Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 56135

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Upfront should be a clear policy support for the relocation of the Waste Water Treatment Plant. Otherwise good and
strong policy but enshrines spatial framework drawings in policy - with all their inherent weaknesses. ‘Jobs’ not floorspace
target.

Comment

Representation ID: 56136

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Focused on individual buildings – needs a site-wide approach eg on masterplanning for climate change; on transport and
neighbourhood hubs. Plus infrastructure? Also add something on post-occupancy evaluation?
Unfortunate lag in evidence base (Greater Cambridge Net Zero study).
Policy focused on here & now – how is it to be future-proofed?
a - Construction Standards: Good aspirations – welcome construction certification requirements such as BREEAM
Excellent/ Outstanding. Also support the need for a site wide community sustainability framework.
However there are limitations to the use of particular frameworks. Passivhaus is better for operational carbon reduction
and there are concerns over use of BREEAM communities. Other tools are more flexible – given timescales involved this is
essential.
b - Adaptation to climate change: All flat roofs must contain an element of green roof provision (p51) – Is this the right
approach? What about if it’s used as a communal / private terrace? What about solar panels? Should prescribe standards
and allow developers flexibility in achieving them according to the site and building rather than arbitrarily dictating eg
green/brown roofs.
Fully support the move to undertake CIBSE TM52 and 59 analysis in order to inform design and ensure comfort is
addressed. Modelling alone is not enough but requires adjustments to designs to be undertaken.
c - Carbon Reduction: Aspiration is good and pleased that further work will be done. Is there a recognised form of
‘Assured Performance Certification’? What about a prohibition on use of fossil fuels on site?
d - Water – see policy 4 below.
e - Site Construction Waste. Good to see this addressed but opportunity has been missed to set a holistic benchmark
target for construction waste. What about infrastructure waste?

Comment

Representation ID: 56137

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

We want to achieve the 110lpppd target and go further but there must be a level playing field in NEC and across Greater
Cambridge in general. Rainwater harvesting and greywater provisions need to be planned in now so that they can be built
into the masterplanning. Feasibility work underway but AAP must reflect demands of potential landtake and loss of
developable area.
More consideration needs to be given to external demands eg irrigation. And encourage use of water recovery systems
on site.

Comment

Representation ID: 56138

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Reference to Strategic Flood Risk Assessment questioned – Strategic FRA very different to an FRA supporting a planning
application. The Strategic FRA would be at plan level and produced on behalf of GCSPS.

Comment

Representation ID: 56139

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Policy supported but long-term habitat management needs to be put in place.

Comment

Representation ID: 56140

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

c) Ensure that the form, architectural design and layout clearly articulate the intended uses within a development – Given
how we expect uses to start blending especially post-Covid (What happens to retail? Where do we work?), this may not
be as clear. In addition the document specifically talks about flexible forms of use and this is not in line with ‘clearly
articulating the intended use.’
e) Active ground floor uses. Agree in principle but this is at odds with the low cap on non-residential use on the Core Site
and viability of ground floor uses.
Page 79. “The Council will lead on the production of a site wide design code for the North East Cambridge area that will
require input from the various landowners and their design teams.” Our understanding was the design code will be led by
us and will apply to the Core Site only and not that there will be an overarching design code for the whole AAP led by the
council. Many measures set out in the draft AAP are in actual fact more appropriate for a design code.

Comment

Representation ID: 56141

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

While the style and character of the diagram is great – appealing and visually friendly – the level of detail and prescription
on street design and dimensions are yet again very prescriptive and appear very fixed. This level of detail is normally
expected in a design code not in an AAP Framework diagram. If this diagram and annotation are for illustrative purposes
we would welcome it but it is vital that this is stated somewhere clearly and well visible.
Also it is important to note that not all primary streets will look and be designed the same, equally for secondary and
tertiary streets. Widths need to respond to the height and scale of the building as well as their function in the hierarchy.
At present, all seem to require frontage-to-frontage distances of 21m, which would make all streets feel the same
regardless of hierarchy. Moreover within the current approach to the Core Site masterplan design only Cowley Road is set
to meet a 21m distance, whilst even some primary streets within the scheme would not do this in order to create streets
that are pedestrian priority rather than vehicular.
Figure 18, page 85: 3m wide terrace gardens in front of ground floor homes – This is very prescriptive and detailed and
may well not be appropriate for all typologies on secondary streets.

Comment

Representation ID: 56142

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Green spaces are overly prescribed – even to the level of naming them. We simply don’t know if the ‘Cowley Triangle’ can
be provided here because of constraints work yet to be undertaken and its shape is defined by a route (Diagonal) that is
inconsistent with our draft masterplan.
Page 98 – figures should be a minimum on green space – we think we can provide more.

Comment

Representation ID: 56143

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Continued concerns about provisions with regard to density, heights, scale and massing. The prescriptive format of the
diagrams is not underpinned by density studies and risks creating obstacles in the delivery of a compliant scheme.
Ongoing concerns over incompatibility of block structure shown with our emerging masterplan.
Page 105 - A quick analysis by Urbed of the residential densities set out in the draft suggests a maximum capacity using
the AAP figures of 12,167 units (see Appendix 4). The approach should be reconfigured as ‘heat maps’, less definitive and feature minimum densities to be achieved. This is one demonstration of our concerns over the diagrams and how they
might be read in a ‘binary’ rather than more nuanced way.
Height restriction of six storeys adjacent to A14 – may be overly restrictive and should be reviewed in line with emerging
acoustic strategy in due course.

Comment

Representation ID: 56144

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Concerns over quantum and location of High Street (Cowley Road vs Diagonal)