Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 56111

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 ‘KK’ of that document, which states a parcel size of 2.14ha (gross) but
has not been considered for any form of redevelopment on the basis that it is deemed to be
unavailable: ‘Single land ownership. Discussion with landowner confirms that there are no plots
within this development parcel which will be available for redevelopment during the Plan period due
to existing leaseholder agreements’. For the reasons set out in the earlier introduction, this is
incorrect. Both buildings are likely to be available within the first half of the Plan Period. We
therefore would request that GCSP reconsiders its assessment of potential for Buildings 270 and
296, which together could feasibly have redevelopment potential for 10,000 – 12,000m2 (subject to
assessment, modelling and design). Given that the existing buildings currently offer approximately
5,500m2 GIA, it is considered that redevelopment could provide an increase of 4,500 – 6,500m2 GIA.

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).

We think it might also be useful for the table to refer to the recent consent (S/0630/15/FL) that
was achieved on part of site KK (excluding Building 296), which would provide some context to
what has previously been considered in terms of quantum, layout, density and scale.

Comment

Representation ID: 56112

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 seek clarification from GCSP on the proposed location of the Local Centre (it
appears to be in the location of where Xaar are). Could you 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: 56113

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 decked car park that was provided in
application (S/0630/15/FL), which provides car parking for Building 270 and the new WorldPay
building. Please can GCSP confirm this is a correct assumption, and that the intention is not to
provide another car barn on the Site i.e. building 270 or 296. This car park is not in the
ownership of the Landowner, so we won’t make any comment in that respect, but there is an agreement
to use spaces in the decked car park for the occupants of building 270 (albeit that it’s currently vacant).

Comment

Representation ID: 56114

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: 56115

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: 56116

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: 56125

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

We would question the relevance of this policy to SJIP, 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 SJIP, and individual
planning applications (such as one for Vitrum) are unlikely to be able to have much influence on estate and street hierarchy changes. Could GCSP please clarify?

Comment

Representation ID: 56126

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 Vitrum 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 SJIP.

Comment

Representation ID: 56127

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

We would query the 35,000m2 of new business space for SJIP, 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 ‘R’ of that document (Annex 4), which states a parcel size of 4.33ha
(gross), and that a ‘discussions with landowner confirms availability 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 R is identified as having potential capacity for
22,000m2 (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.

Vitrum is approximately 3,200m2 (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
35,000m2 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 SJIP reflects the most up-to-date information available (and
that the trip budget / AAP wide infrastructure cost is calibrated correctly).

Comment

Representation ID: 56128

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

The inclusion of additional shops and local services, as part of the Cowley Road Neighbourhood
Centre, is supported.