Question 14
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30554
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Ian Tyes
- 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.
- 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.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30561
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Shirley Fieldhouse
I believe that there should be no housing development. The area should be kept for business / commercial uses (in addition to new station).
I am neutral regarding inclusion of Science Park in the consultation area.
The opportunity should be taken to allow for a new road from Fen Road to Milton Road. Expensive to build a bridge! But crazy in long term to direct commercial traffic from Fen Road through Chesterton to access A14 / A10.
See attached document
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30574
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Silke Scheler
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.
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: 30622
Received: 03/02/2015
Respondent: RLW Estates
Agent: Boyer Planning
RLW Estates does not wish to comment in detail on Options 1 - 4. However, consistent with our earlier comments we wish to highlight the principles which we believe should underpin the selected strategy:
* The priority should be to optimise the development of the area as a high quality employment hub;
* The new station should be recognised as a key piece of infrastructure to support this role;
* Provision of all sustainable transport modes (including walking and cycling) must be encouraged and safeguarded, both to serve CNFE itself and as part of the wider strategy for the Ely corridor, including Waterbeach new town;
* Careful consideration should be given to the potential to relocate or re-configure constraining uses so as to enhance the overall objectives. If that is not possible the land use strategy will need to reflect how best to accommodate them whilst minimising any prejudicial impacts.
As regards the last of these points RLW Estates notes that Option 4 is entirely dependent upon relocation of the Water Recycling Centre off-site, with no certainty that this is either viable or deliverable. It is acknowledged within the consultation document that no alternative sites for this facility, which is itself regarded as a vital item of infrastructure for the Greater Cambridge area, have yet been identified. Furthermore it is noted that exercises aimed at finding an appropriate alternative location in the relatively recent past were unsuccessful, and on this basis this option must be considered unlikely to be deliverable, potentially risking the regeneration of this area as a whole. That does not, though, preclude the possibility of reconfiguring and modernising the Water Recycling Centre to reduce its negative impacts on development.
Nevertheless, given the constraints clearly in evidence, and in line with our responses to earlier questions, it is not considered that additional residential development would be feasible.
Moreover this could not be achieved without diluting the employment focus for the area in accordance with Local Plan policy.
See attached document