Question 11
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30413
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Histon & Impington Parish Council
Histon & Impington Parish Council support Option 1 : Lower level of redevelopment
Object to options 2 , 3 and 4
See attached document
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30435
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Frimstone Ltd.
The provision of a re configured aggregates railhead and sidings is supported to replace the existing aggregates railhead lost by the development of the new station. The replacement of this railhead is paramount to the continued supply of aggregates for development of both the local and wider Cambridgeshire area.
The provision of a new Heavy Goods Vehicle access is supported to provide a more efficient, direct and safe access to the railhead and other industrial areas.
The provision of a re configured aggregates railhead and sidings is supported to replace the existing aggregates railhead lost by the development of the new station. The replacement of this railhead is paramount to the continued supply of aggregates for development of both the local and wider Cambridgeshire area.
The provision of a new Heavy Goods Vehicle access is supported to provide a more efficient, direct and safe access to the railhead and other industrial areas.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30467
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd
Overall, TCE supports the high level options for redevelopment of the site (options 2-4) only if the detailed evidence base work/studies demonstrate that these development options will not cause negative impacts on existing residents, workers and investors. These concerns are set out as follows.
Mix of uses
A mix of uses is proposed for the site including residential uses, a mix of B class/employment uses, new open space, a local centre and the aggregates/railhead sidings use. TCE broadly supports this approach subject to concerns about access and infrastructure, but would like to see inclusion of wording to the effect that the primary function of this area is to be the leading R&D/technology quarter/destination in Cambridge. Any activity to dilute this core/distinctive and valuable focus of the area would be a loss/step backwards,
given its regional/national status. Whilst it is appropriate to have supporting and complementary uses, larger-scale developments should not be permitted.
TCE supports the identification of CBP as offices/R&D with potential for intensification.
Linkages
TCE broadly supports the principle of promoting sustainable transport and movement through the idea of improving permeability and access to key routes, although TCE object to public access and new walkways being provided
through CBP as shown within development options 2-4. For security and health and safety reasons, the general public cannot have access to and through CBP.
However, TCE would like to see improved pedestrian and cycle access between the new railway station and the CBP, for both the occupiers and their customers/visitors. This should be identified and supported in the AAP. Potential options for improving access from CBP to the Station have been previously worked up by Scott Brownrigg and HED and are enclosed for information.
Landscaping
TCE also supports the inclusion of hard and soft landscaping with the AAP area. However, it should be noted that a comprehensive landscaping scheme within CBP has been implemented and this is a matter for TCE. It is worth mentioning that TCE are implementing a Sustainability Action Plan at CBP which includes improving the landscaping/green corridors, promoting biodiversity areas, promoting green travel and other such initiatives. TCE also broadly support the aspiration for a 'green boulevard' along Cowley Road, which would tie in well with the aforementioned initiatives.
See attached document
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30497
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridge City Council
Definitive line between odour zones defining uses within the CNFE. The AAP should consider individual applications on merit.
The odour footprint should be updated.
Access road serving the B2 uses to the north of Cowley Road could be separate from the B1 use, possibly with access from the Milton Road end avoiding B1 use.
The heavy goods vehicle access route is understandable but may not be deliverable.
The deliverability of the eastern proposed B2, B8 and Sui Generis uses are unsure as this area is in multiple ownerships and legal interests.
The principle is supported and the dedicated heavy goods vehicle access route could be a positive provided that the landowners can agree suitable terms.
The relocation of the station car park further north within the site together with a multi-storey car park could possibly allow greater residential development to be included in this scheme, maximising the site's sustainability.
The Guided Busway makes it difficult to fully integrate the Nuffield Road and Trinity Hall Industrial Estates with the rest of the CNFE area. The multiple ownerships and legal interests make this challenging to deliver.
See attached document
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30536
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Dominic Reber
Like the idea of including "open space" / green areas. The heavy use / popularity of Milton Country Park shows that these spaces are highley valued. Note: The Science Park has lost a lot of its green space over the years. Slightly concerned about "intensive" use of land (option 3 & 4).
See attachmed document
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30542
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: R Richardson
The usual mess, more houses, more cars blocking an already problem area for cars on to the A14 or in to Cambridge.
The usual mess, more houses, more cars blocking an already problem area for cars on to the A14 or in to Cambridge.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30551
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Ian Tyes
Object to option 2.
- Cambs United Football Ground
- New road along side A14 to access site from the north.
- P&R like shuttle bus from Milton P&R.
- Left turn lanes on A14 / A10 roundabout bypassing roundabout.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30558
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Shirley Fieldhouse
Object to option 2.
See attached document
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30571
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Silke Scheler
Object.
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.
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.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30678
Received: 27/01/2015
Respondent: Cllr Anna Bradnam
4) The HWRC should STAY at Butt Lane.
1) Whilst I support the principle of regeneration of this site, the development of the new railway station and extension of the guided busway, I believe the Sewage Treatment Works should be moved elsewhere in order to permit a greater proportion of sustainable urban living than commercial and industrial premises. The opportunity should be taken to remove this source of odour from the north of Cambridge. It may be appropriate to develop commercial units on the northern part of the site, against the A14, to provide a sound and pollution barrier for the residents further south in the site.
2)There is an excess of industrial units un-let in and around Cambridge. I doubt that more industrial units on this site would be used. I feel there is more need for housing.
3) Whilst the aggregates railhead is required I believe road access should be provided by means of a westbound off-slip from the A14 and a westbound on-slip to the A14. Aggregates lorries should NOT travel via the Milton Road onto or off the CNFE site. Whatever the solution, aggregate lorries should be restricted to the northern fringe of the site, to separate them from domestic traffic and they should not travel into Cambridge on the Milton Road.
4) The Household Waste Recycling Centre should NOT be moved from Butt Lane to this valuable site. The operation at Butt Lane is required to be monitored for as many years as it takes for the waste to completely decompose, so there is no compelling reason to move the HWRC from Butt Lane to the CNFE area.
5)A road bridge across the railway should be provide access to the northern end of Fen Road. Alternatively, since a foot and cycle bridge is planned for the railway station, I suggest it should be extended across the tracks, with appropriate gates, to provide pedestrian and cycle access for the residents of Fen Road.