Question 11

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.

This is probably the best use of the area consistent with not moving the sewage works.

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?

Makes best use of area within constraint of moving the Sewage works at a high costs.

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. I approve of the housing development, must insist on 40% affordable.

parts of only

See attached document

Brookgate support some aspects of Option 2, however an alternative Option 2a is proposed and is appended to this submission. Residential development, particularly near the station is supported as is the proposed increase in Offices/R & D with associated job creation and the development of a local centre. The proposed increase in informal open space provision is also supported but could be improved. Option 2 proposes a more balanced mix of land uses and maintains the potential for early delivery, however there remains scope to further improve upon the efficiency of the use of the land.

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.

As with the College's response to Q10, it remains the case that the College's landholdings at the Innovation Park should be considered in Option 2 as having the same potential for the intensification of employment provision in the same way that the Cambridge Business Park has been identified, i.e. plot densification. 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 2 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)

Additionally the proposed location of the Household Waste Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility remains in the same location as shown in Option 1 and where the College have strong concerns about the appropriateness of such a new facility in that location having regard to the proximity to the offices and research activities at the Innovation Park.

The delivery of this quantum of development would be more likely to allow for the development principles outlined in the Issues and Options paper to be implemented. However, the positioning of B1(b) uses adjacent to the railway line, the aggregates railhead, industrial areas and access routes for HGV's will not be attractive to the R & D market. These sites will be subject to issues associated with noise, vibration, odour and dust which does not indicate that they would be suitable for R&D purposes. It would be more appropriate if these sites were allocated directly for general office use or intensification of B2 and B8 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.

We can see how providing residential accommodation on the site is beneficial, given the City's priority to build housing, without mitigation works to the water recycling centre, however, it is not clear that this would be an attractive place to live - and therefore we are not convinced that this option is appropriate at this time.

As with our response to Q10, we maintain that the St John's Innovation Park should be considered as having the same potential for the intensification of employment provision as has been identified for the Cambridge Business Park, namely plot densification.

Additionally, the proposed location of the Household Waste Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility remains in the same location as shown in Option 1. We reiterate our strong concerns about the appropriateness of such a facility in that location, having regard to the proximity to offices and research activities at the St John's Innovation Park.

Question 10 response:
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.

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.

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 P37 the scale of development means that option 2 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. Sub-optimal 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 2 (Medium Level of Redevelopment) is most likely should Option 3 not be feasible or viable (particularly the rationalisation of the Water Recycling Centre (WRC). From the information provided it appears to strike a good balance between delivery and ambition however it is not without its own constraints.

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.

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.

This option is little better than Option 1, in fact it is arguably poorer, because it 'sacrifices' commercial land for more residential land when the emerging Local Plan is not dependent on such development coming forward.

This or option 3 should be the one to select.

CambridgePPF strongly objects to Option 2 (see response to Options 3 & 4) as it does not offer a sufficiently ambitious vision for this vitally important site.

Option 3 response: This is our second preference option. We support it as a reserve option in the event that Option 4 is not deliverable. Reconfiguring the water treatment plant as proposed will greatly improve the development potential of the overall site, but not as optimally as Option 4.

Option 4 response: This is our first preference Option. Removal of the water treatment plant from the site would maximise development potential and improve air quality conditions both on the site and elsewhere in the vicinity. We recognise that much work will be needed to make this option deliverable and urge the local authorities and Anglian Water to work together to find solutions that would allow it to be achieved.

See attached document