Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Turnstone consider that any uses proposed on the CNFE site should be totally complementary to employment uses. Retail facilities of an appropriate scale would be an acceptable use, subject to commercial viability.

On the proviso that the emerging Open Space Standards, as set out in Policy 68 and Appendix I of the Cambridge Local Plan 2014 (proposed submission) only apply to residential development, Turnstone does not object to the approach that has been suggested. It must be clear, however, that the Open Space Standards should only apply to residential developments, and that questions of the appropriate quantum of open space related to commercial developments should be negotiated on a case by case basis.

Turnstone is broadly supportive of the key transport and movement principles identified within the AAP. Turnstone consider however that there would be merit in expressly making reference to the significant role that could be played by the new railway station at the edge of the AAP area, and also to the Guided Bus, both of which clearly have scope to help meet the objective to minimise journeys to the site by private car. Having said that, the AAP should not fall into the trap of assuming that those who might gain employment at CNFE will only arrive by train or by Guided Bus, as other modes of transport, e.g. conventional buses, cycles, journeys on foot and other journeys by road will also contribute to arrivals to the CNFE area. It is furthermore important that the AAP emphasises connectivity not only from immediately adjoining residential areas, but also to the entire City of Cambridge, and other locations further afield where journeys can be made by sustainable transport modes.

It is very difficult, at this early stage in the evolution of CNFE, to say with any certainty that modal shift percentages can and will be achieved. It is certainly a worthwhile objective to ensure that modal share targets that are set for the whole of Cambridge are met on the site, and there is room for optimism that this can be achieved at CNFE. This will however be an exacting target, and Turnstone do not consider that it would yet be appropriate to seek to go beyond the target of 24% set for the City as a whole, therefore making the development "exemplar" in terms of modal shift. It is furthermore important to take into account that the ambitious modal share targets will only be achieved if the station "hub" is properly defined, and if appropriate space is allowed for it to flourish. In other words, there needs to be significant public realm provision, cycle and car parking and other infrastructure to maximise its use and to ensure that it is a powerful tool in delivering ambitious modal share targets.

In overall terms, Turnstone would support Option C whereby Cowley Road is prioritised for the station, office and any residential traffic. Turnstone agrees that it would be sensible for any heavy goods vehicle (HGV) access to be provided parallel and to the north of Cowley Road, for industrial, minerals and waste activities only. This should not pre-determine that heavy industrial or - for instance - minerals/aggregates uses will be a permanent feature at CNFE, but it would make considerable sense to have appropriate contingencies in terms of access in place right from the very outset.

Turnstone agrees that appropriate levels of car parking must be planned for as part of the CNFE development. However, parking associated with the railway station must not, under any circumstances, interfere with the need to create a proper entrance/arrival point to CNFE, and therefore parking should not be delivered for cars at the expense of high quality provision for bicycles, bus interchange and public realm. In general terms, and subject to detailed designs, Turnstone would tend to support the view that a more efficient use of land can be made if a multi-storey car park is provided, although this should not visually dominate the station area.

Turnstone take the view that in order to achieve the modal share targets envisaged, high levels of cycle parking provision will be required. As a starting point the standards in the emerging Local Plan (Policy 82 and Appendix L) should be adopted, but Turnstone agrees that there may be scope for higher levels of provision in close proximity to the railway station interchange.

The AAP must recognise existing cycle infrastructure which exists in the area, and must consider the scope that may exist for enhancing this. There are important links to the CNFE area from the north, via the Jane Costen Bridge, and possibly up from the River Cam corridor. It is not only a case of ensuring that adequate provision is made in terms of wide cycle paths, etc, but also that these gateways are made as attractive as they possibly can be, therefore encouraging cycle usage.

In summary, Turnstone considers that the AAP should simply rely on Local Plan Policies in the emerging Cambridge Local Plan 2014 (proposed submission), as these will have been subjected to independent scrutiny by the Local Plan Inspector. There is no basis that we can see as to why more exacting standards should be applied in the case of development within the CNFE area.

Turnstone considers that the principle of area based approach towards renewables and low carbon energy generation is worthy of further consideration. However, much will depend on the manner in which the CNFE development as a whole is delivered, by whom and over what timescale. There is no reason why the AAP should not reference the potential desirability of such an approach, however, it may be inappropriate to be overly prescriptive on this particular issue.