Question 14
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29231
Received: 08/12/2014
Respondent: Ben Cofield
Much more residential required as we will possibly have an over supply once CB1 is finished, and I cannot imagine there will be enough potential tenants to fill all of those buildings.
New orbital bus route for Cambridge.
All reliant on link roads to Fen Ditton and Wadloes Road.
Option 6.4 is the best here as it creates a lot of available land, however there is a missed opportunity here for more residential. Once CB1 is finished, we will have a considerable supply of office accommodation, and the levels outlined in 6.4 are probably not sustainable. Much better, in my opinion, to have more residential, especially if London commuters use this area and therefore do not impact on traffic congestion. However, if enough bus routes go through Cambridge North, if it is to be developed to this extent, people should not require their cars too much at all. All this could be done when the development is completed as per my first upload. There is no hurry for this and it would depend on the Wadloes Road link, as well as the link to Fen Ditton to be completed. Buses would be key to this level of development. Perhaps a new bus could start at the Airport, taking in the Wing development, Wadloes Road, the whole of Fen Meadows (via the tunnel), the new secondary school, the new station, the new development on Cowley Road, Science Park, Orchard Park via Kings Hedges Road, Histon Road, The Backs, Silver Street, Downing Street through to Hills Road, Cherry Hinton Road, Perne Road, Barnwell Road and back, going clockwise and anticlockwise.
The second diagram illustrates how better the land could be used, with indicative building heights and new parks/nature reserve, plus new sustainable residential at Science Park.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29267
Received: 10/12/2014
Respondent: Management Process Systems Limited
The mix looks optimal
The mix looks optimal
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29322
Received: 16/12/2014
Respondent: Dr Roger Sewell
Any development of residential accommodation on this site beyond that in options 1 to 3 would be inappropriate in view of:
a) the odour problems; and
b) the undesirability of making the population of Cambridge even bigger than it already is.
Any development of residential accommodation on this site beyond that in options 1 to 3 would be inappropriate in view of:
a) the odour problems; and
b) the undesirability of making the population of Cambridge even bigger than it already is.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29364
Received: 19/12/2014
Respondent: Mr Leon Bovett
I prefer option 3 as I think the area will benefit more from strategic long term transformation. Option 4 seems unlikely to occur, so focus effort on achievable solution. Most important thing is sufficient parking and traffic measures to access train station by car.
See attached document
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29377
Received: 06/01/2015
Respondent: Stagecoach
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?
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?
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29487
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Bidwells
Undertaking low and medium development can be done immediately without the need to wait for AW to relocate (something which is not viable). There is an immediate demand for BI(c), B2, B8 space within the city and without this site being developed immediately these occupies will be forced to leave the city. Moving occupies from Clifton Road, The Paddocks etc will also free up Brownfields sites for residential within the city. Cowley Road is the only site for them within Cambridge.
See attached document.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29493
Received: 14/01/2015
Respondent: Mr Gustavo Milstein
I support Options 1 and 2 because they leave open the option of a sensible future development of the water recycling site that could (and should) include a major new green area (at least 75% of the site).
None of the current proposals add any significant green open spaces. The only green areas shown are no more than token buffer spaces.
This is a great opportunity for providing the City or Cambridge with a new green lung, which could include appropriate leisure opportunites and help re-balance the current trend to over-development.
See attached document
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29531
Received: 23/01/2015
Respondent: Mrs Hazel Smith
Whichever option 1-4 is chosen, priority should be given to improving the smelliest parts of the Wastewater Treatment Plant's operation, which now seems to be the open storm tanks that smelly water goes into when it rains hard after a long dry spell. This type of weather will become more common, and there seems to be no justification for having these tanks open to the air. They should be covered and the air extracted should be scrubbed so that the smell is removed.
Support: 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. Option 3 is a stepping-stone to this option and could be an interim solution. Further housing could be added later.
Comment:
Whichever option 1-4 is chosen, priority should be given to improving the smelliest parts of the Wastewater Treatment Plant's operation, which now seems to be the open storm tanks that smelly water goes into when it rains hard after a long dry spell. This type of weather will become more common, and there seems to be no justification for having these tanks open to the air. They should be covered and the air extracted should be scrubbed so that the smell is removed.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29546
Received: 23/01/2015
Respondent: Mrs Sasha Wilson
More affordable residential housing with green spaces, shops, banks, post office etc
More affordable residential housing with green spaces, shops, banks, post office etc
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29634
Received: 22/01/2015
Respondent: Mr Rodney Adams
I think we need more car parking space on the the site if this project is going to reduce traffic on the M11 going south, the A14 going east and west and the A10 going north. The whole idea is to get people on to the main railway for the long journey.
See attached document
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29654
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Brookgate
Agent: Bidwells
Brookgate propose Option 2a, an enhanced medium level of redevelopment. Option 2a would facilitate a significantly greater number of dwellings near the station, increased Offices/RD provision with associated increase in job creation and an increased amount of new informal open space. Option 2a facilitates the more efficient use of the land, with a balanced mix of land uses at densities which make the best use of the highly sustainable location. A hotel is proposed adjacent to the station and overall early delivery remains achievable. The submitted plan provides further detail.
Brookgate propose Option 2a, an enhanced medium level of redevelopment. Option 2a would facilitate a significantly greater number of dwellings near the station, increased Offices/RD provision with associated increase in job creation and an increased amount of new informal open space. Option 2a facilitates the more efficient use of the land, with a balanced mix of land uses at densities which make the best use of the highly sustainable location. A hotel is proposed adjacent to the station and overall early delivery remains achievable. The submitted plan provides further detail.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29739
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
We consider that other options should be identified which include plot identification for the St John's Innovation Park and the relocation of the new Household Waste Recyling Centre and inert recyling facility on a location on the southern pariphery of the Anglian Water landholding or at least to an alternative location further away from the existing employment area at the Innovation Park.
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.
Having regard to the College's objections to Options 1 - 4, we consider that other options should be identified. The College land at the Innovation Park should consistently be recognised for the development potential that exists in terms of increasing employment floorspace consistent with the Plan's objectives to maximise employment opportunities, and secondly, to relocate the household waste recycling centre and inert recycling facility to a location either on the southern periphery of the Anglian Water landholding or at least to a location further away from the existing employment area at the Innovation Park.
The current options do not improve the image that the Innovation Park is seeking to protect and enhance and initially is not being assisted by a major new recycling facility in close proximity to the site.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29759
Received: 30/01/2015
Respondent: CODE Development Planners Ltd
Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd
The redevelopment of the AAP site should not consider the relocation or reuse of any of the Waste Water Recycling Centre as this is undeliverable due to remediation and relocation costs, land ownership, service demands and the level of committed investment by the operator.
The AAP site should focus on a more appropriate mix of uses which reflect the constraints and market potential and can be genuinely delivered against a background of substantial infrastructure requirement and uncertainty.
The redevelopment of the AAP site should not consider the relocation or reuse of any of the Waste Water Recycling Centre as this is undeliverable due to remediation and relocation costs, land ownership, service demands and the level of committed investment by the operator.
The AAP site should focus on a more appropriate mix of uses which reflect the constraints and market potential and can be genuinely delivered against a background of substantial infrastructure requirement and uncertainty.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29838
Received: 31/01/2015
Respondent: Cambridge Association of Architects
An alternative way of presenting the proposals would be to view the water recycling centre and aggregate works as landscapes which could be re-claimed as open spaces when it does become feasible for them to down size or move - developing the rest of the site to allow for this.
The proposals do not extend far enough from the boundary of the site, or appear to aspire high enough. This lack of creative vision could result in an area not - lacking in identity and dominated by vehicular traffic - which would be a missed opportunity.
An alternative way of presenting the proposals would be to view the water recycling centre and aggregate works as landscapes which could be re-claimed as open spaces when it does become feasible for them to down size or move - developing the rest of the site to allow for this.
The proposals do not extend far enough from the boundary of the site, or appear to aspire high enough in terms of a mixed use area around, a new station, with a series of connected public spaces. This lack of creative vision could result in an area not dissimilar to how it is now - lacking in identity and dominated by vehicular traffic - which would be a missed opportunity.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29852
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: St John's Innovation Centre
First, the development potential of land at the St John's Innovation Park should be recognised in terms of increasing employment floorspace consistent with the Plan's objectives to maximise employment opportunities. Secondly, the household waste recycling centre and inert recycling facility should be relocated either on the southern periphery of the Anglian Water landholding or at least to a location further away from the existing employment area at the St John's Innovation Park.
The current options as drafted are inconsistent with the activities carried on at the St John's Innovation Park and with its standing in the business and research communities.
First, the development potential of land at the St John's Innovation Park should be recognised in terms of increasing employment floorspace consistent with the Plan's objectives to maximise employment opportunities. Secondly, the household waste recycling centre and inert recycling facility should be relocated either on the southern periphery of the Anglian Water landholding or at least to a location further away from the existing employment area at the St John's Innovation Park.
The current options as drafted are inconsistent with the activities carried on at the St John's Innovation Park and with its standing in the business and research communities.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29877
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council
The inclusion of residential development needs careful consideration given the Water Recycling Centre (Options 1-3), strategic aggregates railheads (Options 1-4) and waste uses (Options 1-4). Residential development is sensitive to development like the Water Recycling Centre e.g. odour. These facilities and proposed waste management uses, have consultation / safeguarding areas designated by adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Plan. These Areas seek to prevent essential existing / planned facilities being prejudiced. If residential development is proposed it should be located away from these uses, and demonstrate that existing and allocated waste management / aggregate facilities will not be prejudiced.
The inclusion of more residential development within the Options needs to be carefully considered given the presence of the Water Recycling Centre (Options 1-3), strategic aggregates railheads (Options 1-4) and waste uses (Options 1-4). Residential development is particularly sensitive to development like the Water Recycling Centre and amenity issues may arise e.g. associated with odour. Similarly residential development close to the strategic railheads and waste uses may also give rise to amenity issues such as noise and dust. For these reasons these facilities, and other existing and proposed waste management uses, have consultation / safeguarding areas around them designated through the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Plan. These Areas all seek to prevent essential existing and planned facilities being prejudiced by incompatible development. If additional residential development is proposed it should be located away from these uses, and the evidence base should demonstrate that existing and allocated waste management / aggregate facilities will not be prejudiced, otherwise proposals will not be deliverable.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29919
Received: 27/01/2015
Respondent: B Fuller
You should consider the impact on the one lane road in to Cambridge from Milton Roundabout to Cambridge. The A10 Corridor, as your people call it, can't be widened and with the prospect of housing at Waterbeach Barracks, even more traffic will travel along the corridor to Milton, to get to the A14 / M11. So building along Cowley Road and on the water treatment area will only add to a really congested A10 in to Cambridge. Just have the station and nothing else.
See attachment
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29960
Received: 28/01/2015
Respondent: Mr Robert Cox
I strongly recommend a slip road off the A14 in to any new development.
Here are my comments regarding the Cambridge Northern Fringe development, after visiting the Milton Community Centre exhibition on the 19th January. A major concern to Milton residents would be the extra traffic generated through the village and also at the roundabout. Particularly if, in the future, the Cambridge Rowing lake and Waterbeach housing developments proceed. Extra roads to alleviate traffic congestion into and around Milton are essential, in my view.
See attached a possible idea/solution that could be constructed to help the above developments.
Basically a slip road off the A14 directly into the new North Fringe development running parallel to the railway line. Traffic from Huntingdon would come off at Horningsea and re-join the A14 to then use the slip road into the Station area. Newmarket traffic would just come off the A14.
If the Cambridge Rowing lakes go ahead then maybe a slip road into that as well. An alternative would be to construct a new roundabout to feed both the Northern Fringe and also the Rowing lakes.
See attached document
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29997
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management LLP
Agent: Beacon Planning
No further residential development is supported - this should be an area mainly comprising commercial/scientific development.
No further residential development is supported - this should be an area mainly comprising commercial/scientific development.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30006
Received: 01/02/2015
Respondent: Ms Lisa Buchholz
Has proper investigation into adequacy of water supply in general for new developments been determined?
Plan doesn't seem coherent about road access. Question of linkages to the A14 from Fen Road.
I support provision of open space. I'd support it at a higher level than shown in any of the Options.
Cycle routes should also be better joined up to create safer cycling. The question of bridges and river crossings in Chesterton should be addressed as part of this plan.
There's too much student housing in Cambridge. I would not support further student housing here.
See attached document
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30140
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Grosvenor Developments
Agent: AECOM
Yes.
Promotion of sustainable urban living that fully realises the potential of planned infrastructure investment demands a re-appraisal of the balance of uses between employment and residential. More residential development should be incorporated.
There is potential for greater mixing of land uses at higher densities to optimise development potential and create a more vibrant community with greater levels of activity throughout the day and evening.
This approach has greater potential to deliver the vision of a vibrant and successful mixed use neighbourhood as envisaged.
Yes.
Promotion of sustainable urban living that fully realises the potential of planned infrastructure investment demands a re-appraisal of the balance of uses between employment and residential. More residential development should be incorporated.
There is potential for greater mixing of land uses at higher densities to optimise development potential and create a more vibrant community with greater levels of activity throughout the day and evening.
This approach has greater potential to deliver the vision of a vibrant and successful mixed use neighbourhood as envisaged.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30236
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Stagecoach
Agent: Stagecoach
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.
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.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30265
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited
Agent: Carter Jonas
As indicated in our responses to Questions 12 and 13, Turnstone consider that the key is that the CNFE is developed as an exemplar commercial-led employment site at a density that is appropriate to this edge of City location. That implies a mixture of densities but adopting the higher densities envisaged in Options 3 and 4, but appropriately sited. Densities should be graduated so that highest density parcels are delivered within the centre of the site and where it connects with existing commercial sites such as Cambridge Business Park, Cambridge Science Park and St John's Innovation Park.
As indicated in our responses to Questions 12 and 13, Turnstone consider that the key is that the CNFE is developed as an exemplar commercial-led employment site at a density that is appropriate to this edge of City location. That implies a mixture of densities but adopting the higher densities envisaged in Options 3 and 4, but appropriately sited. Densities should be graduated so that highest density parcels are delivered within the centre of the site and where it connects with existing commercial sites such as Cambridge Business Park, Cambridge Science Park and St John's Innovation Park. At its eastern edges, the scale and form of development should 'break down' and reduce in order to provide an acceptable interface with the edge of the City and the transition into open countryside and Green Belt beyond the main railway line.
Turnstone consider that if housing is to be included - and the case for it is not clear - then it should not be at a level any more significant than proposed in either of Options 3 or 4.
Question 12 Response to "Do you support option 3?":
This option is to be preferred to Options 1 and 2 in that it starts to make more efficient use of the land at CNFE and delivers a more significant amount of commercial development floorspace. However in common with all of the options, it aspires to a density of development around the station area that is not considered realistic or desirable. Paragraph 8.9 of the AAP states that "Higher densities have been included around the proposed new railway station similar to the CB1 development in Cambridge. No account has been taken in these redevelopment options of potential additional floorspace arising from intensification of existing Business/Science Parks or taller buildings." It is considered that this is inappropriate on the periphery of the AAP area and density, scale and massing should generally fall as one reaches the edges of the defined AAP area, except where the AAP area meets with large scale commercial premises on other established sites such as the Cambridge Business Park and St John's Innovation Park. In a similar vein, Turnstone also consider that there is no obvious reason why the AAP should not include as a perfectly reasonable objective/aspiration to increase the density of existing business or other employment parks nearby, as there is evidence that there is scope for intensification.
Question 13 Response to "Do you support option 4?":
This option is to be preferred to Options 1 and 2 in that it starts to make more efficient use of the land at CNFE and delivers a more significant amount of commercial development floorspace. However in common with all of the options, it aspires to a density of development around the station area that is not considered realistic or desirable. Paragraph 8.9 of the AAP states that "Higher densities have been included around the proposed new railway station similar to the CB1 development in Cambridge. No account has been taken in these redevelopment options of potential additional floorspace arising from intensification of existing Business/Science Parks or taller buildings." It is considered that this is inappropriate on the eastern periphery of the AAP area and density, scale and massing should generally fall as one reaches the edges of the defined AAP area and specifically where the defined area meets open countryside. Turnstone also consider that there is no obvious reason why the AAP should not include as a perfectly reasonable objective/aspiration that of increasing the density of existing business or other employment parks, as there is evidence that there is scope for intensification.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30391
Received: 04/02/2015
Respondent: Milton Parish Council
Whichever option 1-4 is chosen, priority should be given to improving the smelliest parts of the Wastewater Treatment Plant's operation, which now seems to be the open storm tanks that smelly water goes into when it rains hard after a long dry spell. This type of weather will become more common, and there seems to be no justification for having these tanks open to the air. They should be covered and the air extracted should be scrubbed so that the smell is removed.
See attached document
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30422
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Tom McKeown
The Campaign questions the apparent mutual exclusivity between residential and employment uses within the redevelopment options. We feel it advisable to plan for a balance between these two uses as this balance will reduce the need for travel at the development. Reducing the trips needed reduces private car use and provides increased opportunities for walking and cycling. A balance in the development's uses will also reduce the tidal nature of the trips that are generated, lessening the impact on the transport network.
See attached document
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30432
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Doug Whyte
Please look at the car park development. this will be a priority. It should not be 600 capacity (as it is proposed), but 6,000 car park. Otherwise residents of the surrounding area will be effected.
See attached document
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30470
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
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30500
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridge City Council
These have been considered in the response to questions 10 to 13 above.
See attached document
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30537
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Dominic Reber
Slightly concerned about "intensive" use of land (option 3 & 4).
See attachmed document
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30545
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.