Question 18a

4 storeys is a waste of land. There are no views to protect, so therefore building heights should be unrestricted and developers should be allowed to build as tall as possible, as long as it is good design, rigorously enforced.

It's necessary to restrict the height of buildings in order not to damage the general feel of the area. I definitely don't want it turning into somewhere with a "large city" feel.

Unfortunately there is no evidence base included with the document to explain the impact that the varying heights of buildings might have on designated heritage assets to the south west, south and east of this site. It is therefore difficult to objectively comment on the potential impact of 16 metre, 24 metre or taller buildings. However, it is likely that new buildings of similar heights to those on the existing Cambridge Business Park would not adversely impact on the setting of nearby heritage assets.

Ideally buildings at this level though probably will not be economic for developers

I live in the area and do not wish to see Cambridge further destroyed by terrible planning decisions.

CB1 consists of very tall buildings which have a dwarving effect on the 'Historic Centre' of Cambridge effectively making it into a ghetto. Developments of this kind at other points on the margins would emphasise this effect. What we really need are buildings for human beings which make them feel part of a community rather than constantly threatened by over-powering edifices. As for tall 'land-mark buildings', there are quite enough of these in other parts of the city (the Mark, Botanic House, Fire Station) - why not give us something which encourages a sense of well-being and belonging: human sized?

I object to the proposal to build up to 4 commercial storeys*(16m)because the guidance on tall buildings recognises that outside the city centre almost all of the buildings are mainly two storey and sometimes three storeys high.
I support the policy which agrees to,
" maintain the character and quality of the Cambridge skyline;
* ensure that tall buildings, as defined in this guidance, which break the
established skyline are well considered and appropriate to their context;
* support only new buildings which are appropriate to their context and
contribute positively to both near and distant views; and that any tall buildings will need to,
"demonstrate the impacts of the proposal on neighbouring properties and open
space and be designed to minimise any potential negative impacts. Key matters
to address will include overshadowing, loss of daylight/ sunlight, overlooking wind, and resulting heat islands or glare. The exact methodology of assessment
will be agreed as part of the pre-application process and be proportionate and
reasonable, driven by the scheme's relative scale and its location.

These comments are provided on behalf of Marshall Group, which includes Cambridge International Airport. We understand that the area defined as Cambridge Northern Fringe East (CNFE) is located between the A14 to the North, the A10 Milton Road to the West, the Cambridge to Kings Lynn railway line to the east, and residential areas of Chesterton to the south. We also note that the consultation document seeks views on the potential to extend the boundary to include the Cambridge Science Park.

As an operational airport, Cambridge International Airport is under a statutory duty to ensure the safe operation of the airport in accordance with guidance from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as set out in:
CAP 168 (Licensing of Aerodromes);
CAP 738 (Safeguarding of Aerodromes); CAP 1096 (Crane Guidance);
Ministry of Defence (Cambridge Airport) Technical Site Safeguarding signed and dated 23 July 2003.

As part of this process, Cambridge International Airport has lodged formal safeguarding maps with Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. The safeguarding map shows that the area to be covered by the CNFE Area Action Plan falls within the area hatched green on the safeguarding map. Any development proposed with a maximum height in excess of 15 metres above ground level (AGL) requires consultation with the Airport. The site is also within 2.5 nautical miles of the airport and as such falls within the Air Traffic Zone (ATZ) which is controlled by the Air Traffic Controllers at Cambridge International Airport.

Our expectation is that building heights in Option A (heights up to 16m) may be acceptable, but Options B (heights up to 24m) and C (including "significantly taller forms of development") in particular have potential to cause conflicts with safe airport and aircraft operations. In order to ensure that any development principles established through the AAP are deliverable and compatible with the safe operation of the airport, Marshall Group requests that the joint Councils (or any prospective developer) engages early with the Airport to ensure any building
heights proposed are compatible with airport operations, including the operation of cranes throughout the development.

Brookgate object to Option A as the proposed limitation to four commercial floors prevents a development with higher densities which takes advantage of the sustainable location. The proposed limitation also prevents the creation of landmark buildings which help articulate the overall appearance, define nodes and aid legibility and orientation

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.

Any proposals will need to take into account the requirements placed upon development by the Safeguarding Zone for Cambridge Airport (referral for 15m and above in this area). In addition to this consideration needs to be given to the views from taller buildings across existing and proposed mineral and waste development to avoid the need for additional / unnecessary screening and landscaping.

Support an approach which continues the scale and form of development of the Cambridge Business Park perhaps allowing the opportunity to create a single taller landmark building around the new station (subject to the above).

Consideration of building heights should be part of a site specific masterplanning exercise and should take account of all the relevant considerations.

Does not maximise opportunity

Matching the site with the surroundings is key to protect the landscape and to preserve the friendly feel of the area.

See answer to previous question [Question 17].

Question 17 response: Option C. Cambridge has a strange aversion to tall buildings which can make much more efficient use of land and add a dramatic and eye catching aspect to a development. With the fens to the north tall buildings will not affect the view of Cambridge and will add a feature to the skyline.

This option will not maximise the development potential of the site nor allow for the creation of a sustainable and successful urban community.

See attached document

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.