Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29849

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: St John's Innovation Centre

Representation Summary:

As with our response to Q10, we maintain that the St John's Innovation Park should be considered as having the same potential for the intensification of employment provision as has been identified for the Cambridge Business Park, namely plot densification.

Additionally, the proposed location of the Household Waste Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility remains in the same location as shown in Option 1. We reiterate our strong concerns about the appropriateness of such a facility in that location, having regard to the proximity to offices and research activities at the St John's Innovation Park.

Full text:

As with our response to Q10, we maintain that the St John's Innovation Park should be considered as having the same potential for the intensification of employment provision as has been identified for the Cambridge Business Park, namely plot densification.

Additionally, the proposed location of the Household Waste Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility remains in the same location as shown in Option 1. We reiterate our strong concerns about the appropriateness of such a facility in that location, having regard to the proximity to offices and research activities at the St John's Innovation Park.

Question 10 response:
10.1 This option relates to the lower level of development whereby Anglian Water remains in situ. Its presence in the central and northern part of the site has a major bearing on potential adjacent land uses, having regard to the character of the infrastructure and the consequent cordon sanitaire in place within the Minerals and Waste LDF plan, which provides for a safeguarding area around the edge of the site.

10.2 We have two main concerns. First, as stated in separate responses to other questions, we note that the St John's Innovation Park does not benefit from the proposal for plot densification applicable to the Cambridge Business Park. We cannot see why any differentiation is made when comparing the two areas and the opportunities afforded by increasing floorspace in both those areas are consistent with Objective 3 of the Plan. Furthermore, current density at the St John's Innovation Park is lower than that of the Business Park. The key and the plan need amending to ensure that plot densification also applies to the St John's Innovation Park. This will be consistent with the Councils' own consultants, SQW, who in their supporting documentation at paragraphs 1.229 and 1.34 confirm that the potential exists to introduce more employment floorspace on the area within the Innovation Park.

10.3 Secondly, Option 1 shows a new "Household Waste Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility" to be located to the north of the Anglian Water site. We are surprised that no definition of this facility appears in Appendix 3 (Glossary of Terms) and we consider that it requires specific reference. We are concerned to see Option 1 include such a facility close to offices at the St John's Innovation Park. Where alternative locations exist - either within the new or existing areas to the south of the Anglian Water landholding - they would be more appropriate for siting such a facility. A recycling centre - with its attendant characteristics of noise, dust and traffic - is inappropriate in
close proximity to high technology offices and buildings. It degrades the standing of the St John's Innovation Park and consequently we cannot support Option 1.