Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 55672

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

Neutral:
As Policy 8 makes clear, new and enhanced open space and recreation sites/facilities are a key element of a successful place, including by meeting the health and wellbeing needs of existing and future users of the area. The policy requires all open spaces to be publicly accessible, but it needs to be recognised that open spaces within commercial developments may not be overtly public but are still important in playing a key role in promoting health and wellbeing, as well as creating attractive places.

Object

Representation ID: 55673

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

The expectation in the policy that the overall approach to building densities, heights, scale and massing for all development proposals at North East Cambridge will create a well-articulated and varied skyline throughout the area is roundly supported. It is also agreed that the impact of new development on the historic and wider skyline and their relationships with the surrounding context, the setting of Cambridge and Fen Edge approaches should be carefully assessed and considered through appropriate landscape and visual impact assessment, heritage impact assessment and massing studies.

An approach where storey heights are generally greatest towards the centre of the area is sensible also, but landmark buildings in other key locations should not be discouraged (provided site specific assessments demonstrate that they can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site in terms of landscape and townscape effects). The LCVIA which seemingly informed the AAP did not consider some taller buildings within areas and also only considered 3 scenarios – the majority of buildings being up to 6 storeys/18 metres, 9 storeys/27 metres and 12 storeys/36 metres i.e. incremental increases of 3 storeys/9 metres each. None of the scenarios considered buildings above 6 storeys/18 metres towards the northern extent of the area. A more nuanced assessment would support some taller buildings on parts of the site. The LVA submitted as part of applications 20/03523/FUL (South Cambs) and 20/03524/FUL (Cambridge City) for example demonstrates that some buildings taller than the maximum heights in metres shown on the plan on pages 18 and 103 can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site in terms of landscape and townscape effects. It may be the intention that some taller buildings are appropriate where justified by the inclusion of “Localised increases in height should be located to help define key centres of activity within the area and help with wayfinding” in Policy 9, but reference to the maximum heights in the Policy makes this unclear.

In addition to its content, the presentation of Policy 9 should also be reviewed. This is an example of where plans are currently too prescriptive, and a ‘heatwave’ approach would be more appropriate. The supporting text also states that Figure 21 is based on an assumed floor to floor height for residential use of 3m. Commercial buildings in particular will often though have a storey height of more than 3m. As currently presented this gives rise to the potential for ambiguity. Referring back to applications 20/03523/FUL (South Cambs) and 20/03524/FUL (Cambridge City), one of the proposed buildings is 5-storeys and 23.3 metres high. This highlights an ambiguity with Figure 21 as currently presented in that it is not higher than the 4-5 storeys typical height – there is no reference to 3m storeys in the policy – but is higher than the 18 metres maximum height.

Comment

Representation ID: 55674

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

Neutral:
The broad rationale for the distribution of centres is understood. The Cowley Road Neighbourhood Centre (Policy 10e) is indicated to be partly on land owned by St John’s College. Whilst there are longer term plans for the redevelopment of parts of St John’s Innovation Park, further clarification and discussion is required as to how it is anticipated that the “small amount of ancillary retail space would extend the local centre over Cowley Road” into St John’s Innovation Park would be accommodated in advance of any redevelopment.

Comment

Representation ID: 55675

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

Neutral:
The broad rationale for the distribution of centres is understood. The Cowley Road Neighbourhood Centre (Policy 10e) is indicated to be partly on land owned by St John’s College. Whilst there are longer term plans for the redevelopment of parts of St John’s Innovation Park, further clarification and discussion is required as to how it is anticipated that the “small amount of ancillary retail space would extend the local centre over Cowley Road” into St John’s Innovation Park would be accommodated in advance of any redevelopment.

Comment

Representation ID: 55676

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

Neutral:
The broad rationale for the distribution of centres is understood. The Cowley Road Neighbourhood Centre (Policy 10e) is indicated to be partly on land owned by St John’s College. Whilst there are longer term plans for the redevelopment of parts of St John’s Innovation Park, further clarification and discussion is required as to how it is anticipated that the “small amount of ancillary retail space would extend the local centre over Cowley Road” into St John’s Innovation Park would be accommodated in advance of any redevelopment.

Comment

Representation ID: 55677

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

Neutral:
The broad rationale for the distribution of centres is understood. The Cowley Road Neighbourhood Centre (Policy 10e) is indicated to be partly on land owned by St John’s College. Whilst there are longer term plans for the redevelopment of parts of St John’s Innovation Park, further clarification and discussion is required as to how it is anticipated that the “small amount of ancillary retail space would extend the local centre over Cowley Road” into St John’s Innovation Park would be accommodated in advance of any redevelopment.

Comment

Representation ID: 55678

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

Neutral:
The broad rationale for the distribution of centres is understood. The Cowley Road Neighbourhood Centre (Policy 10e) is indicated to be partly on land owned by St John’s College. Whilst there are longer term plans for the redevelopment of parts of St John’s Innovation Park, further clarification and discussion is required as to how it is anticipated that the “small amount of ancillary retail space would extend the local centre over Cowley Road” into St John’s Innovation Park would be accommodated in advance of any redevelopment.

Comment

Representation ID: 55679

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

No specific comments.

Object

Representation ID: 55680

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

It is agreed that there is space to intensify existing business parks. The support in Policy 12a for the redevelopment of St John’s Innovation Park to support existing and future business needs (including the redevelopment of existing under-utilised premises, including associated car parks, and the introduction of other supporting uses) is also supported.

Policy 12a references up to 234,500m2 net additional B1 floorspace, including up to 35,000m2 on the St John’s Innovation Park. Capacity analysis previously provided to the Councils and included as part of applications 20/03523/FUL (South Cambs) and 20/03524/FUL (Cambridge City) demonstrates that some 50,000m2 of additional commercial floorspace can be satisfactorily accommodated on the Park. The capacities in the AAP need to be reassessed. The acknowledgement that “Proposals which exceed these figures will need to be justified in terms of the impact on the trip budget and Area Action Plan wide infrastructure and where the character, role and function of an area will not be compromised” is welcomed and should also be retained in the final version as an acknowledgement that the floorspace figures should not be treated as a ceiling.

Further clarification of the requirement in Policy 12b to provide 10% of the new floorspace as affordable industrial workspace, subject to scheme viability, is required particularly as to what constitutes affordable workspace. It is not appropriate to leave it to the Council’s Economic Development Team to work with developers to agree appropriate terms of affordability on a case by case basis as proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 55681

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

It is agreed that there is space to intensify existing business parks. The support in Policy 12a for the redevelopment of St John’s Innovation Park to support existing and future business needs (including the redevelopment of existing under-utilised premises, including associated car parks, and the introduction of other supporting uses) is also supported.

Policy 12a references up to 234,500m2 net additional B1 floorspace, including up to 35,000m2 on the St John’s Innovation Park. Capacity analysis previously provided to the Councils and included as part of applications 20/03523/FUL (South Cambs) and 20/03524/FUL (Cambridge City) demonstrates that some 50,000m2 of additional commercial floorspace can be satisfactorily accommodated on the Park. The capacities in the AAP need to be reassessed. The acknowledgement that “Proposals which exceed these figures will need to be justified in terms of the impact on the trip budget and Area Action Plan wide infrastructure and where the character, role and function of an area will not be compromised” is welcomed and should also be retained in the final version as an acknowledgement that the floorspace figures should not be treated as a ceiling.

Further clarification of the requirement in Policy 12b to provide 10% of the new floorspace as affordable industrial workspace, subject to scheme viability, is required particularly as to what constitutes affordable workspace. It is not appropriate to leave it to the Council’s Economic Development Team to work with developers to agree appropriate terms of affordability on a case by case basis as proposed.