Question 10

Northern access road is a given, but the current Cowley Road should be pedestrianised. This would allow for future development on the sewage works itself. There should be new pedestrian access points to the Business Park, to make it more cohesive with the new area. Nuffield Road can stay as it is, but the access to it should be via Milton Road, not it's present arrangement, and therefore the guided bus extension should be a road for all users, with bollards leading after Nuffield Road to the station.

Whilst I support the creation of a new pedestrianised boulevard on the existing Cowley Road, low level development would be a wasted opportunity. On the attached map, I feel that we could easily accommodate buildings of up to 20 storeys, though feel that a minimum of 8 storeys would be appropriate.

Probably not the best option, but viable as a solution, with no obvious problems.

See attached document

Options 2, 3 and 4 show heavy goods vehicle access through the middle of my property. With the planned expansion of public transport as part of the City Deal, how do you propose we achieve this without a bus depot?
If we are to be relocated who pays for the building for the new bus depot?

It seems appropriate to begin small and grow to the eventual maximum level of development. This allows a natural impetus to be carried forward if the sewage works can eventually be relocated.

I would prefer this area is dealt with properly, ie option 4 Maximum Level of Redevelopment.

Support for Questions 7A, 10 and 11. Object to Questions 12 and 13

See attached document.

See attached document

I would like to see the Waste Water Treatment Centre moved away or significantly modernised to stop any odour-nuisance to neighbours. The aggregates area in this option effectively blocks any possible level crossing to Fen Road. No residential development, underexploits the potential for improvement. Not enough green space - even office developments need "lungs".

Parts of only

See attached document

Option 1 proposes a lower level of development on a brownfield site which is situated in a highly sustainable location. This represents inefficient use of the land and does not accord with the NPPF which seeks to maximise the use of previously developed land (para.111). Furthermore, Option 1 does not propose any new residential development or a local service hub and will not provide a mix of land uses at densities that make best use of the site. Option 1 does not therefore accord with the development objectives identified to guide the delivery of the vision for the CNFE.

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.

This option relates to the lower level of development whereby Anglian Water resolve to remain in situ. Their 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 that is in place within the Minerals and Waste LDF plan and which provides for a safeguarding area around the edge of the site.

There are effectively two main issues that are of concern to the College in the context of this Option 1.

Firstly, and as stated in separate responses to other questions, it is noted in this Option 1 (and indeed in Option 2) that the St John's land does not benefit from the proposal for plot densification that is applicable to the Cambridge Business Park. We cannot see why any differentiation is made when comparing the two areas. Indeed the current St John's Innovation Park density is considerably lower than the Business Park - the opportunities that are afforded by increasing floorspace in both those areas is consistent with Objective 3 of the Plan. Consequently we feel that the key and the plan for Option 1 needs amending to ensure that plot densification also applies to the St John's land. Indeed work undertaken by SQW on behalf of the Council's "CNFE Employment Guidance for the Area Action Plan" and which is the supporting material for the Issues and Options Report makes it quite clear at paragraphs 1.29 and 1.34 that intensification of the St John's Innovation Park is acceptable without affecting the quality of development. (There is no logic as to why plot intensification could not come forward now. It is not dependant on anything that might or might not happen with the Anglian Water landholding and which is implied by Options 3 and 4)

Secondly, the option shows a new "Household Waste Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility" to be located to the north of the Anglian Water site. It is surprising that there is no definition of this facility within Appendix 3 (Glossary of Terms) and we consider that it requires specific reference. At the Public Exhibition, Officers confirmed that the facility was essentially a relocation of the current Butt Lane facility at Milton. Such a use clearly has to be carefully sited and in this context, the College is particularly concerned to see Option 1 include such a facility located close to the offices and other businesses at the Innovation Park. In the circumstances where alternative locations exist either within the new or existing areas to the south of the Anglian Water landholding then this would seem a more appropriate location to site such a facility. Locating such a use with its attendant characteristics including noise, dust and traffic close to high technology offices and buildings does not make for logical planning and consequently from a business perspective, dilutes the profile of the Innovation Park. This is the absolute antithesis of what we are seeking to achieve and consequently we cannot support Option 1.

The redevelopment details outlined in Option 1 provide for what is likely to be the most realistic outcome in the extent of development opportunity, given the land ownership, land use and infrastructure delivery constraints associated with the AAP site.
However, the omission of residential development within Option 1 would indicate that the option is failing in some of its key objectives in creating a sustainable community.
The juxtaposition of areas which host very differing use classes will be difficult to control in terms of noise, odour and vibration and therefore the B1 provision should not feature B1(b) uses.
The land uses section of the analysis table does not take into account the loss of the golf driving range. As per NPPF and Sport England requirements should a facility of equal or greater value not be sourced within a short distance of the site?
The delivery of the development proposed will be subject to the delivery of the necessary infrastructure upgrades such as the Milton Road interchange. There is significant doubt on whether these will all be in place on time to meet with the residential, office and R&D sector demands. The concerns are related to how the infrastructure improvements will be funded and given that many have not reached a final design stage how long they will take to be implemented.
There is considerable doubt that given the infrastructure uncertainties the option could be, as contended, "delivered early".

It is very important to improve the access to the new station, since the current environment along Cowley Road is very unwelcoming, especially for pedestrians. Option 1 would get this done quickly.

If, at the current time, it is not feasible to move - or contain to an extent that makes the area habitable - the water recycling centre, then this option would be appropriate as it leaves provisions for sensible future development of the water recycling site. This development could include a major new 'green' area, relating to Fen Road, the river and Milton Country Park. This is a great opportunity for providing the City of Cambridge with a new green lung, which could include appropriate leisure opportunities and help to re-balance the current trend to over-development.

See attached [below]

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.

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.

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. Under Option 1 all the proposed uses except for those in the new station area and in the Nuffield Road area fall within the WWTW SA. Option 1 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.

For the options listed on pages 33-41 the positive and negative aspects of each topic and options presented are supported. There needs to be a balance to ensure uplift to Chesterton, enough local facilities/employment to support new housing without detriment to new or existing residents - the redevelopment should present opportunities to reduce the sources of concern - odour, noise etc. as much as possible, and enhancing opportunities for active travel.

See attachment

See attached document

See attached document

Leaves significant area of underused land with non-conforming use (WWTW) which constrains development. Object to Household Recycling Centre indicative position.

The lack of information about traffic and junction layout does not allow an assessment to be made about the impact on existing businesses.

Montagu Evans has been instructed by Stagecoach to prepare representations to the above consultation. Stagecoach operates a bus depot located within the Cambridge Northern Fringe East area which is identified on the attached site location plan.

The bus depot forms a key facility for Stagecoach, used as premises for the maintenance and repair of buses and bus parking.

The loss of the bus depot would seriously inhibit Stagecoach's ability to operate a bus service. Clearly this would cause a significance and long term impact on the provision of bus services for the local and wider community.

Stagecoach has considerable concerns about the ability to identify an alternative site that is suitable for bus depot use within Cambridge.

Therefore, Stagecoach's preferred option is option 1 : The lower level of redevelopment. This allocates the area occupied by Stagecoach as an existing industrial and sui generis use (bus depots fall into the latter category).

Conversely, the options 2 ,3 and 4 identify the area currently occupied by the Stagecoach Depot as areas for proposed industry, storage and sui generis uses. Stagecoach does not support any of these options, as they potentially result in the loss of the bus depot with site identified for re-provision.

Any adopted policy for the Cambridge Northern Fringe East area must acknowledge the presence and importance of the Stagecoach Bus Depot and any polices for this area must allow for its retention or must be contingent upon the identification of a suitable and deliverable relocation site. Without such provision, this would seriously impact on the ability of Stagecoach to operate a bus service serving Cambridge and surrounding rural areas which would have major implications for the delivery of a sustainable transport strategy in Cambridge and surrounding rural areas.

I hope that this representation is helpful and Stagecoach looks forward to further engaging with the Council as the policy develops. Please ensure that I am added to your consultation database. If in the meantime you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me on the details below.

As noted on P35 the scale of development means that option 1 does not deliver successful regeneration of the wider area, maximise sustainable urban living opportunities or suitable density of development required to exploit the significant investment in the transport. No opportunity for urban living.

There are no strong preferences on the options but the overarching objective to create a transformative gateway with a strong employment focus should remain consistent.
Option 1 (Lower Level of Redevelopment) is unlikely to deliver the full potential of the CNFE area and associated developments in the Greater Cambridge area. It would limit the development potential, the infrastructure and connectivity improvements and the role of the new station. It could be considered as an early phase of the development but greater ambition is required to deliver a transformational gateway regeneration scheme.

All the options fail to consider pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users, including disabled on buses, by placing a Multi-storey carpark right next to the station. This replicates the horrendous conditions at Cambridge railway station where vehicles pick up and deposit people just a couple of metres from the front door, creating a fume-filled and dangerous approach, frequently gridlocked and preventing buses from completing a turning round a small roundabout. This delays the buses from arriving at their stops, delays the public travelling on them and makes it the poor relation.

The carpark should be sited a minimum of 100 metres away - a covered walkway could be provided, if one is also provided from public transport users - but priority must be given to pedestrians and users of public transport (excludes taxis). Similarly, a taxi rank should not be any closer than 100 metres to allow space for ordinary and guided buses.

One would hope that after so much publicity cyclists would be considered too and allowed a traffic free approach where the interaction with LGVs/buses is eliminated. This is the chance to prevent the distressing and needless deaths one sees so often in London and the cities.

This option is underwhelming and should be the least favoured of all of those being considered. It does not maximise the opportunity for a vibrant new employment-led development and maintains the status quo to a very substantial degree save for localised redevelopment of specific plots.

It is not doing enough and is not worth the effort.

CambridgePPF strongly objects to Option 1 (see response to Options 3 & 4) as it does not offer a sufficiently ambitious vision for this vitally important site