Question 5

Showing comments and forms 1 to 27 of 27

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29217

Received: 08/12/2014

Respondent: Ben Cofield

Representation Summary:

Of course it should be developed. This is just complete common sense.

Full text:

Of course it should be developed. This is just complete common sense.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29260

Received: 10/12/2014

Respondent: Management Process Systems Limited

Representation Summary:

The development has to encompass the wider area.

Full text:

The development has to encompass the wider area.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29383

Received: 09/01/2015

Respondent: Ms Anne Swinney

Representation Summary:

It seems sensible to include this

Full text:

It seems sensible to include this

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29428

Received: 17/01/2015

Respondent: Nicky Morland

Representation Summary:

Logical to include

Full text:

Logical to include

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29455

Received: 20/01/2015

Respondent: Mr Stephen Hills

Representation Summary:

I am very keen for the Chisholm trail to progress as quickly as possible.

Full text:

I am very keen for the Chisholm trail to progress as quickly as possible.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29499

Received: 23/01/2015

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Smith

Representation Summary:

Link across the railway and river very important

Full text:

Link across the railway and river very important

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29534

Received: 23/01/2015

Respondent: Mrs Sasha Wilson

Representation Summary:

Yes

Full text:

Yes

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29597

Received: 27/01/2015

Respondent: Cllr Anna Bradnam

Representation Summary:

I support the extension of the AAP to include the Chesterton Sidings Triangle.

Full text:

I support the extension of the AAP to include the Chesterton Sidings Triangle.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29641

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

The proposed vision for CNFE is to embrace opportunities to create a well-connected and vibrant place. Proposed Objective 6 is to create an accessible, permeable and well-connected neighbourhood and Objective 8 to encourage a low carbon lifestyle. The inclusion of this triangular area of land will help to facilitate a pedestrian/cycle access for CNFE as part of the Chisholm Trail and this opportunity should be embraced.

Full text:

The proposed vision for CNFE is to embrace opportunities to create a well-connected and vibrant place. Proposed Objective 6 is to create an accessible, permeable and well-connected neighbourhood and Objective 8 to encourage a low carbon lifestyle. The inclusion of this triangular area of land will help to facilitate a pedestrian/cycle access for CNFE as part of the Chisholm Trail and this opportunity should be embraced.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29730

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

Representation Summary:

We support the inclusion of this land in the circumstances where it is required for the development of the CNFE as a whole and particularly the new station.

Full text:

Savills Planning Team in Cambridge are instructed on behalf of St John's College, Cambridge to submit responses 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.

We are unsure as to whether the inclusion or not of this site will have any real effect on the delivery of the development near the station although if this area of land is required to ensure necessary and relevant links to the CNFE as a whole and particularly the new station, then it should be included.. If the intention is to secure a comprehensive delivery of the railway station and the important connections to the south, including the Chisholm Trail, then it is clearly needed to secure consistency of approach to include it in the plan area.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29815

Received: 31/01/2015

Respondent: Mr David Collier

Representation Summary:

This is an important area for access to the new station.

Full text:

This is an important area for access to the new station.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29840

Received: 31/01/2015

Respondent: Cambridge Association of Architects

Representation Summary:

The Action Plan Area should be extended to include Cambridge Science Park and the triangular area south of Chesterton Sidings, as a minimum, in order to fully address site and station .

The East Area Action plan options need to be placed in the context of the wider area to make them legible.

Full text:

The Action Plan Area should be extended to include Cambridge Science Park and the triangular area south of Chesterton Sidings, as a minimum, in order to fully address site and station .

The East Area Action plan options need to be placed in the context of the wider area to make them legible.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29844

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: St John's Innovation Centre

Representation Summary:

We are unsure how the inclusion of this site will affect provision of the development near the station. If the intention is to secure a comprehensive delivery of the railway station and the important connections to the south, including the Chisholm Trail, then it would be sensible to secure consistency of approach by including it in the plan area.

Full text:

We are unsure how the inclusion of this site will affect provision of the development near the station. If the intention is to secure a comprehensive delivery of the railway station and the important connections to the south, including the Chisholm Trail, then it would be sensible to secure consistency of approach by including it in the plan area.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29859

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation Summary:

The inclusion of this land is supported; provided that it maintains or improves access to the new rail station and / or assists local pedestrian and cycle access.

Full text:

The inclusion of this land is supported; provided that it maintains or improves access to the new rail station and / or assists local pedestrian and cycle access.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29979

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management LLP

Agent: Beacon Planning

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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: 30005

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire & Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

The Wildlife Trust supports the extension of the boundary to include the Chesterton Siding Triangle, as this area is included in the site boundary for the new railway station, so should be included as part of the same unit. However, we would like to stress that in the approved station plans, this area is earmarked for species-rich grassland as part of ecological mitigation, and NOT for pedestrian/cycleways.

Full text:

The Wildlife Trust supports the extension of the boundary to include the Chesterton Siding Triangle, as this area is included in the site boundary for the new railway station, so should be included as part of the same unit. However, we would like to stress that in the approved station plans, this area is earmarked for species-rich grassland as part of ecological mitigation, and NOT for pedestrian/cycleways.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30057

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Urban&Civic Ltd

Agent: David Lock Associates

Representation Summary:

A comprehensive approach to the development including all areas necessary to deliver the vision and objectives is preferred. The inclusion of Chesterton Sidings Triangle is supported (if it can be done within the Local Plan context) to help deliver cycle/pedestrian access, for example as part of Chisholm Trail.

Full text:

A comprehensive approach to the development including all areas necessary to deliver the vision and objectives is preferred. The inclusion of Chesterton Sidings Triangle is supported (if it can be done within the Local Plan context) to help deliver cycle/pedestrian access, for example as part of Chisholm Trail.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30126

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Grosvenor Developments

Agent: AECOM

Representation Summary:

No additional comment

Full text:

No additional comment

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30127

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Maciej W Rozycki

Representation Summary:

Strongly supported. This will be the shortest, natural route for pedestrians and cyclists to reach the station from Chesterton, and also -- when the cycle bridge planned next to the railway bridge has been built as a part of the Chisholm Trail Cycleway -- for cyclists from Abbey and Fen Ditton.

Full text:

Strongly supported. This will be the shortest, natural route for pedestrians and cyclists to reach the station from Chesterton, and also -- when the cycle bridge planned next to the railway bridge has been built as a part of the Chisholm Trail Cycleway -- for cyclists from Abbey and Fen Ditton.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30225

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Ridgeons Ltd

Agent: Paul Belton

Representation Summary:

Ridgeons do not object to the principle of redevelopment set out within the AAP. Ridgeons however occupy a 1.9ha site that falls within the designated area. The site is identified for redevelopment. Ridgeons have confirmed that the site could only be released early from the terms of the lease if a replacement location for a Builder's Merchant store could be secured. More details are provided within the attached statement.

Full text:

Ridgeons do not object to the principle of redevelopment set out within the AAP. Ridgeons however occupy a 1.9ha site that falls within the designated area. The site is identified for redevelopment. Ridgeons have confirmed that the site could only be released early from the terms of the lease if a replacement location for a Builder's Merchant store could be secured. More details are provided within the attached statement.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30239

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge Sport Lakes Trust

Representation Summary:

Cambridge Sport Lakes Trust support Boundary Extension Option (B) Chesterton Sidings Triangle as we believe it significantly enhances the green transport options for the Cambridge Northern Fringe.

Full text:

Cambridge Sport Lakes Trust support Boundary Extension Option (B) Chesterton Sidings Triangle as we believe it significantly enhances the green transport options for the Cambridge Northern Fringe.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30254

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

Proposed Extension (B) is an important one we think and we support its inclusion in the AAP area as it will facilitate important cycle and pedestrian links to the south.

Full text:

Proposed Extension (B) is an important one we think and we support its inclusion in the AAP area as it will facilitate important cycle and pedestrian links to the south.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30358

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future

Representation Summary:

The triangular area to the south of the sidings should unquestionably be included within the boundary of the AAP. Doing so will underpin improvements in the CNFE's connectivity through the provision of a pedestrian/cycle access as part of the Chisholm Trail.

Full text:

The triangular area to the south of the sidings should unquestionably be included within the boundary of the AAP. Doing so will underpin improvements in the CNFE's connectivity through the provision of a pedestrian/cycle access as part of the Chisholm Trail.

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30421

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Tom McKeown

Representation Summary:

The Campaign fully supports extension of the CNFE AAP boundary to include the land identified as Chesterton Sidings Triangle. The plan should make clear that this land is reserved for an attractive and convenient active transport connection to the station and surrounding development delivering a key connection to the Chisholm Trail.

It should be made clear that this land be for attractive, direct active transport connection to the station and surrounding development.

Full text:

See attached document

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30490

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Representation Summary:

Yes, this would seem to be a logical extension and may give access to the adjoining communities.

Full text:

See attached document

Support

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30567

Received: 19/01/2015

Respondent: Silke Scheler

Representation Summary:

Support.

Full text:

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: 30619

Received: 03/02/2015

Respondent: RLW Estates

Agent: Boyer Planning

Representation Summary:

The Triangle site is important in terms of facilitating pedestrian and cycle links to the south which is a critical component of delivering a sustainable transport strategy.

This would no doubt be assisted by inclusion of the Triangle within the AAP area and if deemed necessary an amendment to the relevant Local Plan could be advanced through the current examination process to ensure consistency between these development plan documents. However if that is problematic procedurally, it will be important to ensure that the provision of cycle (and pedestrian) linkage is safeguarded by an alternative planning policy device.

Full text:

See attached document