Question 12

No need to relocate the sewage works currently. Use my attached plan for now, and in 6 or 7 years when the work is finished, we can address that in the future. The northern access road must be completed in order to facilitate further growth.

We support this option as it will be more considered than 1 and 2. Rushing through plans will not help anyone. We are particularly keen to see industrial traffic moved away from Cowley Road.

Whether this option is a good idea depends entirely on whether there is a satisfactory technical solution for "compressing" the sewage works into the much smaller area without using ANY land elsewhere, and at reasonable cost without having to farm out the modification of the sewage works to some independent commercial entity who may or may not deliver it (cf the guided busway and all its problems). On the whole I doubt that this option is viable.

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?

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.

The Parish Council objects to Option 3 as it is not clear that the sewage works can provide sufficient capacity and how any increase in capacity if needed, would be handled or located.

I support Options 3 or 4 - as both offer reduction or removal of the sewage works from the site.

Marshall Group Properties Ltd objects to Redevelopment Option 3 on the basis it assumes that reconfiguration of the Water Recycling Centre onto a smaller site, with more indoor or contracted operations. As noted in the summary of the option this is "subject to technical, financial and operational deliverability." Our view at the present time is that this is unproven.

This is supported by text include in the submission Local Plans for both Cambridge City (Policy
14) and South Cambridgeshire (Policy SS/4). This states:
"Exploration of the viability and feasibility of development of the Waste Water Treatment Works within Cambridge City to provide a new treatment works facility at a smaller scale on the current site will be undertaken as part of the feasibility investigations in drawing up the AAP."

The implication here is that when defining any policy in the AAP it will be necessary to fully understand the implications.

Equally, under the requirements of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive, the full policy implications of any decision to rationalise or relocate the sewage works would need to be taken into account including, for example, impacts arising at any alternative locations proposed.

See attached document

Brookgate have serious concerns regarding the viability and deliverability of Option 3, which is reliant upon the upgrading and reduction in area of the Water Recycling Centre. This is a significant issue and the deliverability of Option 3 is therefore questionable. Early deliverability will be impracticable and meeting the CNFE vision of a comprehensively planned area will be difficult due to the likelihood of some parts of the development coming forward significantly later than others. More significant highway works will also be required due to the increased quantum of development providing further viability and deliverability issues.

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.

Option 3 relates to a higher level of development where Anglian Water have taken the decision to consider a significant reduction in their site area and a consolidation to the eastern part of the site close to the railway line. The presence of the Anglian Water site will still mean that the edge of the new development area will be formed by appropriate employment uses, (B2) storage (B8) and sui generis uses, which are more compatible with such a large infrastructure facility. Beyond this ring of employment uses, a series of further B1 and research and development uses are proposed which would complement the area around the Innovation Park as well as those uses on the Cambridge Business Park. New residential uses around the station and on Nuffield Road would create a better balance of uses and provide for increased sustainable credentials in this part of the City.

This option recognises and acknowledges the development potential that the College land possess around the Innovation Park in terms of being able to maximise employment opportunities through new floorspace which will create new jobs and investment in the area (unlike Options 1 and 2) . As stated in the response to Q10 and Q11, it is important that a major objective of the Plan to maximise employment opportunities is afforded across the existing employment areas within the CNFE. In this context, there is no differentiation between the opportunity that is afforded on the Cambridge Business Park from that at the Innovation Park area to be able to exploit the opportunities for new employment floorspace. This approach is entirely backed up by SQW in their report "CNFE Employment Guidance for the Area Action Plan" at paragraphs 1.29 and 1.34 where intensification is supported by the Councils' own consultants.

In addition, it is noted that the proposed household waste recycling centre and the recycling facility continues to be a land use proposed in the northern part of the Plan area. However, whilst it is the case that the College has objected to its location in both Options 1 and 2, it is the case that Option 3 further compounds the College's concerns by the proposed shift of the facility westwards and even closer to the Vitrium building on the Innovation Park. Our response to Q10 has highlighted the inappropriateness of such a land use in close proximity to B1 offices and research and development uses as a result of noise, dust and environmental impacts. Whilst again we would raise the lack of clarity on what the actual facility entails the College objects most strongly to such an industrial use being located in close proximity to high technology uses and which remains a key component part of the City's economic profile and a driver of growth from both a regional and national perspective. Even in the circumstances where such a facility is in a covered building or similar, we cannot see how the position and location of such a facility provides a suitable neighbour to the clean, high technology uses that are already in this location and which contribute significantly to the development of this sector.

The College can therefore not support Option 3 as it relates to the higher level of development.

The reconfiguration of the Waste Water Recycling Centre site is not realistic within the plan period. The operator has committed to an investment programme of circa £20m to upgrade the operations to meet with the demands from a growing Cambridge population. It is extremely unlikely that the operator would be prepared to sell sections of a key asset in an area of population growth. Demand for their service will increase and this may require for more land within the Waste Water Recycling Centre site to be utilised for further infrastructure.
The land currently within the Waste Water Recycling Centre which is identified for re-use would be heavily contaminated and the costs of remediating that land would not be attractive to investors given that the returns gained from the development would be for B2 and/or B8 Uses.
The delivery of this quantum of development could 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 where 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.

The Water Recycling Centre is a blight on the area and its surroundings. Anything to reduce its impact would be very welcome. However I would be concerned if attempting this meant it took longer to improve the area nearer the station.

Evidence has not been provided to illustrate that the Water Recycling Centre could be suitably contained to make the site an attractive area to live. Subject to this, we would support the proposal for a mixed use site. The current zonal planning of the residential areas as shown on the plan need additional design. It seems a shame not to pull the green protected open space over the busway and give the whole area around the station room to become a series of attractive public spaces relating to the new residential uses.

See attached [below]

12.1 Option 3 relates to a higher level of development and assumes that Anglian Water will decide on a significant reduction in its site area and a consolidation to the eastern part of the area close to the railway line. The presence of the Anglian Water site will still mean that the edge of the
new development area will be formed by appropriate employment uses (B2 and B8) more compatible with such a large infrastructure facility. Beyond this ring of employment uses, a series of further B1 and research and development uses is proposed, which would complement the area
around the St John's Innovation Park as well as those uses on the Cambridge Business Park. New residential space around the station and on Nuffield Road would create a better balance of activities and increase the sustainability credentials in this part of the City.

12.2 Option 3 recognises and acknowledges the development potential around the St John's Innovation Park in terms of being able to maximise employment and investment opportunities through new floorspace. As stated in response to Q10 and Q11, it is important that one major
objective of the Plan - to maximise employment opportunities - is afforded across the existing employment areas within the CNFE and this is entirely consistent with the findings in the SQW report. No logical differentiation can be maintained between the opportunities for new employment floorspace afforded on the Cambridge Business Park and those at the St John's Innovation Park. We fail to understand why the Innovation Park has not been identified for plot intensification with Options 1 and 2

12.3 In addition, we note that the proposed household waste recycling centre/recycling facility continues to be a land use proposed in the northern part of the Plan area. Option 3 is worse than Options 1 and 2 because under this option the facility shifts westwards and even closer to the Vitrum building on the St John's Innovation Park. Our response to Q10 has highlighted the inappropriateness of such a land use in close proximity to B1 offices and research and development uses as a result of noise, dust and other environmental impacts. We object strongly to such an industrial use being located in close proximity to high technology uses, which remain a key component of the City's economic profile and a driver of regional and national growth. Even if such a facility is in a covered building, we cannot see how its proposed location provides a suitable neighbour to the existing clean, high technology uses already on site.

12.4 We therefore cannot support Option 3

All options will require more detailed transport assessment work to understand the transport implications, across all modes, of the proposals including their interrelationship 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, over and above existing investment plans 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.

The retention of the strategic aggregate railhead is supported. It's relocation onto land which is currently on the eastern side of the Water Recycling Centre would be consistent with the allocation for a new Transport Zone made by the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan.

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 82, 88 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 82, 88 and sui generis uses.

The existing inert waste recycling centre, within the curtilage of the Water Recycling Centre would be displaced under this Option. 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). There may also be an opportunity for it to be accommodated within the proposed new areas for 82, 88 and Sui Generis uses.

The provision made for the temporary storage of aggregates for the improvement of the A 14 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 and the new north-south route is supported; this will enable traffic movements associated with the railheads, waste management and other 82, 88 and sui generis uses to be separate from Cowley Road which will be subject to additional use by station and other users.

Option 3 is dependant upon the development of a new enclosed Water Recycling Centre, on a substantial smaller footprint than that existing. As Anglian Water has no operational need to make such a change and their shareholders will not bear the costs of doing so, for this to take place a viable financial arrangement would need to be in place, potentially involving other land owners/developers in the wider CNFE.

The Employment Options Study (October 2014) sets out the results of the high level financial appraisal of the 4 development options. In the case the Option 3 (Higher Development) the appraisal demonstrates that the development will deliver a deficit value of -£1,089,497/gross acre
(-£59,922,363). Despite an allowance already being made for acquisition costs this clearly does generate sufficient value across the whole of the AAP area to incentivise the landowner/s to bring the site forward under this option. A range of sensitivity tests were applied to consider variations to Option 3, e.g. increasing sales values, share of residential floorspace or storey heights. Neither of these variants improved the deficit. On this basis it is likely that significant public subsidy and/or reduction in policy requirements will be necessary to bring the viability to a position where development under this option could be considered.

Further information is also required with regard to the odour contours of the enclosed Water Recycling Centre; even with enclosure there will still be inlet works which is a main source of odour. This information will inform and enable us to understand what uses are suitable in close and intermediate proximity to the new works.

Although Option 3 sees the redevelopment and enclosure of the Water Recycling centre, the intent of safeguarding the facility remains (as enshrined in the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy). In due course all new development will still 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 I constraints to the future operation of this essential infrastructure. Option 3 places those uses which are likely to be less sensitive i.e. B2, B8 and Sui Generis, immediately adjacent the reconfigured Water Recycling Centre, and those which are likely to be more sensitive i.e. B1 uses further away. 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.
The redevelopment of the Station car park following provision of a new multi-storey car park is noted. The new multi-storey car park lies in South Cambridgeshire, and if the County Council were not the developer a planning application for this use would need to be submitted to South Cambridgeshire District Council as it will not be a County Council development.

To conclude, Option 3 is not supported due to the significant viability concerns and the highlighted concerns about the transport impacts.

See attached document

See attached document

Object to indicative location of Household Recycling Centre.

Partially support as reduces area covered by WWTW, but proposes B2/B8 uses adjacent to Vitrum Building / St Johns Innovation site.

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

I object to both options 3 and 4 . I believe that it would not be a wise move to relocate the Water Recycling Centre and it would appear that no other site has been put forward to replace it.

The imbalance between residential and employment uses coupled with the focus on industrial and storage development will not lead to the successful regeneration of the wider area. Transport investment not exploited. Appropriate scale of urban living not supported.

Waste water consolidation does not provide for enhanced balance of uses and delivery of place that supports sustainable urban living with well balanced mix of uses. Uses proposed will not allow for a viable rationalisation.

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.

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 3 (Higher Level of Redevelopment) is supported but it is imperative to confirm that the rationalisation of the water recycling plant is feasible, viable and would not delay development on the remainder of the site. In addition, flexibility should be applied over the additional residential land suggested in Option 3 at Nuffield Road. The site is plainly a suitable and sustainable location for a range of uses but especially offices/R&D uses given its proximity to the new railway station and the Science Park. Consequently, the mix of uses should ensure the primacy of employment and not inhibit demand for employment related uses.

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.

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.