Question 23c

Cambridge Science Park is a well-established entity which contains existing clusters of high technology R & D developments. It does not have the same regeneration needs as the CNFE area and is an employment area only, rather than a mixed use neighbourhood as identified in the proposed vision for the CNFE. Brookgate do not consider that it is necessary or appropriate to attempt to share policies between the CNFE area and the Science Park with Proposed Submission South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Policy E/1 already providing clear guidance for the continued development of the Science Park.

No.

No comment

Cambridge Science Park is part of CNFE and should be considered as part as part of a combined area.

The Science Park has significant potential for future enhancement and connections with the rest of the area and the wider surroundings. To exclude it risks stagnation and uncoordinated future development in the Science Park that could be detrimental or conflict with the CNFE area. The inclusion of the Science Park could also facilitate a more coordinated approach to the use of Section 106 and CIL funding across the area.

If the Science Park is included within the AAP then Option B would be preferred to allow for the concentration and intensification of technology and R&D uses. Inclusion within the AAP area could also help facilitate improvements to the pedestrian environment and connections from existing employment sites to the new railway station. However, the AAP should be responsive to evidence on market demand and viability so that there is sufficient flexibility to cope with future economic changes.

Turnstone take the view and have stated elsewhere that it is not strictly necessary to include the Cambridge Science Park in the AAP. In light of this, there does not seem to be any reason in Turnstone's view as to why there should be a policy approach for the Science Park. It is perfectly possible for appropriate intensification at the Science Park to take place applying established planning policies.

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.