Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29873

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation Summary:

All options will require more detailed transport assessment work, across all modes, of the proposals including their inter-relationship with emerging proposals under development by the County Council as part of City Deal. Although this is true of all options, this is particularly the case for those that propose higher levels of development which might require significant transport intervention to ensure that transport impacts are not severe. This applies to the local networks (walk, cycle, bus, and highway), the strategic road (i.e.: Highways Agency) and rail (i.e.: Network Rail) networks. This will need to be reflected in viability work.

Full text:

All options will require more detailed transport assessment work to understand the transport implications, across all modes, of the proposals including their inter-relationship with emerging proposals under development by the County Council as part of the City Deal programme. Although this is true of all options, this is particularly the case for those that propose higher levels of development which might require significant transport intervention to ensure that transport impacts are not severe. This applies to both the local networks (walk, cycle, bus, and highway) and also the strategic road (i.e.: Highways Agency) and rail (i.e.: Network Rail) networks. This will need to be reflected in viability work.

The retention of the strategic aggregate railhead is supported.

The inclusion of an indicative location for the new Household Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility is also supported, together with the caveat that gives the flexibility for this to be located on alternative B2, B8 or sui generis land in the vicinity of Cowley Road.

It is noted that the Veolia Waste Transfer Station site would be redeveloped. This site is safeguarded through the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan, but scope exists for this use to be accommodated on other land proposed for B2, B8 and sui generis uses.

The retention of the existing inert waste recycling centre, within the curtilage of the Water Recycling Centre is supported. This existing facility is time limited but lies within an allocated Area of Search for a permanent site for such a use (allocated by the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan).

The provision made for the temporary storage of aggregates for the improvement of the A14 is supported. A temporary facility in this location (with time restricted access directly on to the A14) will assist in the efficient movement of mineral for the scheme.

The provision of new heavy goods vehicle access is supported as this will enable traffic movements associated with the railheads, waste management and other B2, B8 and sui generis uses to be separate from Cowley Road which will be subject to additional use by station and other users.

All new development which falls within the Safeguarding Area for the Water Recycling Centre (designated by the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan) will in due course need to comply with Policy CS31 Waste Water Treatment Works Safeguarding Areas (WWTW SA) of the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2011). The proposed uses must demonstrate that they would not prejudice the continued operation of the water treatment works i.e. by an odour assessment report. It would be prudent to bear this requirement in mind now when new uses which would normally be occupied by people are being proposed, particularly if the juxtaposition of certain uses would give rise to future amenity issues which could pose issues / constraints to the future operation of this essential infrastructure. Option 2 places those which are likely to be less sensitive i.e. B2, B8 and Sui Generis, immediately adjacent the Water Recycling Centre, and those which are likely to be more sensitive i.e. B1 uses further away. This approach is supported, although consideration to heights of buildings, views and the use of any external landscaped areas being capable of being used for the purpose designed will still be required.

Support a focus on Option 2 but with the aim of moving to Option 3 if reconfiguration of the WRC is technically, financially (viability) and operationally deliverable within a realistic timescale. Given the uncertainty around the WRC reconfiguration Option 2 provides the best route for regenerating a substantial part of the area in the short/medium term including a residential element and local centre. The preference would be however to change Nuffield Road to residential. With Option 3 there still remains the issue of the proximity of proposed office/R&D uses to part of the adjacent railhead.