Question 49

Showing comments and forms 1 to 18 of 18

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29341

Received: 16/12/2014

Respondent: Dr Roger Sewell

Representation Summary:

The most important point from my point of view is that the sewage works should not be moved to some other site, both for reasons of existing investment in sewage infrastructure, and in order not to destroy some other site.

Full text:

The most important point from my point of view is that the sewage works should not be moved to some other site, both for reasons of existing investment in sewage infrastructure, and in order not to destroy some other site.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29465

Received: 20/01/2015

Respondent: Mr Stephen Hills

Representation Summary:

I'm unsure if this is mentioned in the document but the area between the rail line and the river should also be considered for re-development. This is potentially the best land left in Cambridge to redevelop and shouldnt be ignored.

Full text:

I'm unsure if this is mentioned in the document but the area between the rail line and the river should also be considered for re-development. This is potentially the best land left in Cambridge to redevelop and shouldnt be ignored.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29505

Received: 23/01/2015

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Smith

Representation Summary:

In Chapter 5, I wanted to comment that I am concerned that an aggregates depot, loading lorries for the A14 improvement work, may cause unnecessarily loud noise for residents of both Chesterton Fen and Milton if the loading is at a level higher than the natural ground level. Whilst I approve of this work being done in a way that does not impact on the traffic on Milton Road, it must not be allowed to impact on people's amenity.

If a left-turn-off left-turn-on route is made South of the A14 west of the railway for lorries taking aggregate to the A14 works, then this road should continue beside the A14 to join with Cowley Road as a dedicated access for heavy lorries headed towards Cambridge, so they avoid the interchange. This could later become a local road parallel with the A14 between here and Fen Ditton junction, with access into Fen Road from the A14 end.

Full text:

In Chapter 5, I wanted to comment that I am concerned that an aggregates depot, loading lorries for the A14 improvement work, may cause unnecessarily loud noise for residents of both Chesterton Fen and Milton if the loading is at a level higher than the natural ground level. Whilst I approve of this work being done in a way that does not impact on the traffic on Milton Road, it must not be allowed to impact on people's amenity.

If a left-turn-off left-turn-on route is made South of the A14 west of the railway for lorries taking aggregate to the A14 works, then this road should continue beside the A14 to join with Cowley Road as a dedicated access for heavy lorries headed towards Cambridge, so they avoid the interchange. This could later become a local road parallel with the A14 between here and Fen Ditton junction, with access into Fen Road from the A14 end.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29588

Received: 23/01/2015

Respondent: Mrs Sasha Wilson

Representation Summary:

No

Full text:

No

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29722

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

Early delivery of the re-development of the area around the new station is essential. It is fundamental to City wide masterplanning that the authorities encourage gateway sites to be delivered at the earliest possible opportunity, to enable the rest of the masterplan to be delivered. Creating this 'front door' is of the utmost importance, without which the successful re-development of the CNFE area cannot be achieved.

Full text:

Early delivery of the re-development of the area around the new station is essential. It is fundamental to City wide masterplanning that the authorities encourage gateway sites to be delivered at the earliest possible opportunity, to enable the rest of the masterplan to be delivered. Creating this 'front door' is of the utmost importance, without which the successful re-development of the CNFE area cannot be achieved.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29806

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

Representation Summary:

We are concerned that while the area has some potential the existing land uses and those which are proposed are generally incompatible with no obviously satisfactory solution.
The delivery of essential infrastructure to make any of the options proposed sustainable in transportation terms is in doubt.
If the AAP progresses with a large amount of office / R&D allocation and does not deliver its intended outcome or cannot be brought forward quickly to meet with unexpected demand then it will have failed the local and national economy and will mask the true supply level for employment floorspace.

Full text:

We are concerned that while the area has some potential the existing land uses and those which are proposed are generally incompatible with no obviously satisfactory solution. The industrial and waste recycling nature of the existing land uses will result in issues associated with noise, dust, odour, vermin and vibration being experienced at other sites which would be allocated to host residential and office / R&D developments. The resources which will be expended by the statutory authorities in attempting to control the industrial and waste activities to the satisfaction of the local community would be a burden on local authority services. It is acknowledged within this issues and options paper that there is lack of industrial land in Cambridge, the mix of uses proposed will endanger the functionality of this important land use. The AAP area should concentrate on developing a comprehensive industrial and recycling hub which can take advantage of the existing business rather than be severely limited by them. The constraints which would be attached to any of the new allocations for residential and office / R&D may not be attractive to the market. Based on the evidence currently available, the sites are not considered to be viable, deliverable, suitable or capable of being brought forward within a short timescale to meet with the City's objectively assessed need or an unexpectedly high demand.
The delivery of essential infrastructure to make any of the options proposed sustainable in transportation terms is in doubt. NPPF paragraph 177 advises that it is important to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion. The Milton Road vehicle upgrades are listed as a priority scheme for City Deal investment to address and are programmed in the City Deal documents to be started by 2017 and completed by 2019. This is an unrealistic target as the County have acknowledged at the recent City Deal Joint Assembly that the Milton Road works have not got to a design stage as yet. The City Deal papers acknowledge that there is a high risk of delay to this scheme, therefore the capacity that the Milton Road works would create should be discounted from the scheme and the floorspace quantum's adjusted accordingly.
To achieve the aims and objectives and incorporate the design principles, outlined in this AAP Issues and Options Paper a site:

* should not be constrained by fragmented ownership;
* should not be limited by sustainable transportation upgrades which are unsure of being delivered and/or paid for within a timely fashion;
* should not have severe cost implications associated with contamination;
* should not put at risk the City's limited industrial land resources.
If the AAP progresses with a large amount of office / R&D allocation and does not deliver its intended outcome or cannot be brought forward quickly to meet with unexpected demand then it will have failed the local and national economy and will mask the true supply level for employment floorspace.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29831

Received: 31/01/2015

Respondent: Mr David Collier

Representation Summary:

The important issue not mentioned in the document is the possible provision of a bridge over the railway linking to Fen Road. This would be a big improvement over the current access through Chesterton, and would allow the closure of the Fen Road level crossing. Although development of Fen Road should not be part of the CNFE plan, an improved access is extremely important for Fen Road's future, and it must be considered at the same time because of the amount of land any new access would require.

Full text:

The important issue not mentioned in the document is the possible provision of a bridge over the railway linking to Fen Road. This would be a big improvement over the current access through Chesterton, and would allow the closure of the Fen Road level crossing. Although development of Fen Road should not be part of the CNFE plan, an improved access is extremely important for Fen Road's future, and it must be considered at the same time because of the amount of land any new access would require.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29841

Received: 31/01/2015

Respondent: Cambridge Association of Architects

Representation Summary:

There is a lot of information without clear diagrams explaining the objectives. The four key strategy plans do not visually indicate what the key drivers for development are, or what the wider benefits to the community would be e.g. a new public square, new affordable housing, new connections through the site and beyond. This is embedded in the text, but should be illustrated.
The online commenting procedure is confusing. Some of the questions are direct, some are very open ended - this results in confusion about appropriateness of comments generally.

Full text:

There is a lot of information provided to digest without clear diagrams explaining the objectives of the proposals. The information is supposed to be for public, not stakeholder, consultation and should be made as accessible as possible. The four key strategy plans do not clearly indicate what the key drivers for development are, or what the benefits to the community of Cambridge would be e.g. a new public square, new affordable housing, new connections through the site and beyond. This information may be embedded in the text, but this should be illustrated graphically.

The online commenting procedure is daunting in its length and confusing in its content; especially for a public, consultation. Some of the questions are direct and to the point, some are very open ended - this leads to a lack of confidence about the appropriateness of comments generally. We can see the reasons for the format, i.e. prompting comments as much as possible and assisting with post consultation compilation of the comments, but are there must be better ways of structuring the online commenting forms.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 29955

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation Summary:

Viability calculations will need to factor in the very real transport challenges as well as those associated with redesigned/relocated water recycling works.

Full text:

Viability calculations will need to factor in the very real transport challenges as well as those associated with redesigned/relocated water recycling works.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30105

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management LLP

Agent: Beacon Planning

Representation Summary:

Yes, see attached.

1. The Household Recycling Centre is not supported.
2. All options lead to increased traffic in Cowley Road.
3. Previous investigations have failed to find an alternative site for the Waste Water Recycling Centre, further investigation needs to take place.

Full text:

Yes, see attached.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30215

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Grosvenor Developments

Agent: AECOM

Representation Summary:

Area is blighted by physical severance caused by infrastructure; this fragmentation needs to be overcome.
Existing environmental constraints need to be converted into opportunities.
Including a strong edge to the city in order to buffer the A14;
Site should achieving sufficient critical mass to relocate WWTW and provide access to, and mutual support for high-quality landscapes around it including the river meadows and Milton Country Park.
Public transport accessibility must be central to the site.
A comprehensive plan for a network of streets of appropriate character should ensure that existing bottlenecks on Milton Road do not constrain development.

Full text:

Please refer to letter from Paul Comerford (AECOM) dated 2nd February 2015 and accompanying plans by 5th Studio. - SEE ATTACHED

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30237

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Urban&Civic Ltd

Agent: David Lock Associates

Representation Summary:

The proposed development of the CNFE is generally supported and the opportunity to comment is welcomed. Comments have been made to ensure clear references are made on the opportunities to link CNFE area with Waterbeach New Town.

Full text:

The proposed development of the CNFE is generally supported and the opportunity to comment is welcomed. A common thread of U&C's comments is that the CNFE AAP should make clear references to the opportunities for connecting CNFE with Waterbeach New Town, from the vision through to objectives principles and specific policies. The next stage of the AAP process should investigate the possibilities to maximising the sustainable transport links. Waterbeach New Town will comprise a new community of over 20,000 people 5 km to the north of CNFE and it would be a missed opportunity not to maximise the connections between the proposed New Town and CNFE. It is also important that the emerging AAP emphasizes the wide strategic opportunities of the greater Cambridge area, in particular the economic and physical relationships between north Cambridge and the A10 corridor.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30375

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future

Representation Summary:

CNFEA redevelopment is highly important for long term growth of Cambridge. Report provides useful exposition of constraints/ opportunities influencing form/ extent/ pace of redevelopment.
Fragmented ownerships/ multitude of occupiers absolutely necessitate that interests are aligned behind common strategy.
Lead developer/development agency is essential to co-ordinate comprehensive masterplan approach (backed by statutory plan) and increases viability.
Clearly both future location/ operations of Anglian Water and extensive land holdings of Network Rail are fundamental - impacting development potential.
Critical that area around new railway station is developed - with excellent access - in accordance with a master plan (avoiding prejudicing wider regeneration).

Full text:

The redevelopment of the Cambridge Northern Fringe Area is highly important for the long term growth of Cambridge. The Issues and Options Report and supporting documents provide a useful exposition of the constraints and opportunities that will influence the form, extent and pace of redevelopment. As the area is in fragmented ownerships and has a multitude of occupiers, it is of paramount importance that the interests of the landowners can be aligned behind a common strategy which ideally should emerge out of the current plan-making process.
Furthermore, it is vital that a co-ordinated and comprehensive approach is achieved before the redevelopment of CNFE by, say, a lead developer/development agency, with the backing of a statutory plan, complemented by an aspirational and viable masterplan.
Clearly the future location and operations of Anglian Water are fundamental to the area's development potential. Also, even with Anglian Water's operations remaining in some form, the extensive land holdings of Network Rail have considerable impact on development potential.
It is critical that the area around the new railway station is developed - and provided with excellent access - in accordance with a master plan for the whole area, to avoid prejudicing the wider regeneration of the area.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30376

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cottenham Parish Council

Representation Summary:

The impact of the proposed transport interchange and the development of residential and commercial property on neighbouring villages has not been assessed. However there is a real potential cost to the neighbouring villages in terms of road usage and congestion as the CNFE development proposed will have a significant adverse effect in congestion, pollution and general loss of amenity.
The plans need to be extended to include provision for better public transport and roads within a semi circular radius of 10 miles from west to East adjoining the CNFE site.

Full text:

The impact of the proposed transport interchange and the development of residential and commercial property on neighbouring villages has not been assessed. There is much comment in the plan about seeking to reduce car transport use age within the CNFE area and more generally within Cambridge.
However there is a real potential cost to the neighbouring villages in terms of road usage and congestion as the CNFE development proposed will have a significant adverse effect in congestion, pollution and general loss of amenity. The existing rural roads such as the ones passing through Cottenham will not be able to cope with increased levels of usage that the CNFE will generate. As a starting point research and proposals should be developed to devise a strategy to mitigate these issues. For example the plans need to be extended to include provision for better public transport and roads within a semi circular radius of 10 miles from west to East adjoining the CNFE site.

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30411

Received: 04/02/2015

Respondent: Milton Parish Council

Representation Summary:

In Chapter 5, we wanted to comment that we are concerned that an aggregates depot, loading lorries for the A14 improvement work, may cause unnecessarily loud noise for residents of both Chesterton Fen and Milton if the loading is at a level higher than the natural ground level. Whilst we approve of this work being done in a way that does not impact on the traffic on Milton Road, it mustn't be allowed to impact on people's amenity.
If a left-turn-off left-turn-on route is made west of the railway then it should continue beside the A14 to join Cowley Road.

Full text:

See attached document

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30532

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Cambridge City Council

Representation Summary:

The site must be viewed as one comprehensive scheme, carefully planned and phased, with opportunities taken to maximise the capacity of the site but in a sustainable way. Much of the phasing and works will be market driven as and when demand is available and there needs to flexibility to recognise this. This should, however, reflect a medium to long term view, not short term. The transport strategy is a key part of this. Piecemeal and incremental infrastructure improvement should be avoided to bring the whole site forward in a timely and cohesive way.

Full text:

See attached document

Comment

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30652

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

The draft AAP is broadly supported by TCE, subject to the two main concerns set out within these representations being addressed.

Firstly, clarification must be provided with regards to the employment uses which will be encouraged on the site. As set out under 'vision' above, we would like to see a greater emphasis on the area being developed further as an internationally recognised business, research and development cluster, as per the existing character of this part of Cambridge. This must not be diluted by the AAP.

Secondly, we have significant concerns regarding the traffic and movement principles set out within the AAP which have been developed without an understanding of the baseline position for the area. The traffic modelling and sensitivity testing which has been identified as necessary must be undertaken to establish the baseline position for the development of the area. Until this modelling has been undertaken, TCE are of the view that the AAP should not be further progressed.

Lastly, it is essential that the AAP ensures mechanisms to ensure that the new station is effectively linked to the existing businesses within the AAP area, including CBP; however, there should be no public access through CBP.

Full text:

See attached document

Object

Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Representation ID: 30661

Received: 15/12/2014

Respondent: Dr Anthony J Cooper

Representation Summary:

1. Serious public money needs to be invested.
2. Inaccessible location
3. Anglian Water sewage works and railway sidings hampers development potential
4. Power line would need to be removed.
5. Relocation of stagecoach needed.
6. New station could increase traffic.
7. Brookgate would have to develop site in a way that would work coherently with potential future development in the area.
8. Transport links would need to be improved.

Full text:

Cambridge Northern Fringe East

I have studied the consultation documents and have come to the conclusion that this area is largely useless from the point of view of development potential unless, of course, serious public money is invested in it, a return from which is not likely to be forthcoming for several years.

2 The area is sealed off from the outside world by the railway to the east, the A14 to the north and fairly impenetrable suburbia to the south. The only access by road is from the Milton Road, which is probably reaching the limit of its capacity, and Cowley Road.

3 The area is, of course, dominated by Anglia Water's WWTP, the sewage works. It seems quite clear that Anglian Water is not prepared to abandon the plant and move elsewhere or reduce its footprint. Indeed they want to expand it, as they probably need to do so, given the amount of new development taking place, or due to take place, in and around the city. It was not clear to me whether much can be done to reduce the stink from these works or whether Anglian Water would even try to do so.

4 There are also, of course, two aggregate facilities. These will need to remain in place, monopolising the derelict railway sidings, at least and until the A14 is rebuilt. The operators may want to move their site northwards, to a point adjacent to the A14, and build a connection to the road, taking the secondary aggregate plant with them, but they will wish to retain the connection with the railway. This does not leave much of the derelict sidings available for redevelopment until the operators move out. In the meantime their activities will contribute to the aromas wafting around the place.

5 There is also the existence of a high tension power line which runs diagonally right across the area. This will need to be moved.

6 Another large chunk of the area is taken up by Stagecoach by their bus depot. They will take some persuading to move out. If they do where will they go? I suppose this depot generates a fair amount of traffic, not only by the buses but by the staff, including the bus drivers. They presumably use Cowley Road.

7 I have not revisited the business case for the new rail station but it must look rather thin unless the promoters are laying store by the connection with the busway, i.e. it will turn out to be an interchange station. Would car commuters thread their way through the area to park at the new station? I doubt it.

8 Brookgate want to develop the only part of the area which is feasible for redevelopment and if allowed to do so they will take the low hanging fruit. If they are allowed to build it is likely to be the only substantial development to take place in the area for many years to come. I suppose they could be prevailed upon to develop in such a way that the possibility of expansion into the rest of the area is not precluded.

9 Is there any prospect of public money being available to improve the connections to this area from the outside world? Given that there is no immediate prospect of substantial development taking place for many years I doubt it.