Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 56092

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

We would question the relevance of this policy to CSP, particularly the references to Figures 16-
18, which are seemingly more applicable to the Anglian Water / Cambridge City Council / Chesterton
Sidings areas. There is a long-established estate and street layout in the CSP, and individual
planning applications (such as one for Building 140) are unlikely to be able to
much influence on estate and street hierarchy changes. Could GCSP please clarify?

Comment

Representation ID: 56093

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

The statement in the policy ‘Development densities and building heights should not exceed those
identified on Figure 21 and Figure 23’ does not provide sufficient flexibility for a detailed
planning application process – there might be exceptional circumstances that support a taller
building beyond the heights specified, and policy should be written in a more positive manner i.e.
simply inserting ‘unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated’.

We would like to query why the plan takes a more cautious approach to heights than is recommended
in the LCVIA. For the area in which Building 140 is positioned, the LCVIA recommends ‘up to 6
storeys – 18m’ and we think the plan in question 6 might follow this approach and simply state ‘up
to 6 storeys’ rather than ‘typically 4 – 5 storeys, maximum 6 storeys’. This change in reference
would make it clear what the general upper height parameter should be (rather than the current
format which implies that only in special and limited circumstances will 6 storeys be deemed
acceptable), thereby creating a positively-worded policy
that will help optimise economic development across the CSP.

Comment

Representation ID: 56094

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

We would query the 70,000m2 of new business space for CSP, as indicated in Figures 29 and 30 (which
is also slightly different to the figure given in Question 4. The figure appears to have been
derived from Appendix A of the ‘Typologies Study and Development Capacity Assessment January 2020’.

The Site falls within zone ‘CC’ of that document (Annex 4), which states a parcel size of 3.14ha
(gross), and that a ‘discussion with landowner confirms that there is/are plot(s) within this
development parcel which will be available for redevelopment during the Plan period. Landowner has
confirmed that the intention is to intensify existing land uses within this site and not to
introduce residential development’. Site CC is identified as having potential capacity for 7,850m2
(NIA). It is not clear from the TSDCA plan which plots are considered for this, and we would
welcome clarification from GCSP on this point.

Building 140 is approximately 2,790m2 (GIA), and offers potential to increase floorspace
significantly, by increasing its height to 6-storeys (max) and utilising a large element of its
current car park.

It is noted that the policy seeks to make provision for additional development beyond the 70,000m2
figure, to ensure any such development is justified in terms of trip budget and AAP wide
infrastructure, but it is deemed sensible (and appropriate in Soundness terms) to ensure the
quantum of B1 development in the CSP reflects the most up-to-date information available (and
that the trip budget / AAP wide infrastructure cost is calibrated correctly).

Comment

Representation ID: 56095

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

The inclusion of additional shops and local services, including a Local Centre for CSP, is
supported, but we seek clarification from GCSP on the proposed location of the Local Centre (it
appears to be in the location of where Xaar are). Could GCSP clarify that the landowner/developer
is supportive of a local centre in this location? – the buildings here are not particularly old,
and the landowner may not have any intention to redevelop. This could affect delivery of the local
centre. It would seem more appropriate to provide a zone of where the local centre might sensibly
be placed, and then leave it to respective landowners who, when and how the uses are brought forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 56096

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

We wish to clarify the diagram in Figure 40 – this includes a proposed car barn in the location of
the Site (Annex 7). It is assumed that this relates to the three-storey decked car park that was
provided in application (S/1693/15/FL). Please can GCSP confirm this is a correct assumption, and
that the intention is not to prov de another car barn on the Site i.e. building 140 (to which we would wish to object).

Comment

Representation ID: 56097

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

Policy 23 seeks to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated approach to development and regeneration
at North East Cambridge, which is broadly supported. The policy appears to be written more for some
of the larger landowners, such as Anglian Water/Cambridge City Council, Brookgate/Network Rail, The
Crown Estate and Trinity College. Where individual plots become available, such as in the case of
the Landowner/Site, it will be more difficult to show how it complies in the context of part b) of
the policy (wider masterplanning). Consideration should be given to this in the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 56098

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

The grant of temporary consent for ‘meanwhile’ uses within North East Cambridge is broadly
supported. The ‘meanwhile’ uses could temporarily add to the range of facilities within the area
and could reuse empty or underused land and buildings.

Comment

Representation ID: 56099

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

The employment, skills and training initiatives associated with development within North East
Cambridge are supported.

Comment

Representation ID: 56109

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

We would question the relevance of this policy to CSP, particularly the references to Figures 16-
18, which are seemingly more applicable to the Anglian Water / Cambridge City Council / Chesterton
Sidings areas. There is a long-established estate and street layout in the CSP, and individual
planning applications (such as one for Buildings 270 and 296) are unlikely to be able to
have much influence on estate and street hierarchy changes. Could GCSP please clarify?

Comment

Representation ID: 56110

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

The statement in the policy ‘Development densities and building heights should not exceed those
identified on Figure 21 and Figure 23’ does not provide sufficient flexibility for a detailed planning application process – there might be exceptional circumstances that support a taller building
beyond the heights specified, and policy should be written in a more positive manner i.e. simply
inserting ‘unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated’.

We would like to query why the plan takes a more cautious approach to heights than is recommended
in the ‘Landscape Character and Visual Impact Appraisal January 2020’ (‘LCVIA’). For the area in
which Buildings 270 and 296 are positioned, the LCVIA recommends ‘up to 6 storeys – 18m’ and we
think the plan in question 6 might follow this approach and simply state ‘up to 6 storeys’ rather
than ‘typically 4 – 5 storeys, maximum 6 storeys’. This would then step- down to 4 storeys on the
Site’s edge near the A14, as recommended. This change in reference would make it clear what the
general upper height parameter should be (rather than the current format which implies that only in
special and limited circumstances will 6 storeys be deemed acceptable), thereby creating a
positively-worded policy that will help optimise economic
development across the CSP.