Question 47a
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29719
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Brookgate
Agent: Bidwells
Brookgate agree the multiple ownership of the CNFE will result in phased development. The Chesterton Partnership can deliver CB4 at an early stage, allowing Phase 1 to constitute the largest possible area. The ability for individual phases to come forward with their own masterplan is supported, however requiring contributions to meet the needs of development at all stages of implementation is overly onerous.
Brookgate agree the multiple ownership of the CNFE will result in phased development. The Chesterton Partnership can deliver CB4 at an early stage, allowing Phase 1 to constitute the largest possible area. The ability for individual phases to come forward with their own masterplan is supported, however requiring contributions to meet the needs of development at all stages of implementation is overly onerous.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29803
Received: 30/01/2015
Respondent: CODE Development Planners Ltd
Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd
The Council need to take ownership for the delivery of the AAP site and provide clear guidelines on how the necessary infrastructure will be funded and delivered.
The Council need to take ownership for the delivery of the AAP site and provide clear guidelines on how the necessary infrastructure will be funded and delivered.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29952
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council
Option A is realistic as it accepts that development will come forward in the different areas of the CNFE at different times. This is particularly the case if Options 3 or 4 were pursued, both of which foresee major changes to the Water Recycling Centre. These options are dependent upon a viable financial arrangement being in place, and may take a considerable time to deliver.
Option A is realistic as it accepts that development will come forward in the different areas of the CNFE at different times. This is particularly the case if Options 3 or 4 were pursued, both of which foresee major changes to the Water Recycling Centre. These options are dependent upon a viable financial arrangement being in place, and may take a considerable time to deliver.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30093
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management LLP
Agent: Beacon Planning
More direct and provides clarity at early stage.
More direct and provides clarity at early stage.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30211
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Grosvenor Developments
Agent: AECOM
No additional comment
No additional comment
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30353
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Coulson Building Group
I support Option B.
I support Option B.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30373
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future
This option will create ad-hoc development picking the best development options for the early phase and leaving less viable options for later phases.
This option will create ad-hoc development picking the best development options for the early phase and leaving less viable options for later phases.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30614
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Silke Scheler
Yes.
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.