Question 2: Is the proposed boundary the most appropriate one for the AAP?

I believe it makes sense to include the Science Park which is already undergoing a large amount of development and needs to be considered when looking at transport arrangements

The area is appropriate if the demand for housing is required and the development is zero carbon with as little private vehicle use as possible.

If the Science Park (in South Cambs) is included, should the light industrial area and Milton Country Park also be included, given that there is shared interest and consideration of another access under the A14?

Yes. It is important to include the Science Park, as that is the source of much of the traffic in this area.

I emphatically do NOT want to include green belt land in this AAP, so I approve of the current designation. However, at the same time, I believe that as the excluded area also includes Existing Gypsy and Traveller sites, we should be looking at some kind of better access links, even if this area isn't included.

The proposed boundary is not appropriate as it does not fully reflect the surrounding landscape context, thereby limiting future design options. It is essential to incorporate the river corridor for the following reasons:
1. Elsewhere in the consultation the movement, green space and open space sections refer to creating and enhancing linkages from the site to Milton Country Park and the river.
2. The green space, open space and biodiversity sections all refer to solutions and interventions involving the river corridor.
3. With respect to achieving biodiversity net gain, it is highly questionable whether this could be achieved within the current proposed boundary, particularly with the development of Chesterton Sidings, which was until very recently a high quality brownfield site supporting priority habitats, the loss of which must be compensated. Other design considerations may legitimately dictate a high density approach to development with a relatively limited area of green spaces and a greater use of multifunctional green spaces, all of which significantly reduce the potential to achieve a net biodiversity gain on-site. The off-site biodiversity compensation / offsetting that will almost inevitably be required must be planned strategically in advance. Whether these go to support strategic habitat creation at places such as Wicken Fen, are developed adjacent to the site along the river Cam corridor, or a mixture of these approaches will need to be decided now. Provision of strategic green infrastructure in additional to Milton Country Park, and biodiversity enhancement and offsetting, both along the River Cam corridor should form part of the NE Cambridge AAP. This approach would significantly benefit the overall quality of place at NE Cambridge, and the quality of life of those who live and work there.

Yes, the area seems broadly appropriate, although the decision to exclude CRC itself is interesting considering the potential need to provide more secondary education in the area.

I feel very strongly that this boundary is the wrong one for the area. The housing and industrial area between the railway line and river must also be included within the planning for North East Cambridge.

Reasons why this area needs to be included:

- This is a neglected area which is cut off from local facilities and only accessible by long car journeys across a busy level crossing. We need to take the opportunity to make the place making benefits of the North East development available to the people who are already live next door to it rather than leaving the benefits of economic development only to the people who can afford to live in the new houses.

- One element of the plan is consulting and listening to local communities: they are one of the local communities and appear to have been completely ignored by proposed boundary of the plan.

- We can decrease the distance people to the East of the railway need to travel for working, shopping and leisure activities by providing a bridge across the railway line.

- It doesn't make sense to think about providing new cycle and pedestrian routes to the river without including the land through which they would have to pass as part of the planning.

- The increasingly popular cycling route between from Cambridge North station into the city along Fen Road is currently severely compromised by the traffic along Fen Road. Large industrial vehicles and unsafe driving threaten this cycle route and make it dangerous. This needs to be addressed to serve the sustainable transport goals of the plan.

Whole area needs to be considered

Yes, I believe the proposed boundary is right to include the Science Park as this area should be much more accessible to non-car users from outside its boundaries and should be developed to include more non-business uses. Viewing the whole area as an integrated development will help achieve this as well as improving links to the adjacent communities. I also think it's right not to include the area east of the railway where the Gypsy and Traveller site is located but I think access to and from this site should be improved as part of this project.

This boundary is not appropriate. The plan should include the area east of the railway up to the river. The new development will not be inclusive and integrated unless it is planned in the context of adjoining areas.

The Eastern boundary needs to be extended to incorporate the Fen Road Travellers and Business sites

The proposal to include both the Cambridge Northern Fringe East (CNFE) and Cambridge Science Park is welcomed. The highway network in the vicinity of both sites already operates at capacity at peak times of the day and in order for the intensification of either or both sites to be acceptable in transport terms, the way in which people travel to, from and within the sites will need to be significantly different in the future. Now that Cambridge North station and the Guided Busway have been delivered, along with the prospect of the area being connected to the CAM network it is essential that these key pieces of infrastructure are used to their maximum potential and the area considered holistically. The proposed boundary is therefore supported.

As major change is envisaged on the Science Park site the junction at the entrance to the site from King's Hedges road should be included in the area.

The area should be extended to include the area off the section of Fen Road between the level crossing and the A14, and bounded by the river, as change in this area has the potential to support the aspirations for the rest of the site. There is a long-standing current issue (well documented by for example the Cambridge News) of criminality and dangerous driving associated with the Fen Road area. Opportunities to improve access to this area, and thereby road safety in the wider area may arise from the development. Omitting this area from the development plan risks increasing division and inequality. Crime and safety considerations are key as people won't want to live, work, and bring investment to a dangerous area.

Why is it necessary to develop the Science Park? Couldn't that be done in due course?

I would extend the boundary to the river. We are creating bigger and bigger problems socially by repeatedly neglecting certain areas (often the most deprived areas) of Cambridge. Please use the wealth generated by developing this area to help those who live very locally.

Dear Cambridge North Eastern Fringe,

Although I should have, I'm afraid I cannot find the time to complete the full consultation, but I hope the notes below are of use. I confine this mainly to transport related impacts.

I STRONGLY believe that the area must be enlarged to include that between the railway and the river (both sides of Fen Road), which is currently in South Cambridgeshire. It should also include Cambridge Regional College. Without considering both the 'Fen Road' and CRC areas there is no unity to the area.
No doubt if this is done it risks some 'change of use', but it should offer far better opportunities to protect the current green space for conservation and/or public use.

I respect the vision, but needs far, far more about transport. Without the yet to be published transport document, which only gets a passing mention in current documentation there is big hole in the vision.

The area is currently very car dominated (7000 car parking spaces?). Cambridge North already offers good opportunity for sustainable transport and ALL will benefit by reduced car use. More sustainable transport options are needed

The use of Mere Way as a route under the A14 should be an objective in the short term as a route for P&R and other buses so as to avoid congestion approaching the Milton Road/A14 Roundabout. It must also be possible to vastly simplify the road width and complexity between that junction and the Guided Busway crossing.

Although a bridge over the railway linking Cowley Road for those on foot and bike is suggested, that MUST take motor vehicles so as to permit the closure of the Fen Road crossing. Such a closure will benefit all, as it will enable more and faster trains, enable far better foot and cycle links to the Chisholm Trail on the northern side of the LC shortening many trips on foot or bike. Such a link cannot currently be opened as Network Rail would veto a connection due to the increased risk at the LC The new road link should simply be a continuation of the current Cowley Road.

In addition a cycle/foot/(& bus?) link should be created adjacent to the A14 and over both railway and river to connect to the B1047 (and beyond).
Currently cycle links over the Cam N of (under construction) Abbey/Chesterton bridge are limited as there are only FP links east of the river. Although this would mean widening parts of the existing A14 embankment, it could well be productively created as a location for much of the spoil that might otherwise be needed to landfill'. Linked to the proposed Greenway beneath the A14 this would vastly improve the permeability' for both cycling and walking in the area.

I strongly support the concept of a bridge over Milton Road similar to that on Mile End Road, which I've visited a number of times. This should be created as part of a green corridor flowing the line of the 'First Public Drain', which must be converted from a 'ditch' into a proper 'swale', perhaps with balancing ponds. Green roofs could similarly be used to reduce the peaks in surface run-off following storms. SUDs needs to be seriously considered at an early stage.

Moving some of the freight intensive uses from Nuffield Road to a strip adjacent to the A14 would reduce heavy traffic in the area and the buildings could help create a noise barrier. We also need to retain and expand light industrial units, of the type which are being lost from areas such as Clifton Road.

Being close to the A14, this would be an excellent location for a bulk/break/consolidation depot for goods. I do not believe it would be practical to be rail connected, but there are, for example, many small 'convenience' stores (SPAR/Tesco/ Co-op etc) which are serviced by large articulated vehicles, yet only receive a few 'cages' every few days. A less than 3.5 tonne electric vehicle based at such a depot could service many stores with a very much reduced environmental impact. Imagine a larger version of 'The Bike Depot' currently on Cowley Road. It might then be possible to restrict access (or have a permit system similar to that introduced by GLC) for vehicles over 24 tonnes to the rest of the City

Car Parking: With more intensive use of this area it should be possible to create a viable public transport system into and through this area. This would be easier if the Science Park, Cambridge Business Park and any other created zones were permeable to buses but not private cars. A stop should be within, at the most, 400m of any major employment site, or location generating large numbers of trips. That could help meet the objective of expanding employment and dwellings without generating more trips. I think that the target should be to reduce car trips by 15% on 2011 levels as in the GCP targets.

I have answered a subsection of the questions in the NECAAP in support of the following overall proposal:

I believe a "fast train" service is needed between Cambridge North,Cambridge and the proposed Cambridge South station. To do this would require the level crossing to be shut permanently.
There is also the issue of public safety to cyclists and pedestrians using the new cycle link from Newmarket Road to North Cambridge station, there is a considerable increase in cyclist using Fen Road to access Moss Bank to the new station, this is a very dangerous road and the new bridge to link to Moss Bank where cyclist an pedestrians have to cross Fen Road will increase that DANGER CONSIDERLY.
I have seen a number of accidents and near misses to cyclist using the Fen Road, closing the crossing will ensure that traffic along that stretch of Fen Road will be reduced by over 90% making it a very safe environment for everyone.

This plan makes it essential that communities and businesses North of the level crossing should be connected by high quality walking and cycling links to Chesterton, bypassing the level crossing; it also crucially requires a road link over the railway into the new development. This further has the benefit of integrating new and old communities and businesses and giving existing communities access to the facilities at the new development and onto Milton Road and the A14.

All of this would give the best chance of the development realising the ambition of being green and sustainable without generating extra car traffic across Cambridge for those who don't end up working on site.

Chesterton Fen (the area bounded by the railway, the A14, and the river) has a very different character to the rest of the AAP area and forms part of the Green Belt, so I do not agree with the area's inclusion in the AAP area. However, AAP developments will increase railway traffic over the level crossing which is the only access to the area, causing additional social isolation for already marginalised communities. The AAP must provide for alternative access to Fen Road east of the level crossing to mitigate the negative effects of the AAP on adjoining areas.

This would extend the benefits of the scheme to this area by providing access to new facilities that will come from the new development. This in turn allows greater transport provision along the railway corridor via the closing of the level crossing, allowing more trains to run more frequently.

Q4: No, you have missed the constraint of the active level crossing, which limit the capacity of rail traffic through Cambridge North. In context this is particularly important for journeys across Cambridge, but limits the capacity in general.

This is also relevant to 4.19 - air quality will be affected if residents are forced to use cars to get to work, due to insufficient rail capacity. You cannot assume all residents living within the NECAAP will work within the NECAAP.

Q5: I believe that better connections to the Chesterton Fen area would support the inclusion objective you have identified. This is particularly relevant to objective 5: "NEC will integrate with surrounding communities, spreading the benefits it delivers to surrounding areas."

Q7: I suggest you include permeability for walking and cycling though the business park.

Q11: Sports, Arts, Community spaces, particularly those open in the evening.

Q17: I believe this bridge should also include road traffic and be capable of taking heavy goods vehicles.

Q25: High quality walking and cycling access from the Milton end of Fen Road to both Chesterton and the NECAAP area, to safely bypass the level crossing.

Q27: We support increasing capacity on the railway to reduce car dependence.

Q37: I specifically do not wish to have existing business sites pushed out of the area, as their location allows them to thrive.

Q50: I believe provision should be made for travellers within the site. Specifically travellers settled within housing require good access to their existing community, and this necessitates a road link (see answer to question 17).

Q57: Laundrette facilities should be included. Pooling facilities like this supports low-carbon living and helps support those who may not have access to washing machines.

Q70: OBJECT

Q71: Relocation within the area should be investigated in order to allow close integration with existing communities.

Q75, 76: SUPPORT

Q83: It is vital the needs of existing traveller communities in the area are considered under the Equality Act. Better connectivity to the AAP area must be compulsory in order to prevent these communities being further disadvantaged.

I believe a "fast train" service is needed between Cambridge North,Cambridge and the proposed Cambridge South station. To do this would require the level crossing to be shut permanently.
There is also the issue of public safety to cyclists and pedestrians using the new cycle link from Newmarket Road to North Cambridge station, there is a considerable increase in cyclist using Fen Road to access Moss Bank to the new station, this is a very dangerous road and the new bridge to link to Moss Bank where cyclist an pedestrians have to cross Fen Road will increase that DANGER CONSIDERLY.
I have seen a number of accidents and near misses to cyclist using the Fen Road, closing the crossing will ensure that traffic along that stretch of Fen Road will be reduced by over 90% making it a very safe environment for everyone.

This plan makes it essential that communities and businesses North of the level crossing should be connected by high quality walking and cycling links to Chesterton, bypassing the level crossing; it also crucially requires a road link over the railway into the new development. This further has the benefit of integrating new and old communities and businesses and giving existing communities access to the facilities at the new development and onto Milton Road and the A14.

All of this would give the best chance of the development realising the ambition of being green and sustainable without generating extra car traffic across Cambridge for those who don't end up working on site.

Q2: Chesterton Fen (the area bounded by the railway, the A14, and the river) has a very different character to the rest of the AAP area and forms part of the Green Belt, so I do not agree with the area's inclusion in the AAP area. However, AAP developments will increase railway traffic over the level crossing which is the only access to the area, causing additional social isolation for already marginalised communities. The AAP must provide for alternative access to Fen Road east of the level crossing to mitigate the negative effects of the AAP on adjoining areas.

This would extend the benefits of the scheme to this area by providing access to new facilities that will come from the new development. This in turn allows greater transport provision along the railway corridor via the closing of the level crossing, allowing more trains to run more frequently.

Q4: No, you have missed the constraint of the active level crossing, which limit the capacity of rail traffic through Cambridge North. In context this is particularly important for journeys across Cambridge, but limits the capacity in general.

This is also relevant to 4.19 - air quality will be affected if residents are forced to use cars to get to work, due to insufficient rail capacity. You cannot assume all residents living within the NECAAP will work within the NECAAP.

Q5: I believe that better connections to the Chesterton Fen area would support the inclusion objective you have identified. This is particularly relevant to objective 5: "NEC will integrate with surrounding communities, spreading the benefits it delivers to surrounding areas."

Q7: I suggest you include permeability for walking and cycling though the business park.

Q11: Sports, Arts, Community spaces, particularly those open in the evening.

Q17: I believe this bridge should also include road traffic and be capable of taking heavy goods vehicles.

Q25: High quality walking and cycling access from the Milton end of Fen Road to both Chesterton and the NECAAP area, to safely bypass the level crossing.

Q27: We support increasing capacity on the railway to reduce car dependence.

Q37: I specifically do not wish to have existing business sites pushed out of the area, as their location allows them to thrive.

Q50: I believe provision should be made for travellers within the site. Specifically travellers settled within housing require good access to their existing community, and this necessitates a road link (see answer to question 17).

Q57: Laundrette facilities should be included. Pooling facilities like this supports low-carbon living and helps support those who may not have access to washing machines.

Q70: OBJECT

Q71: Relocation within the area should be investigated in order to allow close integration with existing communities.

Q75: 76: SUPPORT

Q83: It is vital the needs of existing traveller communities in the area are considered under the Equality Act. Better connectivity to the AAP area must be compulsory in order to prevent these communities being further disadvantaged.

I believe a "fast train" service is needed between Cambridge North,Cambridge and the proposed Cambridge South station. To do this would require the level crossing to be shut permanently.
There is also the issue of public safety to cyclists and pedestrians using the new cycle link from Newmarket Road to North Cambridge station, there is a considerable increase in cyclist using Fen Road to access Moss Bank to the new station, this is a very dangerous road and the new bridge to link to Moss Bank where cyclist an pedestrians have to cross Fen Road will increase that DANGER CONSIDERLY.
I have seen a number of accidents and near misses to cyclist using the Fen Road, closing the crossing will ensure that traffic along that stretch of Fen Road will be reduced by over 90% making it a very safe environment for everyone.

This plan makes it essential that communities and businesses North of the level crossing should be connected by high quality walking and cycling links to Chesterton, bypassing the level crossing; it also crucially requires a road link over the railway into the new development. This further has the benefit of integrating new and old communities and businesses and giving existing communities access to the facilities at the new development and onto Milton Road and the A14.

All of this would give the best chance of the development realising the ambition of being green and sustainable without generating extra car traffic across Cambridge for those who don't end up working on site.

Q2: Chesterton Fen (the area bounded by the railway, the A14, and the river) has a very different character to the rest of the AAP area and forms part of the Green Belt, so I do not agree with the area's inclusion in the AAP area. However, AAP developments will increase railway traffic over the level crossing which is the only access to the area, causing additional social isolation for already marginalised communities. The AAP must provide for alternative access to Fen Road east of the level crossing to mitigate the negative effects of the AAP on adjoining areas.

This would extend the benefits of the scheme to this area by providing access to new facilities that will come from the new development. This in turn allows greater transport provision along the railway corridor via the closing of the level crossing, allowing more trains to run more frequently.

Q4: No, you have missed the constraint of the active level crossing, which limit the capacity of rail traffic through Cambridge North. In context this is particularly important for journeys across Cambridge, but limits the capacity in general.

This is also relevant to 4.19 - air quality will be affected if residents are forced to use cars to get to work, due to insufficient rail capacity. You cannot assume all residents living within the NECAAP will work within the NECAAP.

Q5: I believe that better connections to the Chesterton Fen area would support the inclusion objective you have identified. This is particularly relevant to objective 5: "NEC will integrate with surrounding communities, spreading the benefits it delivers to surrounding areas."

Q7: I suggest you include permeability for walking and cycling though the business park.

Q11: Sports, Arts, Community spaces, particularly those open in the evening.

Q17: I believe this bridge should also include road traffic and be capable of taking heavy goods vehicles.

Q25: High quality walking and cycling access from the Milton end of Fen Road to both Chesterton and the NECAAP area, to safely bypass the level crossing.

Q27: We support increasing capacity on the railway to reduce car dependence.

Q37: I specifically do not wish to have existing business sites pushed out of the area, as their location allows them to thrive.

Q50: I believe provision should be made for travellers within the site. Specifically travellers settled within housing require good access to their existing community, and this necessitates a road link (see answer to question 17).

Q57: Laundrette facilities should be included. Pooling facilities like this supports low-carbon living and helps support those who may not have access to washing machines.

Q70: OBJECT

Q71: Relocation within the area should be investigated in order to allow close integration with existing communities.

Q75: 76: SUPPORT

Q83: It is vital the needs of existing traveller communities in the area are considered under the Equality Act. Better connectivity to the AAP area must be compulsory in order to prevent these communities being further disadvantaged.

I feel that without the inclusion of the Fen Road site (over the railway line) into the action plan there will not be a full regeneration. Any plan which includes a bridge over the railway but does not address the anti social behaviour and deprivation on Fen Road over the railway will invite conflict and community tension just like it does in East Chesterton currently.

If a bridge is not built then it will contribute to the increasing ghettoisation of the gypsy sites down Fen Road, where those sites are "left behind", which again will lead to community conflict. If that is not addressed then it will not be a desirable place to live if people do not feel safe, no matter how attractive the space is.

Aside from this, I feel that the approach is very good. Plenty of green space with walking and cycling which is central to the site. Roads for motor vehicles should stay at the edges and journey times should be quickest by bike (cars must take a longer route to tip the daily balance of vehicle choice away from cars).

There should be car pool dedicated parking to encourage sharing cars rather than ownership. For a period of 5 years or so, sponsor car share companies to make high availability in the area, then hopefully natural demand will continue it.

Leisure facilities are sorely lacking in northern Cambridge. There is high demand from the science and business park areas, with the only evening venue being the Golden Hind or Milton pubs. Making sure there is a community space like Stir (Chesterton) is essential to keeping the area vibrant and not just another Orchard Park (which I consider failed due to high crime levels and lack of community cohesion).

A new leisure centre with great family swimming facilities would be brilliant, including climbing facilities and space for classes and other indoor sports like badminton. There isn't a huge amount of leisure activities I'm aware of in Northern Cambridge aside from Impington college.

My work used to be sited by the West Cambridge sports centre and my colleagues and I used the space at lunchtimes for squash, football and basketball. We since moved to St John's innovation Park and there is not much around to continue these activities.

As a Milton resident who cycles as much as possible, my family and I would very much use the facilities which are to be developed. Please look at the Dutch and Norwegian models for residential development, which prioritise walking and cycling over motor vehicles.

Thanks.

I have answered a subsection of the questions in the NECAAP in support of the following overall proposal:

I believe a "fast train" service is needed between Cambridge North,Cambridge and the proposed Cambridge South station. To do this would require the level crossing to be shut for much longer, and possibly permanently.

This plan makes it essential that communities and businesses North of the level crossing should be connected by high quality walking and cycling links to Chesterton, bypassing the level crossing; it also crucially requires a road link over the railway into the new development. This further has the benefit of integrating new and old communities and businesses and giving existing communities access to the facilities at the new development.

All of this would give the best chance of the development realising the ambition of being green and sustainable without generating extra car traffic across Cambridge for those who don't end up working on site.

Q2: Chesterton Fen (the area bounded by the railway, the A14, and the river) has a very different character to the rest of the AAP area and forms part of the Green Belt, so I do not agree with the area's inclusion in the AAP area. However, AAP developments will increase railway traffic over the level crossing which is the only access to the area, causing additional social isolation for already marginalised communities. The AAP must provide for alternative access to Fen Road east of the level crossing to mitigate the negative effects of the AAP on adjoining areas.

This would extend the benefits of the scheme to this area by providing access to new facilities that will come from the new development. This in turn allows greater transport provision along the railway corridor via the closing of the level crossing, allowing more trains to run more frequently.

Q4: No, you have missed the constraint of the active level crossing, which limit the capacity of rail traffic through Cambridge North. In context this is particularly important for journeys across Cambridge, but limits the capacity in general.

This is also relevant to 4.19 - air quality will be affected if residents are forced to use cars to get to work, due to insufficient rail capacity. You cannot assume all residents living within the NECAAP will work within the NECAAP.

Q5: I believe that better connections to the Chesterton Fen area would support the inclusion objective you have identified. This is particularly relevant to objective 5: "NEC will integrate with surrounding communities, spreading the benefits it delivers to surrounding areas."

Q7: I suggest you include permeability for walking and cycling though the business park.

Q11: Sports, Arts, Community spaces, particularly those open in the evening.

Q17: I believe this bridge should also include road traffic and be capable of taking heavy goods vehicles.

Q25: High quality walking and cycling access from the Milton end of Fen Road to both Chesterton and the NECAAP area, to safely bypass the level crossing.

Q27: We support increasing capacity on the railway to reduce car dependence.

Q37: I specifically do not wish to have existing business sites pushed out of the area, as their location allows them to thrive.

Q50: I believe provision should be made for travellers within the site. Specifically travellers settled within housing require good access to their existing community, and this necessitates a road link (see answer to question 17).

Q57: Laundrette facilities should be included. Pooling facilities like this supports low-carbon living and helps support those who may not have access to washing machines.

Q70: OBJECT

Q71: Relocation within the area should be investigated in order to allow close integration with existing communities.

Q75, 76: SUPPORT

Q83: It is vital the needs of existing traveller communities in the area are considered under the Equality Act. Better connectivity to the AAP area must be compulsory in order to prevent these communities being further disadvantaged.

My comments are in line with many other very concerned local residents:

I thoroughly support the development of social housing and affordable housing for local families and hope that the majority of housing will be for these people.

The Proposed Development will be Very Big - The population will be similar to that of Ely so it is a lot bigger than, say, Orchard Park. It is also planned to include high rise development and no limit has yet been put as to how high this will be.

Traffic Congestion - The top of Milton Road sometimes hits gridlock as it is, so the extra traffic does not bear thinking about. The planners have many worthy ideas to minimise car use on the development, but these are unproven. I am concerned about vehicle access to this site - there should be vehicle access from the A14 junction to take pressure off the Cowley Road and Fen Road access.

How does this development fit in with the Mayor's plan and the Ely to Cambridge Transport Study?

No Mention of CAM Metro - One year ago the mayor's consultants published indicative maps showing their proposed underground metro linking with Cambridge North/Science Park. How will this fit in with the new development?

Facilities - If insufficient facilities are developed there will be an impact locally. It has already been decided not to build a secondary school and to absorb the new pupils into existing schools. With such a large development, a new secondary school will be needed.

The Edges of the Development - The development borders on to disadvantaged parts of the city and it is not clear that these areas will be upgraded to deal with the new demands.

Developers and Implementation - We have seen how the Central Rail Station area has been developed and changed drastically from the original plans. Brookgate are the same developers for this new site. We don't want a duplicate of the CB1 area and the broken promises they were given.

Q 2. Is the proposed boundary the most appropriate?

No. The proposed boundary should include the area to the East of the railway line, along Fen Road.

This area has suffered for years from a range of well-known social and related problems. Closure of the level crossing would require that part of Fen Road to be connected to the northern end of Milton Road, or directly to the Milton Road/A14 junction with a bridge over the railway line.

Q 3. Have the physical characteristics of the area been correctly identified

No. There is no mention of the lack of Secondary Schools, and those matrked onb the map are incorrectly positioned.

Q 11. Are there particular land uses that should be accommodated?

Yes, there should be a Secondary School and as much as possible of the area between the railway line and the river should be designated as a Riverside Country park

Q 15. Should clusters of taller buildings for part of the design

Not without very specific constraints on height. Six storeys should be set as an absolute limit.

Q 17. Explore delivery of a cycling and pedestrian bridge over the railway line?

Yes, certainly, but there should also be a new road and bridge to link with Fen Road so that the level crossing can be closed

Q 20. and 21. a and b
No I do not agree with proposals to include low levels of car parking. They will cause the surrounding residential streets to be swamped with displaced cars belonging to residents of the proposed new development.
Car parking provision should be close to one parking space per residential unit. Until adequate public transport is provided it is not feasible to reduce the number of car parking spaces on the Science Park.

Q. 24. Green space
The provision of adequate green space must be explicit, controlled by the City Council and not delegated to developers.

I strongly support combination of all of the proposed elements and rigorous enforcement on developers.

Q. 27. Trip budget and reduction of car use
This can only be affective where a proper system of public transport is in place. That means something other than buses, for example a tram, or if a proper tram cannot be achieved then the 'CAM'. Buses, especially conventional diesel buses, do not provide a viable, sustainable or attractive alternative to cars.
The integration of the AAP with a tramway or CAM is an essential prerequisite. The guided busway in its present form is almost completely irrelevant to what is proposed, other than for a small number of trips from Northstowe, Histon/Impington and Darwin Green/Eddington to the Science Park.

Q. 28. Low and reduced car parking ?
No, see above

Qs. 29 and 30
Yes, cycle parking must be prioritised and made obligatory

Q. 33 Innovative connections between Cambridge North and the Science Park
The guided busway is not adequate or attractive. A tram or CAM is needed.

Q. 37 Industrial uses to be retained?

Existing light industrial uses should be moved next to the A14, facilitated by a new road connection along the top of the site connecting to Milton Road on the A 14 junction. That could include the bus depot. Railway sidings should also be retained for future needs.
Q. 38 Mix of dwelling sizes
Yes, a mix of sizes, and family units should be included. That is essential to achieve a balanced stable community

Q. 39, 40,41 Housing for essential local workers
Yes, certainly. Absolutely vital and should be adhered to and enforced. No side deals for substitution with student accommodation etc.

Q. 43 HMO?
I am not at all convinced by this, so without further detail, no.

Qs 44- 46 PRS
I recommend involving a local housing association.

Q. 51 and 53 and 54
The highest/best local and national standards should be applied, so that no compromises are made away from the largest possible internal space, best direct access to private amenity space, and highest standards of accessibility.

Q. 55
There must be adequate provision for independent retail, which should be prioritised over national chains. There is no need to attempt to duplicate city centre/other major leisure and retail provision.

Q. 57
Use the Trumpington/Eddington models for community centre/library/medical. Include a secondary school. Faiths should be given proper allocation of space.

Q. 59 Space provision: Quality and functionality not quantity
No. Adequate quantity is essential, see above re riverside park.

Q. 67 Net gain in biodiversity ?
Go to Eddington for methods. Appoint an ecology chief for the area from the start.

Q.69 Underground waste system
Yes, again use the Eddington example.

Q. 84 Any other comments
The AAP proposals have evolved into a massive addition to the urban fringe of Cambridge.
There is no acceptable reason why residential building density and height need to be imposed on a scale that is out of character with the rest of Cambridge, on a site which will be visible from various places including the historic and invaluable riverside, parts of the city and Chesterton, and Fen Ditton.
If excessive height and density is the only basis on which funding can be obtained to move the Sewage Works, then it would be better to leave the Sewage Works where it is until an appropriate alternative approach can be found to redevelopment that is not alien to Cambridge.

Proposed boundary.
Full response to question 2:
This response is written by someone who lives with his family and works within the are to the east of the current NECAAP site, east of the railway line. This is discussed in the consulation document only in terms of the travellers' sites there. Whilst the travellers' sites are an important part of the area and need to be considered, there are also a singificant number of private houses, farms, flats -- particularly at the Chesterton end of the road -- and places of work, which are not connected to the travellers and need consderation separately as well as together.
The reasons for including the Nuffield Road and Bramblefields areas in the NECAAP apply equally to this area.
I shall call this area the Fen Road Cut Off, because it is largely cut off by the level crossing when it is closed.
The opening of the Cambridge North Station has already severely negatively impacted this area. The greater number of rail movements has meant that, contrary to initial promises, the down times of the level crossing gates have increased, sometimes to 15 minutes at a time. This not only causes delay and frustration to those waiting at the crossing (and possible risk to life in case of access by emergency vehicles) but also leads to impatience, anger and therefore speeding and risk-taking and congestion affecting the other residents of Chesterton -- and indeed attempts to rush the barrier which have delayed trains and cost Network Rail signiifcant sums in maintenance and in delay penalties.
This will get worse with greater use of the station with more and longer trains.
Secondly the AAP proposes a predestrian and cycle bridge into the area for access to the Cam and other recreational purposes in the area, which is mostly green belt. This may be a good use of the area, but also implies a relationship with NECAAP and a growing likelihood of the Cut Off
Whether or not this area actually becomes part of the offical NECAAP area it is affected by NECAAP and its needs must be taken into account as a neighbouring area impacted by the plan.

Full response to question 17:
Yes. The many residents and workers in the area to the East of the Railway line (EotR) are increasingly remote from Chesterton, partly because of the distance and partly because of the increased down times of the level crossing (see my comments on Q2) caused by the increasing train movements and train lengths at Cambridge North. EotR residents and workers, particularly those in the Northern part of the area, may well be attracted to facilities in the NECAAP area as they are developed, including shops and schooling.
Those west of the line will want decent access to the river; the greenbelt area may lend itself to recreational facilities and perhaps playing fields for NECAAP residents; the waste transfer station might lend itself to conversion to, say, gym or other facilities, thereby avoiding the less social need for waste lorries to access the area.
However, the inclusion of a pedestrian and cycle bridge over the railway line offers the opportunity to **turn this also into a road bridge** and so offer a solution to the problems posed by the level crossing and the need for heavy lorries to access EotR via Chesterton, with the pollution and congestion that that entails.

From the **Sustainability** POV this would reduce journeys by enabling access for heavy vehicles (and buses?) and for vehicle movements from Fen Road heading out of Cambridge. From the sustainability POV the optimum would be to keep the exisiting level crossing but with restrictions on vehicle size and restrictions on through vehicles (using ANPR like Addenbrookes), so that traffic volumes in Chesterton would be significantly reduced.
With the help of buses and their future replacements *public transport* could be brought in to EotR -- including in the context of NECAAP's recreational needs, thus further reducing the need for motor cars which are the only real option for those who dwell EotR at present because of the distances. There are also an increasing number of elderly people, especially within the "traveller" population (they travel much less or not at all because of their age) for whom access is an increasing problem.
To meet the needs of the EotR population, however, it is important that any bridge be in the middle of Fen Road, rather than at the North end. The obvious location is a continuation of the stub road at the North of the railway car park, where, moreoever, there are only 4, comparatively close, railway tracks to cross, to land on the area of the railway mast, and which would involve less disruption to get to Fen Road. This will also minimise routes for trucks leaving Fen Road and keep them within what will probably be the more commercial area of the station area development.
If the level crossing remains open for smaller vehicles (rather than being completely closed as some have suggested), the actual location of the pedestrian/cycle/road bridge is less important, but still should not be at the far North.

The additonal costs of the roadbridge to those of the pedestrian.cycle bridge already proposed can perhaps be funded by:
a contribution from Network Rail -- who have an interest in reducing the use of the level crossing
and a S106 contribution from developers for recreational purposes and to reduce the disbenefits of NECAAP to the EotR communities, traveller and otherwise.

Full response to question 83:
Equalities Impacts
The NECAAP will have an increasing impact on the travelling community who are an important part of those living East of the Railway line (EotR). This impact could be negative (as would currently seem most likely) or it could be positive. For it to be positive it either needs the EotR area to be included in the NECAAP, or for the NECAAP to think much more seriously about the area as part of its obligations, eg under Objective 5:
"NEC will integrate with surrounding communities, spreading the benefits it delivers to surrounding areas. "

AT present the EQIA says: "The I&O2 report does not propose to include the existing traveller sites within the area of the NECAAP. If this changes then due regard will be paid to the impact of any redevelopment proposals on the traveller community, and any relevant considerations under the Human Rights Act Articles and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will be taken into account.

It is appalling that the intention appears to be only to take into account the impact on travellers (not to mention other residents and workers EotR) if the EotR area is included in the NECAAP. The impact must be taken into consdieration, either way. By including them in the NECAAP, however, it might give the ability for NECAAP to become a trailblazing demonstrator for a properly inclusive development, where travellers needs are fully considered rather than leaving travellers, as is much more common, on the outside.

At the moment the only reference to travellers' needs in the I&O2 report seems to be from the POV of providing more travellers sites within NECAAP. Given the large concentration of sites already in Fen Road, this would appear unncessary.

But no other consideration seems to have been given to the significant impact on the quality of life of travellers and others living in the Fen Road area. This is surely unacceptable.

I have answered a subsection of the questions in the NECAAP in support of the following overall proposal:

I believe a "fast train" service is needed between Cambridge North,Cambridge and the proposed Cambridge South station. To do this would require the level crossing to be shut permanently.
There is also the issue of public safety to cyclists and pedestrians using the new cycle link from Newmarket Road to North Cambridge station, there is a considerable increase in cyclist using Fen Road to access Moss Bank to the new station, this is a very dangerous road and the new bridge to link to Moss Bank where cyclist an pedestrians have to cross Fen Road will increase that DANGER CONSIDERLY.
I have seen a number of accidents and near misses to cyclist using the Fen Road, closing the crossing will ensure that traffic along that stretch of Fen Road will be reduced by over 90% making it a very safe environment for everyone.

This plan makes it essential that communities and businesses North of the level crossing should be connected by high quality walking and cycling links to Chesterton, bypassing the level crossing; it also crucially requires a road link over the railway into the new development. This further has the benefit of integrating new and old communities and businesses and giving existing communities access to the facilities at the new development and onto Milton Road and the A14.

All of this would give the best chance of the development realising the ambition of being green and sustainable without generating extra car traffic across Cambridge for those who don't end up working on site.

Chesterton Fen (the area bounded by the railway, the A14, and the river) has a very different character to the rest of the AAP area and forms part of the Green Belt, so I do not agree with the area's inclusion in the AAP area. However, AAP developments will increase railway traffic over the level crossing which is the only access to the area, causing additional social isolation for already marginalised communities. The AAP must provide for alternative access to Fen Road east of the level crossing to mitigate the negative effects of the AAP on adjoining areas.

This would extend the benefits of the scheme to this area by providing access to new facilities that will come from the new development. This in turn allows greater transport provision along the railway corridor via the closing of the level crossing, allowing more trains to run more frequently.

Q4: No, you have missed the constraint of the active level crossing, which limit the capacity of rail traffic through Cambridge North. In context this is particularly important for journeys across Cambridge, but limits the capacity in general.

This is also relevant to 4.19 - air quality will be affected if residents are forced to use cars to get to work, due to insufficient rail capacity. You cannot assume all residents living within the NECAAP will work within the NECAAP.

Q5: I believe that better connections to the Chesterton Fen area would support the inclusion objective you have identified. This is particularly relevant to objective 5: "NEC will integrate with surrounding communities, spreading the benefits it delivers to surrounding areas."

Q7: I suggest you include permeability for walking and cycling though the business park.

Q11: Sports, Arts, Community spaces, particularly those open in the evening.

Q17: I believe this bridge should also include road traffic and be capable of taking heavy goods vehicles.

Q25: High quality walking and cycling access from the Milton end of Fen Road to both Chesterton and the NECAAP area, to safely bypass the level crossing.

Q27: We support increasing capacity on the railway to reduce car dependence.

Q37: I specifically do not wish to have existing business sites pushed out of the area, as their location allows them to thrive.

Q50: I believe provision should be made for travellers within the site. Specifically travellers settled within housing require good access to their existing community, and this necessitates a road link (see answer to question 17).

Q57: Laundrette facilities should be included. Pooling facilities like this supports low-carbon living and helps support those who may not have access to washing machines.

Q70: OBJECT

Q71: Relocation within the area should be investigated in order to allow close integration with existing communities.

Q75, 76: SUPPORT

Q83: It is vital the needs of existing traveller communities in the area are considered under the Equality Act. Better connectivity to the AAP area must be compulsory in order to prevent these communities being further disadvantaged.

HRARA wishes to raise following concerns:
What will happen to places just beyond the boundary which are pretty run down? Will they be improved e.g.Kings Hedges to avoid a hi-tech citadel next to run down areas?
There are few green spaces. Could there be land bought to create parkland running down to the river?
Where will the high rise buildings be built? Number of stories?
What is the provision of coherent infrastructure for cycling, walking and bus priority? Will it be available before the residents move in? Is there any coordination between this site and GCP Milton Road project?
The site will have car free zones thus there is also need for some parking facilities on the edges of the site or underground.
There is a need for a secondary school since the surrounding areas will not have any available spaces for the coming new residents.
Are any nurseries planned for the working staff in the Science park area?
The station and the guided bus stop are on the edge of the residential area but there seem not to be any coordinated plan for joining the Science part with the Residential part or the surrounding areas.
Has the new location for the sewage plant been confirmed or will this cause delays for the residential part?