area also relate to this option.The current zonal planning of the residential areas as shown on the plan need a more detailed urban design framework.
Evidence has not been provided to illustrate that moving the Water Recycling Centre is financially viable. If this evidence were provided, we would support the proposal for a mixed use site, with more housing meeting the Cities objectives - subject to the issues raised in our 'overarching concerns' about connectivity being addressed. There could be more residential included in this option. Our comments on options three about design of the residential area also relate to this option.The current zonal planning of the residential areas as shown on the plan need a more detailed urban design framework.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Question 17
Representation ID: 29836
Received: 31/01/2015
Respondent: Cambridge Association of Architects
We support the addition of tall buildings (over six storeys) on this site.
We support the addition of tall buildings (over six storeys) on this site.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Question 19
Representation ID: 29837
Received: 31/01/2015
Respondent: Cambridge Association of Architects
One of the key objectives of the proposals should be to break down the bounded nature of the site. It would have been useful to illustrate in more detail, and give more importance to, any options that have been explored for the following - in terms of vehicular, pedestrian and cycle routes;
- improvements to the section of Milton Road adjacent to the area
- improvements to, or new, connections into Milton from the site
- connections over the railway
- connections over the river
- connections over the guided busway extension and cycle path to the South
If these have been explored and dismissed, then we should know why.
The site is bounded by infrastructure and one of the key objectives- given the proposals to introduce a new railway station, new housing, new offices and industry, whilst relating closely to neighbouring residential and commercial properties - should be to break down the bounded nature of the site. Showing the wider context and potential improvements to nearby connections would assist with this objective. In addition to this it would have been useful to illustrate in more detail, and give more importance to, any options that have been explored for the following - in terms of vehicular, pedestrian and cycle routes;
- improvements to the section of Milton Road adjacent to the area
- improvements to, or new, connections into Milton from the site
- potential connections over the railway
- potential connections over the river
- potential connections over the guided busway extension and cycle path to the South
If including these have been explored and dismissed, then knowing the reasons for this would be useful.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Question 14
Representation ID: 29838
Received: 31/01/2015
Respondent: Cambridge Association of Architects
An alternative way of presenting the proposals would be to view the water recycling centre and aggregate works as landscapes which could be re-claimed as open spaces when it does become feasible for them to down size or move - developing the rest of the site to allow for this.
The proposals do not extend far enough from the boundary of the site, or appear to aspire high enough. This lack of creative vision could result in an area not - lacking in identity and dominated by vehicular traffic - which would be a missed opportunity.
An alternative way of presenting the proposals would be to view the water recycling centre and aggregate works as landscapes which could be re-claimed as open spaces when it does become feasible for them to down size or move - developing the rest of the site to allow for this.
The proposals do not extend far enough from the boundary of the site, or appear to aspire high enough in terms of a mixed use area around, a new station, with a series of connected public spaces. This lack of creative vision could result in an area not dissimilar to how it is now - lacking in identity and dominated by vehicular traffic - which would be a missed opportunity.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Question 4
Representation ID: 29839
Received: 31/01/2015
Respondent: Cambridge Association of Architects
The Action Plan Area should be extended to include Cambridge Science Park and the triangular area south of Chesterton Sidings, as a minimum, in order to fully address site and station .
The East Area Action plan options need to be placed in the context of the wider area to make them legible.
The Action Plan Area should be extended to include Cambridge Science Park and the triangular area south of Chesterton Sidings, as a minimum, in order to fully address site and station .
The East Area Action plan options need to be placed in the context of the wider area to make them legible.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Question 5
Representation ID: 29840
Received: 31/01/2015
Respondent: Cambridge Association of Architects
The Action Plan Area should be extended to include Cambridge Science Park and the triangular area south of Chesterton Sidings, as a minimum, in order to fully address site and station .
The East Area Action plan options need to be placed in the context of the wider area to make them legible.
The Action Plan Area should be extended to include Cambridge Science Park and the triangular area south of Chesterton Sidings, as a minimum, in order to fully address site and station .
The East Area Action plan options need to be placed in the context of the wider area to make them legible.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Question 49
Representation ID: 29841
Received: 31/01/2015
Respondent: Cambridge Association of Architects
There is a lot of information without clear diagrams explaining the objectives. The four key strategy plans do not visually indicate what the key drivers for development are, or what the wider benefits to the community would be e.g. a new public square, new affordable housing, new connections through the site and beyond. This is embedded in the text, but should be illustrated.
The online commenting procedure is confusing. Some of the questions are direct, some are very open ended - this results in confusion about appropriateness of comments generally.
There is a lot of information provided to digest without clear diagrams explaining the objectives of the proposals. The information is supposed to be for public, not stakeholder, consultation and should be made as accessible as possible. The four key strategy plans do not clearly indicate what the key drivers for development are, or what the benefits to the community of Cambridge would be e.g. a new public square, new affordable housing, new connections through the site and beyond. This information may be embedded in the text, but this should be illustrated graphically.
The online commenting procedure is daunting in its length and confusing in its content; especially for a public, consultation. Some of the questions are direct and to the point, some are very open ended - this leads to a lack of confidence about the appropriateness of comments generally. We can see the reasons for the format, i.e. prompting comments as much as possible and assisting with post consultation compilation of the comments, but are there must be better ways of structuring the online commenting forms.
