Question 43

Sensible and an example for the future.

Should be implemented

The requirement for a Health Impact Assessment is overly onerous and is not currently required, or proposed to be required, by Cambridge City Council. The CNFE area is by its location and nature a part of Cambridge City and it is not considered necessary to introduce additional requirements for the production of HIA's in support of planning applications. The production of HIA's incurs additional costs/time which will not assist developers to efficiently deliver the necessary projects required to regenerate the CNFE area. Local Plan polices/EIA requirements already result in the provision of sufficient supporting information for planning applications.

This approach is supported for residential and office / industrial built development; However, it would be prudent to require a Full Health Impact Assessment for all residential development given the mixed use of the area, especially if residential development is located in proximity to the Water Recycling Centre and / or aggregates railheads and other uses which have the potential to give rise to amenity issues.

In the case of future minerals and waste development on CNFE, where activities may largely be conducted outside of a building and are considered compatible with the existing surrounding minerals and waste uses, this should be acknowledged within the proposed approach. It is therefore recommended that the proposed approach is strengthened in relation to residential development and remains as identified for office type built development, with an acknowledgement that minerals and waste uses are excluded from this requirement.

The requirement of requiring a health impact assessment is supported. The concept of requiring a Health Impact Assessment accords with the South Cambridgeshire local plan (current and proposed) and with the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Strategy with requires: "Ensure that housing, land use planning and development strategies for new and existing communities consider the health and wellbeing impacts for residents in the short and long term."

No additional comment

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.