North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Comment

Representation ID: 33246

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: The Master Fellows and Scholars of the College of Saint John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge

Agent: Savills

Assuming that the options expressed in Q18 would be focussed on connecting Cambridge North Station and the Science Park. St John's Innovation Park is not mentioned and therefore this leads to a question as to whether there is a need for such a connection across Milton Road connecting the Science Park with the Innovation Park. The cost and delivery of such a route will be significant and there would be a question as to whether it would actually be needed if a much more justifiable option at the Science Park junction leading into Cowley Road would be more appropriate?

Support

Representation ID: 33247

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: The Master Fellows and Scholars of the College of Saint John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge

Agent: Savills

A new masterplan for the Innovation Park provides the opportunity to secure more prominent buildings as part of a masterplan and which will provide another visual viewpoint on this approach. The College is firmly of the view that new development should be visible from Milton Road in line with the development of the new urban character to this part of Cambridge.

Opportunities should be taken within the AAP to increase floorspace at St John's Innovation Park on this important approach to the city.

Comment

Representation ID: 33248

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: The Master Fellows and Scholars of the College of Saint John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge

Agent: Savills

Reduction in parking provision needs to be accompanied by a commensurate improvement in provision of public transport and the use of non-car modes. Major injections of funding from the public sector is needed to encourage people to move away from non-car modes.

With the College embarking on a major masterplanning exercise over the next 15-20 years, it is fully aware of the need to encourage transport by non-car modes and it is accepting a position that no new car parking spaces are to be provided across the whole of the Park as a consequence of new development.

Comment

Representation ID: 33249

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: The Master Fellows and Scholars of the College of Saint John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge

Agent: Savills

Any improvements to public transport should parallel a robust case being made for the application of 'trip budgets'.

For existing developments, the trip budget approach should be applied so there is no substantial net increase in car parking spaces on existing sites. Intensification of development on the existing sites would therefore need to come forward in a sustainable way that encourages mode shift to non-car modes.To reduce the need for people to travel to and within the area by car will require a substantial investment in non-car access improvements scheme. A robust and well-funded area-wide Travel Plan should be implemented.

Object

Representation ID: 33250

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: The Master Fellows and Scholars of the College of Saint John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge

Agent: Savills

It certainly is the case that new developments should provide for cycle parking but perhaps the terminology 'high level' is not the correct wording. It should be perhaps more relevant to require 'appropriate levels' of cycle parking as significant over provision is not appropriate in every circumstance.

Object

Representation ID: 33251

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: The Master Fellows and Scholars of the College of Saint John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge

Agent: Savills

It is not the function of this AAP to determine exact types of employment space within the NEC. The planning authority is not in the position to assess market demand and commercial trends in the same way that land owners advisors are able to and consequently there is a limit to which such an AAP document should go in terms of encouraging employment growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 33253

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: The Master Fellows and Scholars of the College of Saint John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge

Agent: Savills

We would support that the minimum requirement for achievement of BREEAM 'excellent', however it is important that these matters are not mandatory within the AAP. There will be a range of buildings and designs that will come forward across the whole of the APP and the plan cannot be prescriptive on such matters in our view - each proposal will need to be assessed at the detailed planning application stage since there may well be particular design reasons for certain options not needing to be applied within those development proposals.

Support

Representation ID: 33254

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: The Master Fellows and Scholars of the College of Saint John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge

Agent: Savills

It is critical that development should not be prevented in coming forward whilst the AAP is being prepared.
This is critical in the circumstances where the AAP is still in its infancy and whilst the College supports the broad strategies and principles being applied it is the case that the current development proposals being considered in the short term for the Innovation Park should not be resisted as a result of the timetable being employed for the adoption of the AAP.

Comment

Representation ID: 33255

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: The Master Fellows and Scholars of the College of Saint John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge

Agent: Savills

It will be difficult to sustain a case for a s106 framework across the NEC given the disparate objectives of landowners and site characteristics.

Comment

Representation ID: 33256

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: The Master Fellows and Scholars of the College of Saint John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge

Agent: Savills

The College has no particular issue with the suggestion of the new name. The term 'Cambridge Northern Fringe' is a term that has been used since 1990 and many of the stakeholders will be familiar with it. However, once a new name has been put forward as in this new Area Action Plan then it carries a certain weight and therefore should be continued throughout the AAP process.