North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019
Representation ID: 33383
Respondent: Mr John Latham
I recommend involving a local housing association.
Q 2. Is the proposed boundary the most appropriate?
No. The proposed boundary should include the area to the East of the railway line, along Fen Road.
This area has suffered for years from a range of well-known social and related problems. Closure of the level crossing would require that part of Fen Road to be connected to the northern end of Milton Road, or directly to the Milton Road/A14 junction with a bridge over the railway line.
Q 3. Have the physical characteristics of the area been correctly identified
No. There is no mention of the lack of Secondary Schools, and those matrked onb the map are incorrectly positioned.
Q 11. Are there particular land uses that should be accommodated?
Yes, there should be a Secondary School and as much as possible of the area between the railway line and the river should be designated as a Riverside Country park
Q 15. Should clusters of taller buildings for part of the design
Not without very specific constraints on height. Six storeys should be set as an absolute limit.
Q 17. Explore delivery of a cycling and pedestrian bridge over the railway line?
Yes, certainly, but there should also be a new road and bridge to link with Fen Road so that the level crossing can be closed
Q 20. and 21. a and b
No I do not agree with proposals to include low levels of car parking. They will cause the surrounding residential streets to be swamped with displaced cars belonging to residents of the proposed new development.
Car parking provision should be close to one parking space per residential unit. Until adequate public transport is provided it is not feasible to reduce the number of car parking spaces on the Science Park.
Q. 24. Green space
The provision of adequate green space must be explicit, controlled by the City Council and not delegated to developers.
I strongly support combination of all of the proposed elements and rigorous enforcement on developers.
Q. 27. Trip budget and reduction of car use
This can only be affective where a proper system of public transport is in place. That means something other than buses, for example a tram, or if a proper tram cannot be achieved then the 'CAM'. Buses, especially conventional diesel buses, do not provide a viable, sustainable or attractive alternative to cars.
The integration of the AAP with a tramway or CAM is an essential prerequisite. The guided busway in its present form is almost completely irrelevant to what is proposed, other than for a small number of trips from Northstowe, Histon/Impington and Darwin Green/Eddington to the Science Park.
Q. 28. Low and reduced car parking ?
No, see above
Qs. 29 and 30
Yes, cycle parking must be prioritised and made obligatory
Q. 33 Innovative connections between Cambridge North and the Science Park
The guided busway is not adequate or attractive. A tram or CAM is needed.
Q. 37 Industrial uses to be retained?
Existing light industrial uses should be moved next to the A14, facilitated by a new road connection along the top of the site connecting to Milton Road on the A 14 junction. That could include the bus depot. Railway sidings should also be retained for future needs.
Q. 38 Mix of dwelling sizes
Yes, a mix of sizes, and family units should be included. That is essential to achieve a balanced stable community
Q. 39, 40,41 Housing for essential local workers
Yes, certainly. Absolutely vital and should be adhered to and enforced. No side deals for substitution with student accommodation etc.
Q. 43 HMO?
I am not at all convinced by this, so without further detail, no.
Qs 44- 46 PRS
I recommend involving a local housing association.
Q. 51 and 53 and 54
The highest/best local and national standards should be applied, so that no compromises are made away from the largest possible internal space, best direct access to private amenity space, and highest standards of accessibility.
There must be adequate provision for independent retail, which should be prioritised over national chains. There is no need to attempt to duplicate city centre/other major leisure and retail provision.
Use the Trumpington/Eddington models for community centre/library/medical. Include a secondary school. Faiths should be given proper allocation of space.
Q. 59 Space provision: Quality and functionality not quantity
No. Adequate quantity is essential, see above re riverside park.
Q. 67 Net gain in biodiversity ?
Go to Eddington for methods. Appoint an ecology chief for the area from the start.
Q.69 Underground waste system
Yes, again use the Eddington example.
Q. 84 Any other comments
The AAP proposals have evolved into a massive addition to the urban fringe of Cambridge.
There is no acceptable reason why residential building density and height need to be imposed on a scale that is out of character with the rest of Cambridge, on a site which will be visible from various places including the historic and invaluable riverside, parts of the city and Chesterton, and Fen Ditton.
If excessive height and density is the only basis on which funding can be obtained to move the Sewage Works, then it would be better to leave the Sewage Works where it is until an appropriate alternative approach can be found to redevelopment that is not alien to Cambridge.