Question 16
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29233
Received: 08/12/2014
Respondent: Ben Cofield
Please review attachments for my theories on densities.
Please review attachments for my theories on densities.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29269
Received: 10/12/2014
Respondent: Management Process Systems Limited
Exploit the foot print capabilities through height.
Exploit the foot print capabilities through height.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29323
Received: 16/12/2014
Respondent: Dr Roger Sewell
This is too vague and waffly, and gives too much scope for developers to profit by building excessively dense buildings. I would prefer something along the lines of "Densities should mirror those in other existing parts of Cambridge excluding e.g. the high density development around Woodhead Drive, and the ridiculous tall building at the junction of Hills Rd and Cherry Hinton Rd."
This is too vague and waffly, and gives too much scope for developers to profit by building excessively dense buildings. I would prefer something along the lines of "Densities should mirror those in other existing parts of Cambridge excluding e.g. the high density development around Woodhead Drive, and the ridiculous tall building at the junction of Hills Rd and Cherry Hinton Rd."
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29396
Received: 09/01/2015
Respondent: Ms Anne Swinney
I support the higher density needed to enable more houses and employment opportunities. However, I am concerned about the impact on traffic.
I support the higher density needed to enable more houses and employment opportunities. However, I am concerned about the impact on traffic.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29435
Received: 17/01/2015
Respondent: Nicky Morland
Current developments around Cambridge Station are too dense and high to be implemented in this area.
Current developments around Cambridge Station are too dense and high to be implemented in this area.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29548
Received: 23/01/2015
Respondent: Mrs Sasha Wilson
Against tall buildings so against multi-storey
Against tall buildings so against multi-storey
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29608
Received: 27/01/2015
Respondent: Cllr Anna Bradnam
I object to the proposal because it uses such ridiculous language and defines nothing. I quote, "The overall densities to be provided following a design-led approach reflecting the sustainable location and especially around the proposed new railway station interchange. The required density for employment and residential uses on a given site will need to have regard to its wider context, demand and supply consideration, viability and other policies of this plan.
Does this mean - We'll think about what is needed and appropriate, and build accordingly?
I object to the proposal because it uses such ridiculous language and defines nothing. I quote, "The overall densities to be provided following a design-led approach reflecting the sustainable location and especially around the proposed new railway station interchange. The required density for employment and residential uses on a given site will need to have regard to its wider context, demand and supply consideration, viability and other policies of this plan.
Does this mean - We'll think about what is needed and appropriate, and build accordingly?
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29656
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Brookgate
Agent: Bidwells
Brookgate support the proposed design-led approach on densities.
Brookgate support the proposed design-led approach on densities.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29740
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 support an approach which provides a design led approach reflecting the different land uses and viabilities within the CNFE.
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.
The proposed approach within the Plan is to provide a design-led approach which reflects the location within the City having regard to the different land uses, viability and other policies of the Plan. In this context, we support the Council's approach which does not seek to impose general densities across sites since there are many determining factors which affect density and these should be left to the design stage. The example of the Science Park and the application of percentage coverage figures as well as densities has been rejected more recently for a more sensible design led approach which looks critically at the site and its surroundings rather than applying a general density across a large site.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29761
Received: 30/01/2015
Respondent: CODE Development Planners Ltd
Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd
It is not appropriate to try and set design standards, including building heights and densities, before understanding the types of use and the quantum of each use that would be required to make the site deliverable / viable. It is accepted that the Draft Local Plan policies should form the baseline for the development of AAP specific policies.
It is not appropriate to try and set design standards, including building heights and densities, before understanding the types of use and the quantum of each use that would be required to make the site deliverable / viable. It is accepted that the Draft Local Plan policies should form the baseline for the development of AAP specific policies.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29853
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: St John's Innovation Centre
The Plan proposes a design-led approach consistent with location, different land uses, viability and other policies. We support the Councils' approach, which does not seek to impose general densities across sites with numerous disparate factors affecting density, which should be left to the design stage. At the Science Park, the application of percentage coverage figures and densities has been rejected recently in favour of a more sensible design-led approach, which looks critically at the site and its surroundings rather than applying a general density across a large site.
The Plan proposes a design-led approach consistent with location, different land uses, viability and other policies. We support the Councils' approach, which does not seek to impose general densities across sites with numerous disparate factors affecting density, which should be left to the design stage. At the Science Park, the application of percentage coverage figures and densities has been rejected recently in favour of a more sensible design-led approach, which looks critically at the site and its surroundings rather than applying a general density across a large site.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29880
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council
Support from an economic development perspective
Support from an economic development perspective
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29999
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management LLP
Agent: Beacon Planning
Design led approach supported.
Design led approach supported.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30142
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Grosvenor Developments
Agent: AECOM
We support the high density approach to respond to the transportation investment. A bespoke approach is required to respond to the particular conditions, within and adjoining the site.
We support the high density approach to respond to the transportation investment. A bespoke approach is required to respond to the particular conditions, within and adjoining the site.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30267
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited
Agent: Carter Jonas
No, whilst Turnstone consider that there is plainly scope for higher density development on the CNFE site, for reasons that are stated, it objects to the assertion that this is "especially around the proposed new railway station interchange". There is simply no logic to this assertion and the 'arrival' at this new station is wholly unlike the arrival one would expect or anticipate having at the Central Cambridge train station where the CB1 development is emerging.
No, whilst Turnstone consider that there is plainly scope for higher density development on the CNFE site, for reasons that are stated, it objects to the assertion that this is "especially around the proposed new railway station interchange". There is simply no logic to this assertion and the 'arrival' at this new station is wholly unlike the arrival one would expect or anticipate having at the Central Cambridge train station where the CB1 development is emerging. In response to other questions, we have raised the point that the station site is in fact very peripheral within the CNFE area; this does not indicate in our mind that there should be a focus of taller or denser development in this location. Rather, development should 'scale up' from this location into the interior of the site where it juxtaposes with pre-existing large scale commercial buildings. It is in these locations, with strong and well-defined connections and links to the station area, where greatest density should occur.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30307
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Coulson Building Group
Seems OK.
Seems OK.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30471
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd
TCE supports the approach on densities subject to consideration of access and impact on existing uses and the existing townscape.
See attached document
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30502
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridge City Council
Support. It is important to optimise density in City like Cambridge given the pressures on land and desire to reduce travel. This is not a City centre location though and so although density should be high, it should reflect the surrounding edge of city location, allowing for things such as open space and cycle/pedestrian routes to reflect contemporary provision in these respects.
See attached document
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30576
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Silke Scheler
No clear explanations, which means meaning will be defined later.
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.