Question 41b

This is the future so lets do it now.

d. In view of the low-lying nature of this area and the flood map which shows very flood-prone areas just between here and the river, it is essential that SuDS do NOT discharge water into the ground. There are gravels under the wider area which have been extracted in places, and water runs under the railway and out at ground level on Chesterton Fen in places. As much rainwater as possible to be used on-site.
I see no mention of stormwater retention, balancing ponds to achieve greenfield runoff (or sewage farm runoff) rates etc. This must be addressed.

Am very concerned that this is a Flood Zone 1 area and do wonder what can be done to alleviate this problem

It is vital that rainwater run-off is controlled and contained such that it does not seep through the underlying gravels to flood the residential and industrial properties on Fen Road to the east, which lie at a lower level. The groundwater is already very close to the surface on Fen Road and frequently floods.

Due to the constant changes in Building Regulations requirements and with regards to sustainability standards targets are unrealistic at such an early stage of policy formation. The relevant Building Regulations standards will be imposed at the point of delivery on the ground.

At present the proposal to develop a bespoke sustainable design and construction policy for CNFE through Option B seeks a minimum BREEAM standard of 'excellent' for all 'new non-residential development' under point (a). As 'new non-residential development' would include future mineral and waste applications, where operations can be designed without the need for a building, we would question whether a minimum standard of BREEAM excellent is relevant in these circumstances? As such we would recommend that point (a) is reworded to make reference to non-residential built development in the form of offices and industrial units etc. which excludes mineral and waste uses. In the case of mineral and waste applications it would be better to seek a high environmental application which will deliver the standards required without using BREEAM which is not considered appropriate. This is already sought through adopted policy in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (particularly Policies CS22 Climate Change and CS24 Design of Sustainable Minerals and Waste Management Facilities) and the two adopted Waste Management Design Guides (The Location and Design of Waste Management Facilities 2011, and the RECAP Waste Management Design Guide 2012).

Adds further onerous requirements to costs. Should comply with policy which complies with NPPF or other national standards.

We support the proposal for redevelopment in the vicinity to be above the existing standards identified within the Local Plan policies. SuDS should also consider the improvement of water quality as a key feature.

Support exploration of bespoke policies for CNFE subject to viability.

I think BREEAM is standard more should be working to.

See attached document

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.