Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD
Search representations
Results for Cambridge Past, Present and Future search
New searchObject
Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD
2.12
Representation ID: 31758
Received: 02/10/2017
Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future
The AAP is a small part of a much larger development with intended collective benefits arising from large scale development in this location, such as a new country park and wetland habitat creation within the Greenbelt, as well community and transport improvements. Our view is that this SPD does not place enough emphasis on this bigger picture and should make clearer that the LNCH should be developed with consideration for future development on the safeguarded land, in terms of mitigation, transportation, views, open spaces, local centres, etc. This is piecemeal development not planned development that Cambridge needs.
The AAP is a small part of a much larger development with intended collective benefits arising from large scale development in this location, such as a new country park and wetland habitat creation within the Greenbelt, as well community and transport improvements. Our view is that this SPD does not place enough emphasis on this bigger picture and should make clearer that the LNCH should be developed with consideration for future development on the safeguarded land, in terms of mitigation, transportation, views, open spaces, local centres, etc. This is piecemeal development not planned development that Cambridge needs.
Object
Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD
2.17
Representation ID: 31759
Received: 02/10/2017
Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future
We welcome the need to preserve the adjacent wildlife sites and on-site habitats and in particular to treat wildlife site on eastern boundary with sensitivity and to create additional grassland habitat in that location. The wildlife site is noted for perennial flax and crested cow-wheat, which will have specific habitat requirements - it would be helpful if the SPD was clear that any habitat or open space enhancements in this location should not unintentionally have an impact on these plant species and that ideally, they should enable them to spread. An ongoing management contribution to achieve this would be required.
We welcome the need to preserve the adjacent wildlife sites and on-site habitats and in particular to treat wildlife site on eastern boundary with sensitivity and to create additional grassland habitat in that location. The wildlife site is noted for perennial flax and crested cow-wheat, which will have specific habitat requirements - it would be helpful if the SPD was clear that any habitat or open space enhancements in this location should not unintentionally have an impact on these plant species and that ideally, they should enable them to spread. An ongoing management contribution to achieve this would be required.
Object
Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD
5.61
Representation ID: 31761
Received: 02/10/2017
Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future
We welcome the inclusion of green infrastructure within the SPD and an uninterrupted linear park (wildlife corridor) that links with wildlife sites to the south of Coldham's Lane with the Greenbelt/Green Corridor to the north, although we are concerned that the spine road subsequently provides an entrance route to future development on safeguarded land to the west - which creates a road that would cut across the linear park, devaluing wildlife connectivity. The houses adjacent to the linear park are four storeys and to the south - casting shade on the linear park. Consideration of shade/building height/aspect is therefore required.
We welcome the inclusion of green infrastructure within the SPD and an uninterrupted linear park (wildlife corridor) that links with wildlife sites to the south of Coldham's Lane with the Greenbelt/Green Corridor to the north, although we are concerned that the spine road subsequently provides an entrance route to future development on safeguarded land to the west - which creates a road that would cut across the linear park, devaluing wildlife connectivity. The houses adjacent to the linear park are four storeys and to the south - casting shade on the linear park. Consideration of shade/building height/aspect is therefore required.
Object
Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD
5.75
Representation ID: 31762
Received: 02/10/2017
Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future
We have concerns regarding the location of the school playing fields which extend into the Greenbelt. Playing fields are urban in character, utilising artificial surfaces, ball courts, flood-lighting, fencing. The purpose of Greenbelt here is to prevent the merging with Teversham and green corridor linking Cambridge with east countryside. Fields could significantly erode both of these. We see no indication in SPD regarding landscaping on the NE and eastern edges of fields. The land allocated for school towards eastern boundary should be reserved for landscaping/buffering as part of the playing fields could be a nature area for the school.
We have concerns regarding the location of the school playing fields which extend into the Greenbelt. Playing fields are urban in character, utilising artificial surfaces, ball courts, flood-lighting, fencing. The purpose of Greenbelt here is to prevent the merging with Teversham and green corridor linking Cambridge with east countryside. Fields could significantly erode both of these. We see no indication in SPD regarding landscaping on the NE and eastern edges of fields. The land allocated for school towards eastern boundary should be reserved for landscaping/buffering as part of the playing fields could be a nature area for the school.
Object
Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD
3.23
Representation ID: 31763
Received: 02/10/2017
Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future
There will be a loss of farmland wildlife as a result of this development which needs to be mitigated off-site. This is only mentioned in the table on p75. We feel that this should be made more explicit and included in the two sections that deal with ecology in the main document.
There will be a loss of farmland wildlife as a result of this development which needs to be mitigated off-site. This is only mentioned in the table on p75. We feel that this should be made more explicit and included in the two sections that deal with ecology in the main document.
Object
Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD
5.78
Representation ID: 31764
Received: 02/10/2017
Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future
Open spaces proposed for development are too local and won't meet resident's needs for larger open spaces or achieve biodiversity gains. Sites like Wandlebury CP and NT estates (Anglesey Abbey/Wicken Fen) will have increased visitor pressures and are already struggling with capacity and impact on the biodiversity.
This is not factored into the SPD or the suggested mitigation. The AAP concept plan on page 10 shows a new country park highlights the need for this space. Concerned that piecemeal developments will fail to contribute financially towards new large public spaces or offsetting on existing sites. Address directly in the SPD.
Open spaces proposed for development are too local and won't meet resident's needs for larger open spaces or achieve biodiversity gains. Sites like Wandlebury CP and NT estates (Anglesey Abbey/Wicken Fen) will have increased visitor pressures and are already struggling with capacity and impact on the biodiversity.
This is not factored into the SPD or the suggested mitigation. The AAP concept plan on page 10 shows a new country park highlights the need for this space. Concerned that piecemeal developments will fail to contribute financially towards new large public spaces or offsetting on existing sites. Address directly in the SPD.
Object
Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD
5.103
Representation ID: 31765
Received: 02/10/2017
Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future
We have concerns about heights of the proposed central buildings. They are shown at four storeys, which in this particular context would be alien. The only buildings near the site that are of that height are within the airport site itself. The site is mainly flat and the surrounding buildings are mainly residential of two storey. Therefore, a doubling of height would be a dramatic difference and should be reconsidered to minimise visual impact.
We have concerns about heights of the proposed central buildings. They are shown at four storeys, which in this particular context would be alien. The only buildings near the site that are of that height are within the airport site itself. The site is mainly flat and the surrounding buildings are mainly residential of two storey. Therefore, a doubling of height would be a dramatic difference and should be reconsidered to minimise visual impact.
Object
Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD
3.27
Representation ID: 31766
Received: 02/10/2017
Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future
Whilst there are no listed buildings within or immediately adjacent to the site, there are several in the wider area. One of the key views discussed during the consultations was through views to Teversham church.
Whilst there are no listed buildings within or immediately adjacent to the site, there are several in the wider area. One of the key views discussed during the consultations was through views to Teversham church.
Object
Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD
5.21
Representation ID: 31767
Received: 02/10/2017
Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future
Most contentious parts of consultations was requirement by the LP Policy for 'spine road' in development. The reason behind this may be due to AAP and about larger site's interconnectivity. This fragmentary approach to development is contextually inappropriate. This is the most rigid and constraining of requirements for site -the road is dictating the development- a tail wagging the dog scenario.
There is still a lack of credible evidence to demonstrate why this must be included, what benefit this will provide for wider transport/congestion and what alternatives there are. How will spine road address thru traffic, prevention of rat runs?
Most contentious parts of consultations was requirement by the LP Policy for 'spine road' in development. The reason behind this may be due to AAP and about larger site's interconnectivity. This fragmentary approach to development is contextually inappropriate. This is the most rigid and constraining of requirements for site -the road is dictating the development- a tail wagging the dog scenario.
There is still a lack of credible evidence to demonstrate why this must be included, what benefit this will provide for wider transport/congestion and what alternatives there are. How will spine road address thru traffic, prevention of rat runs?
Object
Land North of Cherry Hinton SPD
5.11
Representation ID: 31768
Received: 02/10/2017
Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future
Unless a new development is intentionally designed using grid based or linear approach, a more organic flow can be used. There is no option for where the two new entrances of the site are to be located, therefore there is no real option for a spine road to be designed other than connecting the two points whilst avoiding constraints. This is not the best practice of urban design and seems to force the location of housing and other buildings. In addition, the movement strategy, Figure 39, is poor and should be more explicit and clear.
Unless a new development is intentionally designed using grid based or linear approach, a more organic flow can be used. There is no option for where the two new entrances of the site are to be located, therefore there is no real option for a spine road to be designed other than connecting the two points whilst avoiding constraints. This is not the best practice of urban design and seems to force the location of housing and other buildings. In addition, the movement strategy, Figure 39, is poor and should be more explicit and clear.
