Question 1
The project looks quite ambitious but if done correctly could be a good example of how things should be done in the future. Having said we’d prefer a modern redevelopment of the sewage works on part of the existing site, we have no major objections to the regeneration of the site and would hope it can evolve into the model for others to follow and which projects Cambridge as an innovative city. Hopefully the design of the layout and the buildings on the site will be attractive and award winning. This has the potential for being a showcase in much the same way as the Cambridge Science Park became when that was first opened. A very high number of dwellings is proposed in a relatively small area, and Milton Parish Council feels it is too high and too dense. How does a 13 storey building fit within Cambridge itself let alone this development? To serve this population the number of service vehicles alone will be huge. Deliveries to shops also need to be factored in. In a time of pandemic there seems to be too much provision for employment space, and the plans will need regular review, and each dwelling may need one or two home office spaces. The problem of single-occupation of lifts in a pandemic needs to be addressed too. It requires an existing strong public transport infrastructure to achieve its aims. We are very concerned that Milton village will suffer from overspill parking. The vision seems unlikely to achieve a balanced community. There is a big risk of AirBnb purchases, and short-term rentals or weeknight-only occupation of flats. Please learn all the lessons from CB1.
No uploaded files for public display
Further comments: No comment
No uploaded files for public display
The vision for an inclusive, walkable, low-carbon new city district with a lively mix of homes, workplaces, services and social spaces, fully integrated with surrounding neighbourhoods is sensible but not specific to NEC. The Science and Innovation Parks need to be able to evolve in order to build upon their world-renowned reputations. “The protection, intensification and diversification of business and industrial floorspace within the existing employment areas” as a Core Element of the Framework is welcomed. The changes to the Use Classes Order whereby previous Business and Retail Uses (and others) are part of a broader Commercial, Business and Service Use Class will require a review of the AAP. Exceptional circumstances will need to be demonstrated to limit any future planning permission to a specific use(s) within that Use Class. It is accepted that the contributions the Science and Innovation Parks make to the national economy could constitute sound planning reasons to limit future permissions to Business Uses, but this also requires them to be able to evolve.
No uploaded files for public display
Brookgate supports the proposed vision. The AAP area is the largest brownfield site in Cambridge and is extremely well served by existing public transport. It therefore has the potential to transform into a high-quality gateway to the city and act as a catalyst for the regeneration of the wider area. The White Paper “ Planning for the Future” sets out a proposed new approach to plan making. North East Cambridge would sit within the Growth Area definition.
No uploaded files for public display
Cambridge Ahead welcomes this opportunity to respond to the draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan consultation. Our comments here follow directly from our input to the development of the next Local Plan for Greater Cambridge in February of this year. Plans for North East Cambridge should reflect that it is a key employment site for the City, with significant scope for employment creation in high-value knowledge intensive industries, and therefore should contain ambitions for higher levels of employment than have currently been identified. The North East Cambridge site has the unique and enviable position of being the (Illegible/cut-off)
No uploaded files for public display
This consultation was advertised to take place from 9am Monday 27 July to 5pm Monday 5 October 2020. By mid-August none of the residents along Milton Road had received a leaflet. MRRA chairman, Charles Nisbet, was advised to call Hana Loftus and they eventually arrived on 28 August, over a month after the consultation started. We heard other areas in North Cambridge had also not received a leaflet and that only 20,000 had been printed, not enough for the area let alone anyone wanting to reply from south Cambridge or the villages that the development would affect. What is more we discovered that if a resident had not had a copy delivered, to order a copy would cost £20. This is totally unacceptable as it is censoring many and limiting potential for comment. Diagree 1 What do you think about our vision for North East Cambridge? • Initially, the design was to produce more housing. Cambridge does need more housing but this design is cramped into a restricted space with people living very close to each other with very little green space. • The initial design included housing on the Science Park, now rejected by Trinity College in favour of more office blocks so the ‘mix of housing and jobs does not apply to half the site. • Who are the houses intended for? Although the area is next to the Science Park – a centre for innovation where most jobs are specialist, attracting staff from far afield, and with pay rates that give access to high-end housing – it is doubtful that many SP employees and their families will live in this new area. • Creating an area where the jobs-to-people ratio is skewed will force Cambridge house prices and rents even higher. Cambridge is already the most unequal city in the UK, this development will make it worse. • The ‘vision’ is to build one of the most densely developed areas in the UK, maybe even Western Europe. With minimal integral green space at its core, this area is unlikely to attract the mix of people implied in the consultation material. • MRRA does not object to the water treatment plant being sited where it is, it has recently gone through an update and it cannot be seen from the road. The whole design depends upon it being moved into the green belt, with many protesters objecting as it will cause a blot on the landscape. • Is the move – part-funded by £227M of public money – necessarily being done to improve the processing of the City’s waste, or is it really in order to free up land for more housing and thus developers’ profits? • The design is continually changing since the first plans were shown: the green road connecting to the Science Park has been removed, the flats are getting higher at each rethink and the green space is disappearing. To make up for this the developers are seeking to include existing green spaces in Cambridge such as Milton Country Park and Stourbridge Common which are already at capacity.
No uploaded files for public display
I see no demand for this housing, there is about to be 20000 at Waterbeach and god knows how many on Marshalls. Where is the demand? Surely with covid everything has changed
No uploaded files for public display
The degree of innovation in the vision is welcome. • The dense, legalistic and complex documentation is not inviting or readily understandable for the vast majority of people. The vision is also poorly illustrated, requiring the reader to mentally superimpose multiple 2D thematic maps to build a complete picture. When can the public see an interactive 3D rendering of the complete site to give people a clearer understanding of what is proposed? • There is no translation of business/industrial floor space to land area take, making it difficult to assess the true density of the housing proposed. • The use of dwellings per hectare without stating the average occupancy rate also makes it difficult to determine the true living density. Government advice is: “Dwellings per hectare, used in isolation, can encourage particular building forms over others, in ways that may not fully address the range of local housing needs. … It is therefore important to consider how housing needs, local character and appropriate building forms relate to the density measures being used.” https://www.gov.uk/guidance/effective-use-of-land • The boundary of the AAP is somewhat arbitrary. There is no clear justification for excluding Chesterton Fen, which is mooted as a compensatory site for a nature reserve. This development offers a unique, possibly the only, opportunity to invest in Chesterton Fen to address longstanding problems of access and land use. • Given the aspiration for high-density living, it makes little sense to exclude housing from the relatively low-density Science Park. Without housing, the open space in the Science Park will continue to be underused and open spaces to the east of Milton Rd overused. • The proposed local centre at the western end of the Science Park could include a gradual introduction of housing along its southern edge, integrating it into Kings Hedges. • It would also draw people to use the Science Park land more if it included social and cultural amenities, and land was reserved here for a secondary school. This could also help justify investment in a barrier-free pedestrian/cycle link between the two sides of Milton Rd. • Who will be the developer(s)? How will the planning authority ensure that commercial developers do not use viability assessments to reduce commitments agreed in the final action plan for social housing, public amenities and open space? • The draft AAP merely creates a flexible regulatory framework which the market could easily manipulate, with a consequent dilution of the ambitions. We very strongly believe that serious consideration should be given to establishing a special purpose vehicle, perhaps a locally controlled Development Corporation, to ensure that the vision for the area is carried through and properly co-ordinated and funded.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Reference to community food growing needed. Greater Cambridge Sustainable Design/Construction Supplementary Planning Doc (2020 sec 4.4) expects food growing provision in all new residential developments. More space for biodiversity.
No uploaded files for public display
Further comments: Please see accompanying letter/statement From Letter: The vision for North East Cambridge as an inclusive, walkable, low-carbon new city district with a lively mix of homes, workplaces, services and social spaces, fully integrated with surrounding neighbourhoods is supported. In particular the principles of integration with surrounding communities, the inclusion of a mix of uses, and planning to discourage car use are considered to be appropriate and would contribute towards achievement of the vision. In this regard the relationship between the new community at North East Cambridge and the new settlement at Waterbeach is considered relevant and to provide particular opportunities, given the proximity between the two strategic sites and the excellent non-car linkages (cycling and rail). With regard to the contextual plan at Figure 2: North East Cambridge in context, it is considered correct that Waterbeach New Town is shown as a Strategic housing site. Notwithstanding that it contains an appropriately balanced mix of uses and facilities, its principal role has always been seen as that of delivering housing to address the shortfall in supply and to restore balance between jobs and housing within the sub-region, with the presence of the existing Cambridge Research Park at Waterbeach also appropriately highlighted in this regard.
No uploaded files for public display
Q1 Question fails to meet the requirements of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Local Transport Plan which refers to Active Travel not just walking and cycling – Active Travel is defined as pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians. Question also fails because it excludes any reference to leisure transport which includes equestrians. Q1.2 No. Creation of restrictive pedestrian and cycling only access discriminates against females because the majority of horse riders are female. Excludes any equestrian access despite the fact that some of the links are to places equestrians use e.g. Milton Country Park, Waterbeach, proposals for Cambridges Lakes, some are to bridleways e.g. the Guided Busway bridleway and some are multi user routes e.g. the Greenways.
No uploaded files for public display
Further comments: We are in broad agreement for use of this site for housing but do not think it needs more commercial activity. We disagree with moving the water plant to a green field site. We are also concerned that the area is seen in isolation and not how it connects to villages outside of central Cambridge.
No uploaded files for public display
• The AAP boundary should include areas, such as Chesterton Fen and Milton Country Park, that will be significantly impacted by this development. • The AAP must be envisioned and delivered as a co-ordinated entity, not piecemeal. That will require creation of a single landowner and a development corporation in l authorities are majority shareholders.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Further comments: See attached Representation in respect of the College's objection to the required relocation of the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant.
No uploaded files for public display
Trinity College Cambridge support the general strategic principles for the NECAAP. Support is given to proposals for an inclusive, walkable, low-carbon new city district with a lively mix of homes, workplaces, services, and social spaces, fully integrated with surrounding neighbourhoods. Indeed, the prospect of an exciting new urban quarter immediately adjacent to CSP is welcomed and wholeheartedly supported. The environmental and social sustainability focus of the proposed big themes is commended. The delivery of a significant number of homes is also of paramount importance in a time of national housing need. The policy commitment to delivering 40% of all net additional units as affordable housing is supported. This is especially important in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire with private housing being significantly more expensive than that of the national average. In addition, the NECAAP should recognise, develop, and enhance the successful knowledge-based economy based within and surrounding Greater Cambridge. It is crucial that the plan tackles strategic scale thinking to enable plan led economic growth. Having one of the region’s most significant employment sites on the NECAAP’s doorstep is a substantial benefit for those who will live in the emerging NECAAP area. Ensuring strong connections between the NECAAP area, Cambridge Science Park and Cambridge Science Park North is therefore of paramount importance. Whilst the overarching principles set out within the NECAAP are supported, at this stage the policy provision within the NECAAP needs to be refined in order to achieve this vision.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Natural England welcomes the plan Vision and objectives to ensure everyone has access to good quality public open spaces, to enhance health and wellbeing, and for improvements to access to existing green spaces such as Milton Country Park and Chesterton Fen. Requirements for development to contribute towards climate change targets and deliver 10% biodiversity net gain are welcomed in view of Natural Cambridgeshire’s ‘Doubling Nature’ targets and the biodiversity net gain and nature recovery ambitions of the Defra 25 Year Environment Plan. Natural England fully supports the inclusion of climate, water and biodiversity objectives in light of national and local climate and biodiversity emergencies and targets to address these. We welcome recognition that North East Cambridge is located in an area of severe water stress and that groundwater abstraction to meet current demand is already having an adverse effect on several water-dependent nationally designated nature conservation sites and priority habitats such as chalk streams. We fully support the inclusion of open space objectives to address green infrastructure requirements and access to the natural environment. Whilst we generally support NECAAP environmental objectives there is currently no spatial framework for implementing these through the identification of viable opportunity areas. This needs to be addressed with reference to the findings and recommendations of the HRA/SA and the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping project.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
• The outline vision is ambitious and sets out a series of important principles to deliver a sustainable domestic and commercial community. However, it is of concern that just 10ha of public parks and squares is to be provided. This is less than 10% of the 182ha indicated of existing area for the site. This is contrary to delivering the statement of aims for a ‘characterful and lively’ community and provides opportunity for a healthy lifestyle with ‘access to open spaces, sports and recreational facilities, public rights of way, local green spaces and active travel choices.’ • We believe there is insufficient evidence to suggest the green infrastructure enables everyone to ‘lead healthy lifestyles, protects and enhances biodiversity’. There needs to be clear indication on what interventions the remainder of the development intends that will deliver ideally a minimum 40%¹ of green infrastructure (GI), c73ha². Applying the Urban Greening Factor (UGF) to each phase of development will measure the green infrastructure being provided and should be aiming to achieve higher proportions throughout. ³, ⁴ The requirement to maximise the amount of GI for the development is further demonstrated in section 2.1 Context, specifically, in sub-sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.4. In 2.1.2 Area Action Plan Site, it recognises the environmental constraints from the proximity to major transport infrastructure which affects health and quality of life through noise and atmospheric pollution. While in 2.1.4 Communities, recognises a localised discourse with a high proportion of social deprivation compared to the Cambridge area in general. These can only be alleviated with an appropriate amount of green infrastructure that address issues of climate resilience and social deprivation, while simultaneously connecting people with nature through design that maximises the wildlife potential. Under 2.0 Strategic Objectives, the five key objectives and their lists are welcome. However, such principles are invariably designed out of development during the planning and design process. It must be an imperative this is not the case here and objectives are rigorously adhered to and followed through. • We are therefore sceptical the aims and objectives are robust enough to deliver a tangible benefit to public amenity, health and well-being, biodiversity and climate resilience. _________________________ Qualifying points to Responses: ¹This was originally proposed for the Ecotown concept. Although not widely adopted in local authority green infrastructure policies and plans, Worcestershire Green Infrastructure Strategy being an exception. It is supported by Town & Country Planning Association in several of their documents, eg: planning for a healthy environment – good practice guidance for green infrastructure and biodiversity, 2012 ²Meeting the deficit of on-site green infrastructure could, but not exclusively, derive from: private gardens, green roofs and walls, street trees, rain gardens and other Sustainable Drainage (SuDS) features and minimising the amount of ‘dead areas’ in paved hard landscape. If designed with nature in mind, such features can collectively make a considerable contribution to meet the aims and objectives to doubling nature as set out by Natural Cambridgeshire. While acknowledging the Barratt Kingsbrook development at Aylesbury is not a high-density urban setting, it exceeds 40% GI without including gardens. Similarly, other sites in the local environs of Cambridge have higher proportions of on-site GI per area and capita. ³The UGF tool has been adopted by Greater London Authority as part of the London Plan. It is used successfully by Boroughs to assess whether planning applications meet acceptable levels of green infrastructure provision. https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/parks-green-spaces- and-biodiversity/urban-greening ⁴https://www.landscapeinstitute.org/blog/urban-greening-factor-london/
1.1 County officers have been involved in the development of the draft plan over the past two years. The overall approach to bringing forward the area for redevelopment is broadly welcome and it vision for an inclusive, walkable, low-carbon new city district is supported.
No uploaded files for public display
Please see attached Letter including representations on behalf of The Crown Estate.
No uploaded files for public display
I strongly object to your vision for NEC in its current form because of the associated relocation of the sewage works to Sites 1 and 2 and the seeming lack of coherent vision for the wider area. This risks a planning disaster for Greater Cambridge with the particular danger of ‘locking’ strategically important land at Site 2. The NEC vision seems unrealistic; too much is being squeezed into too little space. I question the chances of everything promised in the AAP being delivered. The definition of ‘affordable’ is not clear. Examining some of the key aims of the AAP, the vision for NEC will have the following direct effects on the villages: ‘Healthy and safe’; Residents, businesses, schools, nurseries and a hospital will face multiple health and safety risks; contaminated bioaerosols, nausea and detriment to wellbeing from living with the stench of sewage and sludge processing, commissioning and decommissioning work. Flies, mosquitoes and rats. Noise, dust and vibration from construction work. Plus daily HGV traffic, including sludge transport, causing pollution and endangering school routes on overloaded, narrow and twisting roads. Sites 1 and 2 would result in the closure of a long established fruit farm and a recreational facility at Rectory Farm. ‘Green spaces’ and ‘Cultural Placemaking’; Your evidence-based document describes the area between Impington and Milton thus: ‘….. not recognised in published landscape character assessments and townscape assessments as making an important contribution to the setting of Cambridge. It contains few notable landscape or cultural heritage designations with very few public rights of way and no recreational routes of regional or national importance.’ This area actually contains the Mere Way, used by walkers, joggers and cyclists for health and recreation. Mere Way is also a heritage asset, a Roman Road, as well as an incredible wildlife corridor with pleasant views across to mature trees. ‘Biodiversity’; Our village conservation area is rich in wildlife which will suffer (little owls, tawny owls, barn owls, turtle doves, swifts, bats, common toads, hedgehogs, deer, foxes, badgers). ‘A real sense of place’; Whichever villages are forced to accept the sewage works will have a new ‘sense of place’, where quality of life and property values are diminished.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display