Question 3
Time will tell.
No uploaded files for public display
It remains to be seen.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment
No uploaded files for public display
Stop trying to 'jazz up' these horrible, characterless developments.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment
No uploaded files for public display
Yes. See 1 &2
No uploaded files for public display
No - re-purpose office buildings.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment
No uploaded files for public display
Comment: Is it worth including provision for places of worship?
No uploaded files for public display
30,000 people is too many. Cowley Rd Centre has highest density but has the least services. Are there enough services in the Science Park? No secondary school is planned – we feel this should be needed if there is a balanced community. Sterility of the environment - it could just be transit and drop-off. Worries about County lines near the station.
No uploaded files for public display
Further comments: No comment
No uploaded files for public display
The social and cultural hubs should be geographically spread as proposed. Their precise location should not be prescribed. The plan on page 15 should be treated as indicative - a local centre near St John’s Innovation Park is welcomed. This is a more general point in that the Plan is currently unduly prescriptive – see further examples below.
No uploaded files for public display
Refer to comments under Policy 10d and 10e.
No uploaded files for public display
• The centres are very patchy. This could be because of several developers being involved. The original plans included housing on the Science Park, which was abandoned so there is now one ‘centre’ in the area exclusively for work, with others being mixed activity. • The industry will be staying on the site. One of these is the concrete mixing site. Dust levels can impact the respiratory health not only of the workers but also the 18,000 or more residents who will live near it. There needs to be strict rules to prevent poor air quality. • The flats will be close to the A14, a very busy road with a very high proportion of HGVs. There needs to be good provision in place to stop air and noise pollution.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
• Industrial units and the aggregates railhead should not be at the heart of the development. It will create a hazardous and unwelcome mix of traffic on the main residential access road. Far better would be to relocate these to the north-east corner of the site and/or create a separate industrial access road alongside the A14 from the north end of Cowley Rd. • If the industrial uses are moved to the north-east corner, then housing currently assigned there can move away from the A14 and enjoy lower noise and air pollution. • Is there a risk that the noise barrier will reflect more sound back towards Milton Country Park?
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Food growing on specific community sites (allotments/community garden), private spaces (inc. balconies) + as opportunity for communal plantings (cf SPD section 4.4) need specific mention. Post Covid there's more interest then ever in food growing + eating local (increasing local resilience and health). Need for public drinking fountains.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Cultural, sporting and leisure amenities would be best sited close to the railway station to widen car-free access from outside NEC. • The secondary school should be sited so as to ensure that it best provides car-free serves to its catchment population (e.g. in the Science Park, with access from the Busway and Mere Way cycleway, or Cambridge North station, with access by rail, the Chisholm Trail and Waterbeach Greenway). • Centres should incorporate more cultural, recreational and sporting facilities to serve local needs and address deficiencies (e.g. a swimming pool) in north Cambridge. • Industrial uses do not mix well with residential in terms of noise, air pollution and HGV traffic through the development.
No uploaded files for public display
As per the attachment representation they will need to amended to allow the consolidation and retention of the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
TCC supports the NECAAP’s identification of local, neighbourhood and district ‘centres’ within the NECAAP area. It is crucial that appropriate supporting uses for CSP are supported in the NECAAP as the key employment location in the NECAAP area. In accordance with the NPPF3 the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth focusing significant development in locations which are sustainable, limiting the need to travel and offer a genuine choice of transport modes. TCC are committed to maintaining and enhancing the existing Cambridge Science Park whilst transforming a parcel of agricultural land adjacent to the Cambridge Science Park into a worldleading centre of excellence in skilled manufacturing and development. TCC commends the Council having identified the need for a consolidation hub for last mile deliveries. TCC would like it on record that such a hub should not be proposed in the Cambridge Science Park local centre, as such an allocation would be disruptive and detrimental to the significant number employees of the science park and the tranquil world class environment they work in. CSPN, however, provides opportunity for this, providing a link from the A14 that would reduce trips on Milton Road. The provision of direct cycle and busway links to the wider area will mean that deliveries by way of cycles, electric vehicles, automated pods or vehicles and drones is realistic and deliverable. Intercepting deliveries outside the NECAAP area, to no detriment to surrounding residential properties must be a more sustainable option, rather than funnelling these movements onto Kings Hedges Road. These points are further emphasised in the Policy which states: ‘A hub has been identified within Cambridge Science Park Local Centre, as set out in Policy 10c. An additional hub could be located close to Milton Road where it can be accessed directly from the primary street to reduce vehicle movements within the Area Action Plan area’. The references to congestion and no opportunity to increase capacity further provides additional examples of why the Trip Budget incorrectly focuses upon the peak hour. Deliveries are examples of movements that generally take place outside of peak periods where capacity pressures on networks such as the highway network for vehicular traffic is much less. ‘Unconstrained deliveries direct to business premises and properties is, with the growth in e-commerce, likely to generate many trips and exceed the trip budget’. Notwithstanding this, the role that a consolidation centre can play in the overall strategy is supported and can be delivered by CSPN. ‘Consideration should be given to co-locating the hub with other active uses, such as shops and other services and facilities’. We consider a primary mobility Hub to be an ideal partner to a consolidation centre. Close to remote consolidated parking, storage of parcels and the like for staff members would provide a location for collection in addition to the consolidation of delivery.
No uploaded files for public display
Natural England has no specific comments to make in response to this question.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display