Question 3
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29214
Received: 08/12/2014
Respondent: Ben Cofield
Relocate Travellers to create wonderful riverside district of 4000+ houses. More money for Council from tax revenues, a better environment for people living in East Chesterton and a much more coherent and sensible use of ultra-prime real estate.
Whilst I broadly in favour, I feel that by keeping 100 Traveller families on site would not allow Fen Meadows to be created and will mean that ultra-prime real estate is not managed effectively. Riverside land adjacent to a railway station and bus interchange should NEVER be allowed to flounder, and I feel that most people would rather see 4000 families housed in a beautiful new area, which would be a benefit to the whole city, rather than 100 Traveller families. It would be extremely short-sighted and a tragic mistake for the city, plus the incomes for the Councils would be vast, considering the Council Tax income etc.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29258
Received: 10/12/2014
Respondent: Management Process Systems Limited
Let's not do it piece meal and lose the overall integration possibilities.
Let's not do it piece meal and lose the overall integration possibilities.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29311
Received: 16/12/2014
Respondent: Dr Roger Sewell
Given that I do not support any proposal to relocate the sewage works, I can see no point in including the sewage works in the area of interest.
Given that I do not support any proposal to relocate the sewage works, I can see no point in including the sewage works in the area of interest.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29381
Received: 09/01/2015
Respondent: Ms Anne Swinney
I support the reasons given for the inclusion of areas specified in the plan
I support the reasons given for the inclusion of areas specified in the plan
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29421
Received: 12/01/2015
Respondent: Hamilton Froeba
Area make sense
Area make sense
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29426
Received: 17/01/2015
Respondent: Nicky Morland
Coherent area for development
Coherent area for development
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29453
Received: 20/01/2015
Respondent: Mr Stephen Hills
The area needs rejuvination and should improve the North side of the City.
I'm unsure if this is mentioned in the document but the area between the rail line and the river should also be considered for re-development. This is potentially the best land left in Cambridge to redevelop and shouldnt be ignored.
The area needs rejuvination and should improve the North side of the City.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29497
Received: 23/01/2015
Respondent: Mrs Hazel Smith
St Johns Innovation Centre and the other business premises on that 'teardrop' site and Cambridge Business Park do not need redevelopment or intensification. They should be left out of the AAP or have policies applied that recognise this.
St Johns Innovation Centre and the other business premises on that 'teardrop' site and Cambridge Business Park do not need redevelopment or intensification. They should be left out of the AAP or have policies applied that recognise this.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29532
Received: 23/01/2015
Respondent: Mrs Sasha Wilson
The area needs sensible rejuvenation
The area needs sensible rejuvenation
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29595
Received: 27/01/2015
Respondent: Cllr Anna Bradnam
I support the current area identified by the AAP including the Cambridge Science Park and Chesterton Sidings Triangle
I support the current area identified by the AAP including the Cambridge Science Park and Chesterton Sidings Triangle
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29639
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Brookgate
Agent: Bidwells
Support, subject to the proposed boundary extension Option B.
Support, subject to the proposed boundary extension Option B.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29728
Received: 30/01/2015
Respondent: The Master Fellows and Scholars of the College of Saint John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge
Agent: Savills
The St John's Innovation land should be included within the CNFE provided that there are no more onerous conditions or policies applied to the CNFE plan area.
Savills Planning Team in Cambridge are instructed on behalf of St John's College, Cambridge to make response to the Issues and Options Report on the CNFE having regard to the College's landholdings and land interests at St John's Innovation Park west of Cowley Road and east of Milton Road.
The current AAP includes the St John's College's landholdings east of Milton Road. On the basis that the St John's site is acknowledged to have potential for further development, i.e. "plot densification" as termed within the options, then it is appropriate to be included provided that there are no more onerous conditions or policies applied to this plan area compared to those which do not fall within the area. Representations have been made to the Plan to ensure that the St John's land has the same opportunity to create new and additional floorspace in the same manner as the Cambridge Business Park.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29751
Received: 30/01/2015
Respondent: CODE Development Planners Ltd
Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd
The area identified for the AAP is concurrent with the Draft Local Plans.
The area identified for the AAP is concurrent with the Draft Local Plans.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29814
Received: 31/01/2015
Respondent: Mr David Collier
The boundary needs to include the area to the East of the railway (Fen Road). There are serious issues with the current road access to this area, through Chesterton and across the level crossing. So it is very important to consider whether a new access can be provided from Cowley Road. This would have a big impact on the development of the rest of the area, so it is vital that this is considered as part of the main plan.
The boundary needs to include the area to the East of the railway (Fen Road). There are serious issues with the current road access to this area, through Chesterton and across the level crossing. So it is very important to consider whether a new access can be provided from Cowley Road. This would have a big impact on the development of the rest of the area, so it is vital that this is considered as part of the main plan.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29842
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: St John's Innovation Centre
The current AAP includes the St John's Innovation Park. Provided that the St John's site is acknowledged to have potential for further development - "plot intensification" as termed within the options - then inclusion of the St John's innovation Park is appropriate provided that no more onerous conditions or policies are applied to this plan area than to those which fall outside it. The St John's Innovation Park should have the same opportunity to create new and additional floorspace as would the Cambridge Business Park under the AAP.
The current AAP includes the St John's Innovation Park. Provided that the St John's site is acknowledged to have potential for further development - "plot intensification" as termed within the options - then inclusion of the St John's innovation Park is appropriate provided that no more onerous conditions or policies are applied to this plan area than to those which fall outside it. The St John's Innovation Park should have the same opportunity to create new and additional floorspace as would the Cambridge Business Park under the AAP.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29857
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council
The 'physical and visual envelope' in point (iv) makes reference to the 'screening landscape alongside the A14 to the north' and the 'highway environment along Milton Road to the west' both of which are supported as they show the level of screening already in place in parts of the CNFE AAP area currently identified. This existing screening should be taken into account for any waste application that should come forward on the Anglian Water site.
Support from economic development perspective.
The relationship to the Traveller and Gypsy site should be explored in order to protect the site and associated access.
The 'physical and visual envelope' in point (iv) makes reference to the 'screening landscape alongside the A14 to the north' and the 'highway environment along Milton Road to the west' both of which are supported as they show the level of screening already in place in parts of the CNFE AAP area currently identified. This existing screening should be taken into account for any waste application that should come forward on the Anglian Water site.
Support from economic development perspective.
The relationship to the Traveller and Gypsy site should be explored in order to protect the site and associated access.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29975
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management LLP
Agent: Beacon Planning
The identified area is supported, however see answers to questions 4 and 5 below.
The identified area is supported, however see answers to questions 4 and 5 below.
Question 4 Response: An extension of the Area to include the Science Park is supported as this would provide comprehensive redevelopment principles to both sites, which are adjacent, benefit from the same transport hub, and share similar problems of access.
Question 5 Response:The extension to include Option B is supported to provide additional land to the station area and improve cycle access and permeability in the area generally.
The identified area is supported, however see answers to questions 4 and 5 below.
Question 4 Response: An extension of the Area to include the Science Park is supported as this would provide comprehensive redevelopment principles to both sites, which are adjacent, benefit from the same transport hub, and share similar problems of access.
Question 5 Response:The extension to include Option B is supported to provide additional land to the station area and improve cycle access and permeability in the area generally.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30048
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Urban&Civic Ltd
Agent: David Lock Associates
The current defined area is supported but the option of amending the boundary to achieve the vision and objectives should not be dismissed, providing this can be done within the Local Plan context.
The current defined area is supported but the option of amending the boundary to achieve the vision and objectives should not be dismissed, providing this can be done within the Local Plan context.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30124
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Grosvenor Developments
Agent: AECOM
No additional comment
No additional comment
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30252
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited
Agent: Carter Jonas
Some finessing of the wording is needed to detail the wider transport infrastructure that future employers in this part of the City will be able to access.
Turnstone has no significant issues with the extent of the AAP boundary but offers a few comments. Prior to doing so it takes issue with the factors described at Paragraph 4.2 i) - v) inclusive as to how decisions were reached about what should or should not be included.
Factor i) deals with transport infrastructure and rightly refers to the new station and to the guided busway extension. However, it is remiss in not referring to other elements contributing to the accessibility of the area including the Jane Coston Bridge from Milton, Milton Road itself (with its provision for all modes including cycling and pedestrians), links to the A10, proximity to park and ride at Butt Lane etc. It should be acknowledged that each of these pieces of physical infrastructure will deliver future workers to the CNFE site and accessibility by this choice of means of transport (and directions) should be defined as a factor dictating what the extent of the CNFE should be.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30275
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Coulson Building Group
Geographically this is entirely logical.
Geographically this is entirely logical.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30356
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future
The eastern boundary of the AAP is hard up against the railway line. This limitation constrains opportunities for the provision of residential development, as well as accessible and high quality open space and transport links that increase the permeability of the site, particularly to the north and east. The eastern boundary should be re-drawn to include land either side of Fen Road and up to the River Cam, with the proviso that development in that area should not compromise Green Belt principles
The eastern boundary of the AAP is hard up against the railway line. This limitation constrains opportunities for the provision of residential development, as well as accessible and high quality open space and transport links that increase the permeability of the site, particularly to the north and east. The eastern boundary should be re-drawn to include land either side of Fen Road and up to the River Cam, with the proviso that development in that area should not compromise Green Belt principles
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30379
Received: 04/02/2015
Respondent: Milton Parish Council
St Johns Innovation Centre and the other business premises on that 'teardrop' site and Cambridge Business Park do not need redevelopment or intensification. They should be left out of the AAP or have policies applied that recognise this.
See attached document
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30488
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridge City Council
The deliverability within a reasonable timeframe of the AAP is important in this regard and given the potential significant scale of the AAP, focus should be on those aspects most likely to be delivered.
See attached document
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30565
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Silke Scheler
Support.
I find all proposed options to be too restricted with the use of space. A mix of residential use, offices and industry would be preferable to give it a more natural feel. For example, leave the Nuffield Road industrial area and more residential use development further north. Also consider a more modular approach that allows to develop toward a future goal, but doesn't depend on things (like moving the water recycling centre) from the get go.
*******************
9) Objective 3 shouldn't get highest priority.
14) 11-13 are too divided in to use of space, a more natural mix of residential, offices and industrial would be better. Also, re-use as much of what is already there as possible.
15, 16, 17) No clear explanations, which means meaning will be defined later.
18b) Would destroy the feeling of that part of the city.
23c) Science Park should be independent.
24d) This should only be considered if there are no other options. Moving the businesses will be expesive, so leave them there and build the residential area somewhere else.
30e) Student accomodation should be integrated so they won't all be in the same area.
36) Whatever makes best sense for transport at the current stage of the project.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30617
Received: 03/02/2015
Respondent: RLW Estates
Agent: Boyer Planning
The AAP boundary is defined in the respective draft Local Plans for Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire and therefore in procedural terms any amendments may be problematic and should only be contemplated if there are clear and convincing merits in so doing.
See attached document