Question 18b

6 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.

Allowing six-storey buildings would damage the feel of the area.

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. The new station is located in the southeast corner of the site and tall buildings in the vicinity of this station would have an increased potential to adversely impact on the character and appearance of the Cambridge central conservation area to the south and the Fen Ditton conservation area to the east and the setting of listed buildings within both conservation areas.

This would be less intrusive than option C

May be the balance between the impact (including traffic, community etc) with developer needs (pay back)

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 support this approach as it permits a development of higher densities appropriate for this highly sustainable location and permits the articulation of nodal points, vistas and landmark buildings to aid legibility and orientation.

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.

Option B suggests that mixed use development of up to six commercial storeys (24 metres) would allow development to be intensified and create more flexibility in the overall masterplanning of CNFE with new landmark buildings around the new station and other key "nodal" points.

This option in our view, provides the opportunity to make the best use of limited resources within the existing employment areas within the CNFE. Whilst it may not necessarily be the case that the maximum height of buildings would be six commercial storeys on every employment site identified within the CNFE, it is important that the Planning Authorities acknowledge the flexibility that needs to be applied in order to maximise employment opportunities which is an important objective within the Plan area. A key test set out within the criteria in the emerging Local Plan is an acknowledgement of the site surroundings - it remains the case that Cambridge should exploit the limited resources of land that remain in order to secure the jobs and investment for a rapidly expanding population.

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

See attached [below].

18.1 Option B suggests that mixed use development of up to six commercial storeys (24 metres) would allow development to be intensified and create more flexibility in the overall CNFE master plan, with new landmark buildings around the new station and other key "nodal" points.

18.2 We consider that this option provides the opportunity to make best use of limited resources within existing employment areas of the CNFE. Maximum building height need not invariably be restricted to six commercial storeys on every employment site identified in the CNFE, and it is important that the Planning Authorities acknowledge that flexibility will be required in order to maximise employment opportunities - an important objective for the Plan area. One key test in the emerging Local Plan is an acknowledgement of site surroundings: Cambridge should exploit the limited resources of remaining development land to secure jobs and investment for a rapidly expanding population.

Any proposals will need to take into account the restrictions placed upon development by the Safeguarding Zone for Cambridge Airport, which includes height of buildings. 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.

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

Rather objecting. A 6-storey building or two of exceptional architecture composed well with the surroundings might be acceptable. Any number of large dull boxes or bricks sticking out here would be a scar in the green landscape and break the character of the city.

See answer to Q17.

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.