Question 4: Have we identified all relevant constraints present on, or affecting, the North East Cambridge area?

How does it dovetail with other proposals for Milton Rd? Reducing the dominance of the road has been mentioned, whereas the City Deal proposals were making it more dominant by widening further down.

I haven't managed to find the Consultation Strategy Document but I am making some comments based on your email. Firstly, I would like to say that we welcome the initiative that you are taking to consult with local residents.

I don't think it is anyone's fault but I don't think that the project has really been noticed much by local residents despite several articles in local newspapers. It is a bit like IT projects where given a blank piece of paper people don't know what they want, but faced with the actual system can definitely say they don't like it. I think what is happening needs to be articulated in the way of more concrete examples, although I appreciate this is difficult.

I don't think the scale of the project has been really expressed. The number of homes represents a development the size of Ely, but this is not the impression that really comes across. The consultation needs to address the issues which are likely to be of most interest to residents such as:
* Impact on traffic congestion and transport. This is going to be a big worry.
* Impact on services, such as medical services and local schools.
* Quality of architecture, is this going to anonymous architecture that could be anywhere in the world. Will it just be very high flats?
* Quality of life for the inhabitants and community.
* Sense of identity and place.
* Provision of genuinely affordable housing, not based on the official definition.

Residents will be as interested in how the objectives of the development will be attained as much as what they are. Developers wriggling out of undertakings to provide good communal space, quality of build and basic infrastructure have been the norm rather than the exception. Issues around The Station Square, The Marque and Cambourne Secondary School are just the tip of the iceberg. There needs to be detail on how these kinds of problems can be prevented.

Related to this, objectives need to have metrics which can be measured and enforced. A developer in Cambridge considered that having a shed in the garden was sustainable housing and this kind of rhetoric is very cheap. It needs to be things like, say, "Heating needs to be reduced by 75% compared to existing standards".

There is a concern that, for instance, it is assumed that traffic on the development will be low because owners cannot have cars. However, this may not work if other people in the houses have cars and owners use cars registered to family members who live elsewhere. There needs to be explanation of how critical measures are really going to work. Not allowing off street parking may not mean fewer cars. Unless there is a completely watertight ban on cars then having no off road parking will just lead to displaced parking problems elsewhere.

[REDACTED] has suggested the following in terms of communications., A leaflet drop advertising the exhibitions and giving information to residents. Leaflets and posters at local Libraries, community centres, doctors' /dentists' surgeries. The political parties should advertise the dates too but unfortunately residents in King's Hedges (which involves half of Milton Road) don't seem to get these -No problem West Chesterton where the voting is tighter. I don't know the situation in East Chesterton. Posters at bus stops.

Distributing leaflets to houses is the obvious way to distribute. Anything else is going to be problematical.

There are lessons to be learnt from the Milton Road Project. This started off fairly disastrously but there is now a good relationship between residents associations and the project. [REDACTED] deserves a lot of credit for building good relationships in an [REDACTED] role and the project has actually take on board with what residents have suggested. There has been a cost to the project to do this but I think that the benefits in terms of quality of outcome have been immeasurable. Having someone as a residents contact is essential. Although I am kind of reporting back it maybe useful to have a presentations to residents association members and other key stakeholders. The Milton Road project has had various Local Liaison Forums and this could be a model to use.

In terms of area I think what you suggest is about right although I think that Hurst Park Estate would also like to be included. I might include West Chesterton and an exhibition at Chesterton Community College.

In terms of electronic communication I would add that I am struggling to find documents amongst council papers and we need a webpage with links to the documents of interest to residents. The residents associations do have some social media, but many residents don't really engage with this, although if you can provide content it can be distributed. I assume you could use things like Facebook advertising to send information by location, but I don't imagine it would be cheap.

Noise
There doesn't seem to be much recognition of noise as a problem. As the development is right next to the A14 this is something that needs to be addressed. It is something people living at Orchard Park often comment on. The only solution I can see is having noise barriers which really work, but the last I heard the about the barriers for Milton Country Park was that they did not look like materialising. The danger is that this is a downshift on quality of life before we have even started.

Buses
It is difficult to see how there can be other than a minimal bus service unless local government has some control over the service, as in London. There is often talk of the Mayoralty having powers in this respect, but unless it can be sorted out properly beforehand, when there is some leverage, then this aspect of the project is probably doomed.

Cycling
One would hope that cycling provision is designed into the plans coherently in all respects from the outset. Even on completely new developments it seems that the cycling facilities are fitted around everything else, as an afterthought, so are not properly linked together. The lack of proper bike routes to The Triangle and Station bike parks would be an example.

Assuming that this can be sorted out then you need to think about improvements to cycle provision across the board so that people can make entire trips across Cambridge with ease. Although improvements are being made it is generally where it is easy, such as Arbury Road, rather than where it is necessary, e.g. East Road roundabout.

Another problem is lack of decent lighting on cycle routes, even when they are new and purpose built. The cycle track next to the guided bus on Kings Hedges Road is treacherous at night as it is pitch black. The Arbury Park cycle path is currently being built but The County are refusing to provide decent lighting on it.

Height of Development
I think we have apprehensions about high buildings and we will need some convincing. Certainly, one can point to areas of say, Berlin and Paris, where buildings of 5 stories combine good communities, independent shops, decent parks and play areas. Unfortunately, CB1 has not delivered the advertised quality of life for many people and it seems that this country, for whatever reasons, is very poor at achieving what is desired. I was at Limehouse Marina this week and it was a like a ghost town. It would be good to have some examples where this has worked for new build in this country and why.

The danger is that high developments attract transient populations which are not conductive to new communities or long term families.

Something to consider is that once you have the required space between buildings etc. the overall density is not as much more than medium densities. There are also micro climate affects to consider such as shading and cold winds being dragged down to street level.

I think most would agree that decent independent shops would be part of the mix. However, expensive new shops will likely just be small clone towns. Leases need to be cheap and controlled by the council as this is the only way you will get independent shops.

Hotels
I would be apprehensive about having hotels as the architectural quality of new hotels in Cambridge has been dreadful. If it is easy to rectify this one would ask why is the proposed hotel by the Grafton Centre as dreadful as all the others?

Car Traffic
No doubt there will be a lot of debate about this but, as I mentioned in my previous email, we need to avoid management by wishful thinking. The Centre Parcs approach of having cars stored on the periphery of the development directed away from the city centre may be worth considering, but it is always tricky doing things with concrete which haven't been tried before. We must be wary of things being superficially sugar coated, such as calling a multi-storey car park a car barn, although I see that it is for residents to keep cars in and there is a distinction there.

Safety
If people are going to walk then the environment must not only be safe but be perceived by them to be so by the inhabitants. We assume that there is a body of knowledge that can be used to implement this. There is an issue locally that the council have significantly cut the level of street lighting to save money and most people think that it is now completely inadequate. There will need to be a level of lighting that people are genuinely happy with which will need to be much more than the current council "standard".

Milton Road Project
There has been a Cost Benefit Analysis of the Milton Road Project. How does this fit in with the Northern Fringe? As the latter is not yet certain it is not clear why there have not been 2 variations of the CBA for with and without The Fringe. It is not clear why the extra traffic from the Fringe does not undermine the case for faster buses. Equally, the volume of cyclists, (operating at a suspiciously fast speed), may be dependent on The Fringe. It is not clear if the volume of buses required can be accommodated or how the whole Milton Road Project fits in with The Fringe as it pre-dates it.

Community Facilities
These are, hopefully, a given and the new community centre at Eddington is impressive. We would hope this is the kind of thing which is possible and that it can be done without University involvement.

Insulation
I think a carbon reduction of 19% on current regulations is too lacking in ambition and too open to being gamed. I think we should be aiming at the Passivhaus standards of being almost completely insulated. After all these houses will, hopefully, still be standing in 2050 when the aspiration is for zero emissions.

I haven't managed to find the Consultation Strategy Document but I am making some comments based on your email. Firstly, I would like to say that we welcome the initiative that you are taking to consult with local residents.

I don't think it is anyone's fault but I don't think that the project has really been noticed much by local residents despite several articles in local newspapers. It is a bit like IT projects where given a blank piece of paper people don't know what they want, but faced with the actual system can definitely say they don't like it. I think what is happening needs to be articulated in the way of more concrete examples, although I appreciate this is difficult.

I don't think the scale of the project has been really expressed. The number of homes represents a development the size of Ely, but this is not the impression that really comes across. The consultation needs to address the issues which are likely to be of most interest to residents such as:
* Impact on traffic congestion and transport. This is going to be a big worry.
* Impact on services, such as medical services and local schools.
* Quality of architecture, is this going to anonymous architecture that could be anywhere in the world. Will it just be very high flats?
* Quality of life for the inhabitants and community.
* Sense of identity and place.
* Provision of genuinely affordable housing, not based on the official definition.

Residents will be as interested in how the objectives of the development will be attained as much as what they are. Developers wriggling out of undertakings to provide good communal space, quality of build and basic infrastructure have been the norm rather than the exception. Issues around The Station Square, The Marque and Cambourne Secondary School are just the tip of the iceberg. There needs to be detail on how these kinds of problems can be prevented.

Related to this, objectives need to have metrics which can be measured and enforced. A developer in Cambridge considered that having a shed in the garden was sustainable housing and this kind of rhetoric is very cheap. It needs to be things like, say, "Heating needs to be reduced by 75% compared to existing standards".

There is a concern that, for instance, it is assumed that traffic on the development will be low because owners cannot have cars. However, this may not work if other people in the houses have cars and owners use cars registered to family members who live elsewhere. There needs to be explanation of how critical measures are really going to work. Not allowing off street parking may not mean fewer cars. Unless there is a completely watertight ban on cars then having no off road parking will just lead to displaced parking problems elsewhere.

[REDACTED] has suggested the following in terms of communications., A leaflet drop advertising the exhibitions and giving information to residents. Leaflets and posters at local Libraries, community centres, doctors' /dentists' surgeries. The political parties should advertise the dates too but unfortunately residents in King's Hedges (which involves half of Milton Road) don't seem to get these -No problem West Chesterton where the voting is tighter. I don't know the situation in East Chesterton. Posters at bus stops.

Distributing leaflets to houses is the obvious way to distribute. Anything else is going to be problematical.

There are lessons to be learnt from the Milton Road Project. This started off fairly disastrously but there is now a good relationship between residents associations and the project. [REDACTED] deserves a lot of credit for building good relationships in an [REDACTED] role and the project has actually take on board with what residents have suggested. There has been a cost to the project to do this but I think that the benefits in terms of quality of outcome have been immeasurable. Having someone as a residents contact is essential. Although I am kind of reporting back it maybe useful to have a presentations to residents association members and other key stakeholders. The Milton Road project has had various Local Liaison Forums and this could be a model to use.

In terms of area I think what you suggest is about right although I think that Hurst Park Estate would also like to be included. I might include West Chesterton and an exhibition at Chesterton Community College.

In terms of electronic communication I would add that I am struggling to find documents amongst council papers and we need a webpage with links to the documents of interest to residents. The residents associations do have some social media, but many residents don't really engage with this, although if you can provide content it can be distributed. I assume you could use things like Facebook advertising to send information by location, but I don't imagine it would be cheap.

Noise
There doesn't seem to be much recognition of noise as a problem. As the development is right next to the A14 this is something that needs to be addressed. It is something people living at Orchard Park often comment on. The only solution I can see is having noise barriers which really work, but the last I heard the about the barriers for Milton Country Park was that they did not look like materialising. The danger is that this is a downshift on quality of life before we have even started.

Buses
It is difficult to see how there can be other than a minimal bus service unless local government has some control over the service, as in London. There is often talk of the Mayoralty having powers in this respect, but unless it can be sorted out properly beforehand, when there is some leverage, then this aspect of the project is probably doomed.

Cycling
One would hope that cycling provision is designed into the plans coherently in all respects from the outset. Even on completely new developments it seems that the cycling facilities are fitted around everything else, as an afterthought, so are not properly linked together. The lack of proper bike routes to The Triangle and Station bike parks would be an example.

Assuming that this can be sorted out then you need to think about improvements to cycle provision across the board so that people can make entire trips across Cambridge with ease. Although improvements are being made it is generally where it is easy, such as Arbury Road, rather than where it is necessary, e.g. East Road roundabout.

Another problem is lack of decent lighting on cycle routes, even when they are new and purpose built. The cycle track next to the guided bus on Kings Hedges Road is treacherous at night as it is pitch black. The Arbury Park cycle path is currently being built but The County are refusing to provide decent lighting on it.

Height of Development
I think we have apprehensions about high buildings and we will need some convincing. Certainly, one can point to areas of say, Berlin and Paris, where buildings of 5 stories combine good communities, independent shops, decent parks and play areas. Unfortunately, CB1 has not delivered the advertised quality of life for many people and it seems that this country, for whatever reasons, is very poor at achieving what is desired. I was at Limehouse Marina this week and it was a like a ghost town. It would be good to have some examples where this has worked for new build in this country and why.

The danger is that high developments attract transient populations which are not conductive to new communities or long term families.

Something to consider is that once you have the required space between buildings etc. the overall density is not as much more than medium densities. There are also micro climate affects to consider such as shading and cold winds being dragged down to street level.

I think most would agree that decent independent shops would be part of the mix. However, expensive new shops will likely just be small clone towns. Leases need to be cheap and controlled by the council as this is the only way you will get independent shops.

Hotels
I would be apprehensive about having hotels as the architectural quality of new hotels in Cambridge has been dreadful. If it is easy to rectify this one would ask why is the proposed hotel by the Grafton Centre as dreadful as all the others?

Car Traffic
No doubt there will be a lot of debate about this but, as I mentioned in my previous email, we need to avoid management by wishful thinking. The Centre Parcs approach of having cars stored on the periphery of the development directed away from the city centre may be worth considering, but it is always tricky doing things with concrete which haven't been tried before. We must be wary of things being superficially sugar coated, such as calling a multi-storey car park a car barn, although I see that it is for residents to keep cars in and there is a distinction there.

Safety
If people are going to walk then the environment must not only be safe but be perceived by them to be so by the inhabitants. We assume that there is a body of knowledge that can be used to implement this. There is an issue locally that the council have significantly cut the level of street lighting to save money and most people think that it is now completely inadequate. There will need to be a level of lighting that people are genuinely happy with which will need to be much more than the current council "standard".

Milton Road Project
There has been a Cost Benefit Analysis of the Milton Road Project. How does this fit in with the Northern Fringe? As the latter is not yet certain it is not clear why there have not been 2 variations of the CBA for with and without The Fringe. It is not clear why the extra traffic from the Fringe does not undermine the case for faster buses. Equally, the volume of cyclists, (operating at a suspiciously fast speed), may be dependent on The Fringe. It is not clear if the volume of buses required can be accommodated or how the whole Milton Road Project fits in with The Fringe as it pre-dates it.

Community Facilities
These are, hopefully, a given and the new community centre at Eddington is impressive. We would hope this is the kind of thing which is possible and that it can be done without University involvement.

Insulation
I think a carbon reduction of 19% on current regulations is too lacking in ambition and too open to being gamed. I think we should be aiming at the Passivhaus standards of being almost completely insulated. After all these houses will, hopefully, still be standing in 2050 when the aspiration is for zero emissions.

I haven't managed to find the Consultation Strategy Document but I am making some comments based on your email. Firstly, I would like to say that we welcome the initiative that you are taking to consult with local residents.

I don't think it is anyone's fault but I don't think that the project has really been noticed much by local residents despite several articles in local newspapers. It is a bit like IT projects where given a blank piece of paper people don't know what they want, but faced with the actual system can definitely say they don't like it. I think what is happening needs to be articulated in the way of more concrete examples, although I appreciate this is difficult.

I don't think the scale of the project has been really expressed. The number of homes represents a development the size of Ely, but this is not the impression that really comes across. The consultation needs to address the issues which are likely to be of most interest to residents such as:
* Impact on traffic congestion and transport. This is going to be a big worry.
* Impact on services, such as medical services and local schools.
* Quality of architecture, is this going to anonymous architecture that could be anywhere in the world. Will it just be very high flats?
* Quality of life for the inhabitants and community.
* Sense of identity and place.
* Provision of genuinely affordable housing, not based on the official definition.

Residents will be as interested in how the objectives of the development will be attained as much as what they are. Developers wriggling out of undertakings to provide good communal space, quality of build and basic infrastructure have been the norm rather than the exception. Issues around The Station Square, The Marque and Cambourne Secondary School are just the tip of the iceberg. There needs to be detail on how these kinds of problems can be prevented.

Related to this, objectives need to have metrics which can be measured and enforced. A developer in Cambridge considered that having a shed in the garden was sustainable housing and this kind of rhetoric is very cheap. It needs to be things like, say, "Heating needs to be reduced by 75% compared to existing standards".

There is a concern that, for instance, it is assumed that traffic on the development will be low because owners cannot have cars. However, this may not work if other people in the houses have cars and owners use cars registered to family members who live elsewhere. There needs to be explanation of how critical measures are really going to work. Not allowing off street parking may not mean fewer cars. Unless there is a completely watertight ban on cars then having no off road parking will just lead to displaced parking problems elsewhere.

[REDACTED] has suggested the following in terms of communications., A leaflet drop advertising the exhibitions and giving information to residents. Leaflets and posters at local Libraries, community centres, doctors' /dentists' surgeries. The political parties should advertise the dates too but unfortunately residents in King's Hedges (which involves half of Milton Road) don't seem to get these -No problem West Chesterton where the voting is tighter. I don't know the situation in East Chesterton. Posters at bus stops.

Distributing leaflets to houses is the obvious way to distribute. Anything else is going to be problematical.

There are lessons to be learnt from the Milton Road Project. This started off fairly disastrously but there is now a good relationship between residents associations and the project. [REDACTED] deserves a lot of credit for building good relationships in an [REDACTED] role and the project has actually take on board with what residents have suggested. There has been a cost to the project to do this but I think that the benefits in terms of quality of outcome have been immeasurable. Having someone as a residents contact is essential. Although I am kind of reporting back it maybe useful to have a presentations to residents association members and other key stakeholders. The Milton Road project has had various Local Liaison Forums and this could be a model to use.

In terms of area I think what you suggest is about right although I think that Hurst Park Estate would also like to be included. I might include West Chesterton and an exhibition at Chesterton Community College.

In terms of electronic communication I would add that I am struggling to find documents amongst council papers and we need a webpage with links to the documents of interest to residents. The residents associations do have some social media, but many residents don't really engage with this, although if you can provide content it can be distributed. I assume you could use things like Facebook advertising to send information by location, but I don't imagine it would be cheap.

Noise
There doesn't seem to be much recognition of noise as a problem. As the development is right next to the A14 this is something that needs to be addressed. It is something people living at Orchard Park often comment on. The only solution I can see is having noise barriers which really work, but the last I heard the about the barriers for Milton Country Park was that they did not look like materialising. The danger is that this is a downshift on quality of life before we have even started.

Buses
It is difficult to see how there can be other than a minimal bus service unless local government has some control over the service, as in London. There is often talk of the Mayoralty having powers in this respect, but unless it can be sorted out properly beforehand, when there is some leverage, then this aspect of the project is probably doomed.

Cycling
One would hope that cycling provision is designed into the plans coherently in all respects from the outset. Even on completely new developments it seems that the cycling facilities are fitted around everything else, as an afterthought, so are not properly linked together. The lack of proper bike routes to The Triangle and Station bike parks would be an example.

Assuming that this can be sorted out then you need to think about improvements to cycle provision across the board so that people can make entire trips across Cambridge with ease. Although improvements are being made it is generally where it is easy, such as Arbury Road, rather than where it is necessary, e.g. East Road roundabout.

Another problem is lack of decent lighting on cycle routes, even when they are new and purpose built. The cycle track next to the guided bus on Kings Hedges Road is treacherous at night as it is pitch black. The Arbury Park cycle path is currently being built but The County are refusing to provide decent lighting on it.

Height of Development
I think we have apprehensions about high buildings and we will need some convincing. Certainly, one can point to areas of say, Berlin and Paris, where buildings of 5 stories combine good communities, independent shops, decent parks and play areas. Unfortunately, CB1 has not delivered the advertised quality of life for many people and it seems that this country, for whatever reasons, is very poor at achieving what is desired. I was at Limehouse Marina this week and it was a like a ghost town. It would be good to have some examples where this has worked for new build in this country and why.

The danger is that high developments attract transient populations which are not conductive to new communities or long term families.

Something to consider is that once you have the required space between buildings etc. the overall density is not as much more than medium densities. There are also micro climate affects to consider such as shading and cold winds being dragged down to street level.

I think most would agree that decent independent shops would be part of the mix. However, expensive new shops will likely just be small clone towns. Leases need to be cheap and controlled by the council as this is the only way you will get independent shops.

Hotels
I would be apprehensive about having hotels as the architectural quality of new hotels in Cambridge has been dreadful. If it is easy to rectify this one would ask why is the proposed hotel by the Grafton Centre as dreadful as all the others?

Car Traffic
No doubt there will be a lot of debate about this but, as I mentioned in my previous email, we need to avoid management by wishful thinking. The Centre Parcs approach of having cars stored on the periphery of the development directed away from the city centre may be worth considering, but it is always tricky doing things with concrete which haven't been tried before. We must be wary of things being superficially sugar coated, such as calling a multi-storey car park a car barn, although I see that it is for residents to keep cars in and there is a distinction there.

Safety
If people are going to walk then the environment must not only be safe but be perceived by them to be so by the inhabitants. We assume that there is a body of knowledge that can be used to implement this. There is an issue locally that the council have significantly cut the level of street lighting to save money and most people think that it is now completely inadequate. There will need to be a level of lighting that people are genuinely happy with which will need to be much more than the current council "standard".

Milton Road Project
There has been a Cost Benefit Analysis of the Milton Road Project. How does this fit in with the Northern Fringe? As the latter is not yet certain it is not clear why there have not been 2 variations of the CBA for with and without The Fringe. It is not clear why the extra traffic from the Fringe does not undermine the case for faster buses. Equally, the volume of cyclists, (operating at a suspiciously fast speed), may be dependent on The Fringe. It is not clear if the volume of buses required can be accommodated or how the whole Milton Road Project fits in with The Fringe as it pre-dates it.

Community Facilities
These are, hopefully, a given and the new community centre at Eddington is impressive. We would hope this is the kind of thing which is possible and that it can be done without University involvement.

Insulation
I think a carbon reduction of 19% on current regulations is too lacking in ambition and too open to being gamed. I think we should be aiming at the Passivhaus standards of being almost completely insulated. After all these houses will, hopefully, still be standing in 2050 when the aspiration is for zero emissions.

One of the major constraints is the ability to relocate the sewage works; so far I have found no discussion of to where they would be relocated, or anything about the issues involved in the relocation (e.g. what areas of land would need to be dug up for the installation of pipework).

In considering sites for any such relocation, thought needs to be given to: the vertical height difference between the current location and the new; adverse effects on communities near the new site; flood risk to the new site; adverse effect on the green belt and the environment.

The issue of the active level crossing and how that constrains rail traffic through Cambridge North should be considered.

Can't think of anything else

You have identified them but I am very concerned about the land contamination (especially as I now know permission has been granted to move the Water Recycling Plant)

Thank you for your consultation in respect of the above document. As the
Government's adviser on the historic environment Historic England is keen to ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully taken into account at all stages and levels of the local planning process.

Historic England is primarily concerned with the historic environment and from an examination of our records it is clear that there are no designated heritage assets within, or immediately adjacent to, the area covered by the proposed Area Action Plan (AAP). However, depending on the scale of new buildings on the site, there is the potential for development of this area to impact on the setting of nearby heritage assets. Those include assets located within the historic core of Cambridge, the character and appearance of the central conservation area (and in particular the eastern arm that extends along the river corridor immediately to the south of this site) and the conservation area of Fen Ditton to the east of the site, including the wider setting of the many listed buildings that lie within that conservation area.

Our detailed comments are listed below by paragraph/question/figure.

Glossary - Historic Environment typo - time rather than tine. We also suggest the
addition of a definition for Conservation Areas.

Paragraph 4.14 We welcome this section on townscape and landscape. We welcome the requirement to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance the overall character and qualities of the townscape and skyline of Cambridge as the city continues to develop into the future. We suggest that the Cambridge Central and Fen Ditton Conservation Areas are specifically mentioned in this paragraph. As set out above, development of this area has the potential to impact upon the wider settings of these conservation areas.

Question 6 Overarching Objectives. Whilst we broadly welcome the overarching objectives for NEC, there is no mention of the Historic Environment and in particular
the conservation areas and listed buildings/townscape and skyline. Some reference to the historic environment needs to be included in the objectives. Objective 9 could
also benefit from adding reference the need for development to draw on to local
vernacular/buildings materials etc.

Question 15 of the document asks should clusters of taller buildings around areas of
high accessibility including district and local centres and transport stops form part of a design-led approach to this new city district. We would broadly support higher density development around transport interchanges and district or local centres. However, the consultation refers to appropriate building heights with no mention of what height might be considered appropriate. 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. It is therefore difficult to objectively comment on the potential impact of taller buildings. You will be aware that we had considerable input into the Local Plan policy for tall buildings. We commend the approach set out in the Local Plan to this situation. We note that page 82 indicates that a Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment is to be completed. This work might help to inform an appropriate strategy in this regard. The impact of tall buildings on the Conservation Areas, listed buildings, townscape and wider skyline will require careful consideration.

We can comment that it is likely that new buildings of similar heights to those on the
existing Cambridge Business Park would not adversely impact on the setting of nearby heritage assets. However, the new Cambridge North 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 (and in particular the eastward arm that extends along the river corridor to the south of this site), the Fen Ditton conservation area to the east and the setting of listed buildings within both conservation areas. Without a robust evidence base Historic England is unable to support a more flexible approach to the issue of building heights within the AAP.

Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided
by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

If you have any questions with regards to the comments made then please do get back to me. In the meantime we look forward to continuing to work with you and your
colleagues.

Thank you for consulting Natural England on the above in your email of 11 February 2019. Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Natural England has no objection to the proposed regeneration of the North East Cambridge (NEC) Area, the principle of which is established in the recently adopted Local Plans. However, this is subject to the inclusion of robust policies within the Area Action Plan (AAP) to ensure delivery of a truly sustainable development including provision of strategic high quality multifunctional open space, with a long-term management strategy, to meet the needs of people and wildlife. We would expect the scale of development to deliver a green infrastructure network along the lines of similar developments elsewhere such as Cambourne, Trumpington Meadows and Waterbeach New Town. Development through the AAP should be guided by an established green infrastructure and biodiversity framework to ensure the NEC Area is capable of delivering the range of environmental services and natural capital required to meet the needs of the scale and nature of proposed development.

We note that the planning process for the future location of the Water Recycling Centre is outside the scope of this AAP and that this will be progressed by the County Council as the Local Planning Authority for waste matters.

Natural England welcomes proposals to undertake further environmental assessment work to inform preparation of the AAP, including air quality and noise assessments and habitat surveys. Whilst the majority of the NEC Area is brownfield land it supports significant local biodiversity interest and opportunities for enhancement. Advice should be sought from relevant sources including the Council ecologists and the Wildlife Trusts. Retention of all existing biodiversity interest and identification of opportunities for environmental enhancement should be a priority for the development of the green infrastructure and biodiversity framework and long-term enhancement and management strategy for the AAP.

The NEC Area Today
Figure 4.8 shows the extent of existing green and blue Infrastructure across the NEC area. However, we believe there may be additional areas of green infrastructure that are not included on the map. This should be confirmed and amended if necessary through the proposed ecological survey work.

We welcome recognition of ecological constraints in section 4.13; however, these are positives, not negatives, and should be seen as significant areas for retention and enhancement and the focus for development of a green infrastructure and biodiversity framework for the AAP. The AAP provides a unique opportunity for the enhancement, extension and improved connectivity of areas such as Bramblefields Local Nature Reserve (LNR), the protected hedgerow on the east side of Cowley Road (City Wildlife Site) and the First Public Drain wildlife corridor and other habitats including ponds and areas of woodland, scrub and grassland. The AAP should take every opportunity to retain and enhance as much of the natural environment as possible and to provide biodiversity rich green corridors across the site and beyond.

Section 4.20 and 4.22 acknowledge the requirement to deal with potential contaminated land and other environmental issues such as minimising light pollution which we fully support.

Vision and Strategic Objectives
Natural England supports the AAP vision and objectives for 'a socially and economically inclusive, thriving, and low carbon place for innovative living and working; inherently walkable where everything is on your doorstep'. We welcome the objective for green spaces to be a core part of the place structure extending, connecting and improving biodiversity to achieve a net gain and integrating Sustainable Drainage Systems within the development. As mentioned above, we believe the AAP should be developed around a robust green infrastructure framework for the site to ensure delivery of the full range of environmental services required to meet the needs of the proposed scale and nature of development: recreation, health and well-being, biodiversity, landscape, drainage, flood management, sustainable travel, climate change and adaptation. We note the following statement:

"Green infrastructure capitalises on the network of existing trees and landscape but also extends this to create an overall framework to improve biodiversity and linkages to the wider countryside. Embedded into this framework will be the water management network that improves the First Drain and adds richness to the landscape. A new green space at a district scale will enrich the heart of this new place and provide the kind of multifunctional space that is so typical of Cambridge and central to public life."

Whilst we fully support the above we would expect a development of this magnitude to deliver significantly greater than 'district scale' green infrastructure, although we are unclear what this really means. We have provided further advice on green infrastructure provision below.

Place Making
Sections 6.14 and 6.15 discuss creating a healthy community which we fully support. Our advice is that a strategic level of high quality greenspace provision will be key to creating a healthy community and enhancing people's physical and mental wellbeing. The extent of accessible natural greenspace provision (i.e. excluding formal sports areas) should be proportionate to the scale of development, for example 8ha 11000 population is advocated through the Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) guidance to meet people's needs and protect more sensitive designated sites such as Stow-cum-Quy Fen Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Wicken Fen SSSI, Ramsar site. Whilst quantity of provision should be broadly aligned with SANGS guidance, green infrastructure design should seek to achieve the Natural England Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards, detailed in Nature Nearby, including the minimum standard of 2ha informal open space within 300m of everyone's home.

Further consideration should also be given to significantly enhanced green infrastructure corridors to improve connectivity of green infrastructure within the site and beyond, including green linkages with Milton Country Park. Green infrastructure provision should seek to contribute towards the delivery of the objectives of the Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy for habitat enhancement and improved connectivity. The AAP should not rely on existing green space such as Milton Country Park to meet people's recreational needs; the AAP should seek provision of similar area of open space to complement and connect the Country Park.

Natural England agrees that the development of the NEC Area presents an opportunity to create a new network of streets and open spaces that will support and improve movement of people throughout the area. Creation of sufficient informal open space for outdoor recreation, enjoyment of the countryside, walking, cycling and adequate public transport provision will be critical to this. A network of green corridors should provide connectivity to areas off site including the Country Park, the Chisholm Trail and Waterbeach Greenways.

We note and welcome Option C to upgrade connections to Milton Country Park by both foot and cycle, including improving access to the Jane Coston Bridge, the Waterbeach Greenway project including a new access under the A 14. We would welcome consideration of options for a crossing of the railway line and the use of green bridges.

Issue: Green Space provision - Natural England advises that this needs to be addressed through a combination of options A -F to provide strategic high quality, biodiversity-rich multi-functional greenspace. This should seek to meet SANGS standards and be connected through substantial green corridors to open spaces across the site and beyond, including connectivity with Milton Country Park, Waterbeach Greenways and the Chisholm Trail, as discussed above.

Transport
Natural England advocates a focus on sustainable, non-car travel including cycling, walking and public transport.

Retail, Leisure and Community Services & Facilities
We welcome recognition of the multi-functional benefits of open space provision including biodiversity enhancement, landscape, drainage, flood management and health and wellbeing. A development of this scale should provide open space to accommodate formal and informal requirements: informal open space in accordance with SANGS, as discussed above, to provide biodiversity net gain and meet people's informal recreation, physical and mental health needs.

Climate change
We support proposals to contribute towards mitigating and adapting to climate change including the application of sustainable design and construction standards detailed in section 11.7. Natural England welcomes proposals outlined in section 11.14 for policies to integrate a SUDs network into the Fen edge landscape that could help to enhance opportunities for specified species as well as providing a sense of place.

Biodiversity
Natural England supports proposals to achieve measurable biodiversity net gain in accordance with national planning guidance and the Defra 25 Year Environment Plan. Natural England advises that the Council's should not simply strive to meet this target, through encouragement of quick wins such as green roof provision; the AAP should ensure significant long-term gains through development of a biodiversity and green infrastructure framework, delivery and long-term management strategy for the area, to guide wider development. Ecological surveys should identify key habitats for retention, buffering and enhancement and opportunities for creation of a wide range of additional habitat to complement, extend and connect existing habitats.

These areas should incorporate a wide range of environmental services including informal open space, landscaping and SUDS provision. The advice of relevant stakeholders including the Council ecologists, Wildlife Trust and Natural England should be sought on the preparation of a Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure Strategy and its delivery secured through robust plan policies.

Please note that Natural England's Impact Risk Zones (IRZs) have been published since this site was originally allocated for development in the Local Plan, a number of years ago. The IRZs are currently being updated to take into account evidence for recreational pressure risks to designated sites such as Stow-cum-Quy Fen and Wicken Fen. The provision of adequate level and quality of alternative accessible open space within large developments is crucial to mitigating the adverse effects of those developments, through increased recreational pressure, to sensitive designated sites.

We note the statement in section 11.17 that off site improvements may be required if biodiversity net gain cannot be fully achieved on site. Whilst we welcome this we believe that a development of this scale can deliver significant biodiversity net gain within the area boundary subject to proper planning and design from the outset.

Implementation and Delivery
We note and welcome the proposal to prepare a North East Cambridge Infrastructure Delivery Plan to provide a broad assessment of the social and physical infrastructure needed to support the planned development and regeneration of NEC and how these requirements could be met. Natural England advises that this should include identification of green infrastructure needed to deliver the range of environmental services required by the development including recreation, drainage, landscape and biodiversity enhancements.
Natural England supports the intention through the AAP to put in place a Section 106 regime to ensure all proposed developments across NEC contribute equitably to the provision and/or funding of all appropriate infrastructure requirements. We trust that this will include provision of green infrastructure including informal open space and biodiversity.

Interim Sustainability Appraisal
Natural England is satisfied that the Interim Sustainability Appraisal (SA) objectives and framework generally accord with the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Regulations. The SA seeks to address the effects of the AAP on key aspects of the natural environment including designated sites, biodiversity, landscape, green infrastructure and soils. The assessment and recommendations / mitigation will need to be updated as the AAP policies evolve and to take into account the findings and mitigation recommendations of the outstanding environmental assessments.

Other advice: Priority habitats, ecological networks and priority / protected species populations The AAP should be underpinned by up to date environmental evidence including an assessment of existing and potential components of local ecological networks. This assessment should inform the Sustainability Appraisal, ensure that land of least environment value is chosen for development, and that the mitigation hierarchy is followed and inform opportunities for enhancement as well as development requirements for particular sites.

Priority habitats and species are those listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006 and UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP). Further information is available here: Habitats and species of principal importance in England . Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) identify the local action needed to deliver UK targets for habitats and species. They also identify targets for other habitats and species of local importance and can provide a useful blueprint for biodiversity enhancement in any particular area.

Protected species are those species protected under domestic or European law. Further information can be found here Standing advice for protected species. Sites containing watercourses, old buildings, significant hedgerows and substantial trees are possible habitats for protected species. Ecological networks are coherent systems of natural habitats organised across whole landscapes so as to maintain ecological functions. A key principle is to maintain connectivity - to enable free movement and dispersal of wildlife e.g. badger routes, river corridors for the migration of fish and staging posts for migratory birds. Local ecological networks will form a key part of the wider Nature Recovery Network proposed in the 25 Year Environment Plan. Where development is proposed, opportunities should be explored to contribute to the enhancement of ecological networks.

Planning positively for ecological networks will also contribute towards a strategic approach for the creation , protection, enhancement and management of green infrastructure, as identified in paragraph 171 of the NPPF.

Water Quality and Resources and Flood Risk Management
Natural England expects the AAP to consider the strategic impacts on water quality and resources as outlined in paragraph 170 of the NPPF. We would also expect the plan to address flood risk management in line with the paragraphs 155-165 of the NPPF. The AAP should contain policies which protect habitats from water related impacts and where appropriate seek enhancement. Priority for enhancements should be focused on statutorily designated and local sites which contribute to a wider ecological network. The AAP should positively contribute to reducing flood risk by working with natural processes and where possible use Green Infrastructure policies and the provision of SUDs to achieve this.

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 have tried to find how to make a comment about the Northern Fringe consultation to no avail, in the end I have given up and am sending this email.
I found that there is very little information about what is planned and how it is going to look and the people at Brown's Field certainly couldn't tell me anything for certain which makes an awful consultation process. However, I would like to make the following points.

* Do we really need a large town stuck between the A14, Milton Road and Cambridge North? I hear affordable, flats, high storey, working in the same place as living. It just sounds like developer talk and how to get the maximum amount of people into a space for the least money.
* Who will live there? Will the places be affordable to shop staff and cleaners or will they only be affordable to software engineers at the Science Park?
* I was told buildings would be 5 stories high. Isn't this one of the problems with the area around Cambridge Main station. Too many people shoved together leads to too much noise, short term lets, no feeling of place?
* it is very close to the A14 so bound to have lots of pollution, would you like your child to grow up there breathing toxic air?
* ...and noise?
* If people didn't use cars, there would be far more deliveries and hence an increase in larger delivery vans with nowhere unable to park and left on the street when they make deliveries.
* The main exit for all these people would be Milton Road, think what a huge impact that would have, instant congestion.
* there is a distinct lack of buses in Cambridge especially on Milton Road so if destinations were not on the railway network how do they get there?
* Will the Metro be there?
* Cycle paths along Milton Road are being upgraded but will they be suitable for thousands more people? How would you ensure there was coherent cycling in all directions that is safe, wide and well lit?
* The area will need a good community centre (Eddington is a good example) and plenty of open space or people feel trapped and unhealthy.
* For a community to work there has to be a base resident population. For a family of three, one member of the family could work at the Science Park, another could work in Comberton or Chatteris and where would the nearest secondary school be? and how would that person get to Chatteris?
* I suggest you plan the roads well with wide cycle lanes, plenty of walking space with cars and lorries only allowed along the periphery, exceptions being for the disabled BEFORE any bricks are lain and discuss it with the developers. That mistake has been made the main station and already at Cambridge North when the planners built the lovely cycle paths and the developers designed a building that went straight through them.
* The people at the talk were really pleased to say it would be low carbon and there wouldn't be room for parking. Sounds great but you haven't achieved that anywhere else so what makes this place different? I do support the view of fewer cars but I am not sure others do.
Interestingly when I went to Brown's Field to see the stands - I wouldn't call it plans as there were none - I had been asked pick up some leaflets because very few people in the area around the proposed site knew anything about it. The box was very heavy. The officer said to me 'bring your car round and I will put them in the boot'. This off the cuff statement said it all and showed he had no idea of how others got around except by car. I didn't bring a car, I rarely go anywhere by car preferring to walk or bike if possible. But here was an officer who was intent on a car free area but obviously never went anywhere without his car. Sounded like one rule for him and another for everyone else, says it all. Please lead by example.

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.

***Please note that this representation was received after the submission deadline***

Thank you for the leaflet about the North East Cambridge area action
plan, which I picked up on my morning commute from Cambridge North
station. Please find below some feedback. It is structured according to
the question statements in the consultation booklet.

'Do you agree with the proposed vision and broad objectives? What
changes would you make?'

Cambridge needs to be carbon neutral before 2050 if the UK is to meet
it's obligations under the Paris agreement. One major source of CO2
emissions from construction is concrete, released during the production
of concrete. Require that contractors reduce or eliminate the use of
concrete during construction to reduce the carbon footprint of the
development.

Broad objective 1 talks about the economic success of the local area,
and talks about social justice and equality. The social justice and
equality statement deserves its own broad objective.


'Have we identified all the key challenges and constraints? How should
we respond to them?'

Transport and connectivity - this is an equality and social justice
issue. Allowing people to travel by active modes (walking / scooting /
cycling) reduces their household costs. The aim should also be to reduce
the number of cars as a result of the development, not aim for no net
change, because 1) building more roads results in more cars (see various
papers), and 2) cars reduce house prices, health, and increase stress
(see the Appleyard study).


'What sort of homes and jobs should we be planning for?'

Homes that can store multiple bikes, and are not on busy roads but
'home-zone' style roads.


'What are your views on the potential future land uses, including type
and mix? What sort of greenspaces should there be?'

The commons and green corridors (Midsummer, Stourbridge, Ditton,
Grantchester) are heavily used throughout the year for recreation and
commuting. Green corridors will be essential for commuting and for
physical and mental health of new inhabitants. These corridors should be
generous. There will be no option to put them back in once construction
is complete.


'What are your views on the indicative concept plan'

More green corridors. Prioritize over roads. Keep separate from roads.

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?

1. The WTC should not be relocated to a greenbelt or greenfield site, flood risk area or an existing or planned community. Existing rules on safe-guarding must be complied with. If the decision is taken to relocate the WTC to an acceptable brownfield site, CPRE would like assurance that contamination on the vacated site can be fully remediated before development commences.

2.The height and scaling of buildings should be sympathetically arranged to ensure that the view from the East from open countryside and the River Cam towards the development is not compromised.

Air traffic using Cambridge Airport should not be compromised by building heights. The existing Milton Road corridor and community should not be surrounded by overbearing tower blocks or industrial buildings. Nevertheless, the development needs to include suitable employment space, for businesses which may be spawned from the nearby Science Park and St Johns Innovation Centre as well as businesses capable of providing services to those research and development clusters. The area should be developed to reflect this.

3. Air quality, light, and noise pollution should not intrude on or be detrimental to the tranquility of the open countryside and the River Cam corridor. Green space and wildlife corridors should be strategically arranged thoughout the development to enhance biodiversity and for the wellbeing of community. Consideration should be given to creating a green fringe between the River Cam towpath and the development.

4. CPRE supports the use of non motorised vehicular travel. However the towpath along the River Cam should remain predominately an area for pedestrians and those who wish to enjoy the tranquility of the river bank and the Fen Rivers Way that runs along the river bank from Cambridge to Ely in a more leisurely and peaceful fashion. Safeguarding this unique public space and biodiversity should be a priority.

5. The necessary infrastructure and transport links for this development and Waterbeach New Town need to be funded,considered and strategically delivered together as a cohesive plan and not in a piecemeal fashion or to the detriment of surrounding communities.

6. Climate change and water stress need to be fully considered to ensure that the proposed development is sustainable, viable and "future proof" taking into account the availability of water as Sir James Bevan has recently warned:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/escaping-the-jaws-of-death-ensuring-enough-water-in-2050.
Concerns have been raised by local bodies regarding the potential for over extraction of water from the River Cam and local aquifers which are currently licensed at their safe extraction limits. It is feared that over populating the course of the River Cam may hugely exacerbate water stress and have a negative effect on the agricultural businesses that rely on a combination of river water and borehole water to irrigate their crops during the dry summers which charcterise this area.

7. An inclusive approach to community development should be followed which is designed to benefit the new and existing communities, particularly the deprived areas of Arbury and King's Hedges, other existing communities within the proposed AAP boundary and the villages that will sit alongside it.

The Environment Agency welcomes the consultation which re-launches the process we left off in about 2014. We welcome the fact that the AAP is largely starting afresh with issues and options stage.

We also recognise that the context has changed substantially with new planning policy, fresh climate change projections and longer horizons for higher levels of growth in the Non-Statutory Spatial Plan.

As a result we consider that our response to the AAP consultation dated 18 June 2014 is also largely obsolete, and is replaced in full by our advice to this consultation. In summary, our comment s below should be classified as 'comments' (rather than support' or 'object') whilst we await the flood risk evidence base, Water Cycle Study updates and information on how the AAP team plans to working with the County Council and other key partners - see below under joint working.

Evidence Base and Impartiality:
We could not find an up to date Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) or Water Cycle Study (WCS), which are essential evidence base for a development plan of this scale and nature. If any are available (a FRA is mentioned in the AAP), please could these be shared asap, including the consultants briefs - we may then need to update our advice.

A SFRA and WCS is needed to identify realistic and challenging issues and options for the AAP. Whilst we can support an issues and options only consultation on the strength of older SFRA and Water Cycle Studies, we advise that options appraisal, selection and policy formulation will need an up to date evidence base to be considered justified. The LLFA may have a view on this. The Cambridgeshire-wide Water Infrastructure Study currently being considered by the constituent LPAs would be a timely and positive tool to progress the AAP with.

Water companies normally play a lead role in evidence preparation as impartial statutory undertakers of water infrastructure. This AAP site is somewhat unusual in that the water company is also the primary landowner/developer promoting reuse of the site with substantial commercial advantage. Anglian Water also states that there is no operational reason to move Milton WRC. OFWAT has some rules around this. As environmental regulator, the Environment Agency has a role to be satisfied that our interaction in this process is managed with propriety, and in recognition that Anglian Water is also the sole provider of the relevant water infrastructure in the area. We would like to discuss and agree our respective ways of working so that we can manage this interaction consistently and maintain the necessary impartiality.

Joint working
We welcome the consultation on the Issues and Options, and see this as the kick starting of a process of ongoing and meaningful consultation with neighbouring LPAs, the Minerals and Waste LPA, Natural England and the Environment Agency (amongst others) as prescribed bodies in the Localism Act 2011.

The Environment Agency can help to scope and inform the relevant evidence base and plan the overlap with future flood risk management and environment permitting regimes for waste, water quality and water abstraction. We can also help ensure some related consistency with other local plan documents such as the emerging Minerals and Waste Plan.

We are especially mindful of the extent of overlap with the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority who are preparing a Minerals and Waste Local Plan on broadly the same timescales/trajectory. Therefore the scope and importance of joint working to ensure consistency is especially important. There is also scope for important matters to 'fall between the stalls', so we are keen to support the duty to cooperate process to help ensure that both plans are reflective of overlap and sound in evidence and approach. There is of course scope for joint evidence base preparation to make this process efficient and facilitate joined up planning, which we support.

SEA Report:

We appreciate that the SA is in interim stage and welcome the consultation.
We welcome the fact that primary sustainability objectives relate to ensuring that the protection of people and wildlife from flooding and pollution is sustained and improved. Climate change is also listed as a long term context to plan for.
We consider this especially important for the context because the sole purpose of the existing site is to protect people and wildlife from flooding and serious health risks from the Cambridge's foul water.

Clearly, displacing that infrastructure poses an enormous potential risk to the sustainability of Cambridge and the River Cam. A redevelopment is a once in a few generations opportunity to sustainably plan the relocation. Given the scale of the risks, all options should be robustly tested with a high degree of certainty before the AAP commits to irreversible directions or decisions. We therefore recommend that suitable weight is afforded to these water, health and climate change objectives, and that the AAP tackles the relocation and related phasing.

SEA: Missing Issue: Relocation options and implications

There is a section aimed at relocating existing industrial uses, but no apparent substantive consideration of the issues, options and impacts of relocating Milton WRC itself. This is most likely to be the biggest direct and indirect water impact of all, and is a highly significant impact in any event, pre-mitigation. Our advice is very clearly that the impact of relocation is potentially highly significant, and that is falls to be appraised as an impact arising from the plan. It also features cumulative effects with other projects, such as Waterbeach New Town. The SEA/SA should address this.

We believe that there is also a duty to cooperate with the minerals and Waste LPA, South Cambridgeshire and environment regulators - ideally in the same forum, and on an ongoing basis. This would help enable sound plans and Sustainability Appraisal, whilst ensuring a realistic delivery process. We look forward to working with your authority to this end.

We advise similarly with the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) which has more detailed assessment to consider habitat and species specific potential impacts arising. There is also strong potential for impacts on the Cam Washes SSSI - again cumulative assessment should be carried out with nearby projects such as the Waterbeach New Town.

4.1 The existing site: constraints and opportunities

Climate change section

The draft AAP is located within Flood Zone 1 but on the edge of Flood Zone 2. The railway line appears to provide a barrier to flood waters entering the development site from the River Cam. However, the First Public Drain runs across the site and enters the River Cam to the east and north of the site. The Sustainability Appraisal has identified that there is some surface water flood risk within the site and states that this risk can be mitigated against through good design and careful master planning. We consider that opportunities should be sought to reduce flood risk both on the site and elsewhere through the use of sustainable drainage systems. The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) should be consulted at an early stage on the design of any proposed surface water drainage scheme to ensure that such opportunities are incorporated into the design.

We consider that an assessment of the impacts of climate change on flood risk associated with the River Cam should be undertaken to ensure the proposed development will not be at risk of flooding from the River Cam in the future. Please note that the climate change allowances shown in our 'Flood risk assessment: climate change allowances' guidance on the gov.uk website will be updated later in 2019 following the publication of the UKCP18 projections, which have replaced the UKCP09 projections.

As our hydraulic model covering the River Cam does not include appropriate climate change allowances, we would expect detailed modelling of the River Cam to be undertaken as part of any flood risk assessment to assess the impact of climate change on flood risk at the site. The revised climate change allowances will also need to be used to assess the impact of climate change on any proposed surface water drainage scheme.

Chapter 11 focuses on sustainable design in relation to carbon reduction rather than sustainable drainage systems.

The section on 'Site Wide Approaches to Sustainable Design and Construction' makes reference to taking an integrated approach to water management which should give consideration to reducing flood risk. In addition to supporting this approach, we consider that there should be greater emphasis in this section on the importance of taking a site wide approach to integrated water management from the outset, rather than developers retrofitting water as an afterthought.

Context to site groundwater

The majority of the North East Cambridge site (middle and eastern parts) is underlain by superficial deposits comprising of sands and gravels which are designated as a Secondary A aquifer. Secondary aquifers are permeable geological strata capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale, and form an important source of base flow to rivers, wetlands and lakes and private water supplies in rural areas. The Secondary A aquifer is underlain by Gault Clay Formation which is designated as unproductive stratum. A small part of the site (between Cambridge North Station and the River Cam) is underlain by bedrock geology (West Melbury Marly Chalk), designated as a Principal Aquifer which underlies the Secondary A aquifer. Principal aquifers are geological strata that exhibit high permeability and provide a high level of water storage. They support water supply and river base flow on a strategic scale. Based on previous reviews of other planning applications for sites located within the wider North East Cambridge Area, we are aware that groundwater is shallow beneath the site. The area is not located within a groundwater source protection zone. We are aware of one groundwater abstraction, located approximately 1 Km west of the site, used for agricultural purposes. The soils across the area have varying degrees of permeability meaning that they could readily transmit pollutants to groundwater. The River Cam is located approximately 250 metres south east of the site. We consider the current uses of the site, including the presence of Anglian Water's Water Recycling Centre (WRC) currently occupying approximately 40% of the eastern part of the area, Cambridge Science Park, St Johns Innovation Centre and Cambridge Business Park and the site's location and adjacent to railway lines to be potentially contaminative. Furthermore, there is an active landfill site (Milton Landfill Site) located within 100 metres of the northern site boundary.

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

The site boundary obviously only covers the re-development itself, but currently makes no provision for the relocation of the Milton WwTW. This means that the issues, options, impacts, merits, mitigation and phasing for the plan cannot be assessed or planned. It also means that the scope for a successful duty to cooperate with the Minerals and Waste LPA is prohibited to such an extent that the AAP could be considered unsound. This is particularly significant in the context of an absence of any Milton relocation provision or overlap with the emerging consultation draft Minerals and Waste Local Plan, which shares a similar timetable, but runs ahead.

The Environment Agency finds it unorthodox that both plans (The Northern Fringe AAP and Minerals and Waste Local Plan) are progressing without having had conversations with statutory consultees or apparent evidence base around the Duty to Cooperate, when these plans have enormous potential to overlap and impact locally. We would welcome a rapid commencement of such discussions and ongoing cooperation. A resolution of this point would help partners to agree and justify what the scope and boundary of the respective plans should be.

Paragraph 3.6 states the reasons why the area of land to the east of the rail line is not included within the AAP area. Although we support the exclusion of this area from the developable area of the site, due to the flood risk posed by the River Cam, there may be benefits in including this area of land within the AAP boundary.

This area contains some existing 'highly vulnerable' development (i.e. caravans intended for permanent residential use) within flood risk areas. The AAP could therefore be a mechanism to provide wider community flood risk benefits though the provision of mitigation measures that reduce the flood risk to existing developments and make them more resilient to the future impacts of climate change (e.g. though the provision of floodplain storage areas on the edge of the existing floodplain).

The consultation document frequently uses riverside examples to illustrate the AAP's vision or the options presented. This indicates that the water environment is a key consideration and we therefore consider that the river corridor should be included within the AAP area.

On the basis of the above comments, we strongly recommend that the addition of this area of land within the AAP boundary is considered. Even though it will not add any additional developable area, it will allow for a strategic framework to be put in place for the management of flood risks impacts on the local community and the transport infrastructure.

Question 4: Have we identified all relevant constraints present on, or affecting, the North East Cambridge area?

Flood risk/Drainage
Climate change allowances have changed (worsened) significantly since the 2014 flood risk assessment. This means that with increased rainfall intensity, the land-take of surface water flooding reduction measures will increase. A review of the FRA should capture this.

Affecting the site is the suitability and feasibility of relocation sites for Milton WRC as could be picked up through an update to the Water Cycle Study (WCS). This is not currently addressed, and can be done so through the broadening of the scope of the AAP and accompanying SEA, HRA and WCS evidence base in cooperation with the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority and relevant statutory consultees.

We look forward to working with the City and District Council on this.

The section on flooding has identified all the relevant flood risk constraints at the development site. The requirement for development to mitigate flood risk through carefully designed sustainable drainage systems and other design measures has been highlighted. We consider that this section should also refer to the need to seek opportunities to reduce flood risk overall through the use of such measures.
Land Contamination
As a significant proportion of the site has previously been developed, we support the approach outlined in paragraph 4.2 (Contamination) of the Issues and Options 2019 Consultation. Potential contamination should be given due consideration together with any impacts of the development on groundwater and surface water quality it may have during construction and operation. We would recommend that Milton Landfill is included as an additional potentially contaminative off-site land use.

It should be included in the Area Action Plan that development proposals will only be permitted where it is demonstrated that the identified contamination is capable of being suitably remediated for the proposed end use.

Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed Vision for the future of the North East Cambridge area? If not, what might you change?

We welcome the vision for the site to include green infrastructure and blue infrastructure generally, and to plan for climate change.

There is a reference to HIF funding and this this would remove the constraint of the WRC occupying the site. Whilst HIF approval is of course helpful, it is the planning system planning for a new facility that also has a significant and rather less certain role to play. We suggest adding this for completeness and to manage expectations. Effective liaison between LPAs and Waste Planning Authorities with Statutory consultees should mitigate the uncertainty we raise, so we suggest adding some wording committing to partnership working.

Question 6: Do you agree with the overarching Objectives? If not, what might you change?

We would add: NEC will enable the relocation of a nationally significant advancement in water recycling that is both resilient to long term climate change and serves the city whilst mitigating the causes and impacts of climate change.

Question 7: Do you support the overall approach shown in the indicative concept plan? Do you have any comments or suggestions to make?

We support the overall approach shown in the indicative concept plan, in particular the use of green infrastructure and a water management network that improves the First Drain. One of the aims of the green infrastructure and water management network should be to reduce flood risk within the site and elsewhere.

Question 24: Within the North East Cambridge area green space can be provided in a number of forms including the following options. Which of the following would you support?

The LLFA will comment on this and the relationship between SUDS.

We would support options A, B and C as these would all provide opportunities for sustainable drainage to be incorporated into the green spaces.

There is the opportunity to improve habitats and ecology within the area through associated improvements to land around the First Public Drain. This will also afford the potential to contribute to wider objectives of water quality improvement in line with the principles of the EU Water Framework Directive.

This will be both in terms of the water quality within the drain (and further downstream within the catchment of the River Cam) and also through habitat creation associated with the vicinity of the drain. This could incorporate any adjoining SuDS which could form strategic green infrastructure within the site offering multi-functional, amenity, rights of way / access and integral Green Infrastructure links.

Question 65: Do you support the plan requiring delivery of site wide approaches to issues such as energy and water?

There is enormous scope for exemplar standards of water use and re-use along with SUDS with Anglian Water being landowners (or through CPO where the Councils bringing land forward), because the necessary implementation, management and aftercare can be written into land transactions. This could provide national excellence in rainwater and grey water harvesting. NB this is not normally achievable due to the complexity of regulation and reluctance/inexperience of landowners to take some ownership. This site provides a unique opportunity to go further than the NW Cambridge site where the Universities' ambition as landowner achieved some acclaimed results.
We should add a caution about SuDs and land contamination: From paragraph 11.13 we understand that SuDS are proposed for surface water management across the site. The Environment Agency supports the use of SuDS where they do not present a risk to controlled waters. The impact of potentially contaminated surface water drainage on the quality of controlled waters across the site should be considered - e.g. Infiltration SuDS in contaminated ground could promote the mobilisation of contaminants and give rise to contamination of groundwater or surface waters. A high level of remediation (and relevant controls) may be required to achieve this. The AAP should make it clear that planning applications (including outline) will need to carry our full investigations prior to planning permission being granted, to verify the locations and characteristics of SuDS. The AAP should be clear that this cannot be left to planning conditions if site layout is to be fixed.

It should also be noted that SuDS may not be applicable in areas where the groundwater level is close to the ground surface. The groundwater level should be assessed in determining the most suitable surface water drainage system for each development.

Deep infiltration SuDS are generally not acceptable in areas where groundwater constitutes a significant resource. The maximum acceptable depth for infiltration SuDS is 2.0 m below ground level, with a minimum of 1.2 m clearance between the base of infiltration SuDS and peak seasonal groundwater levels.

The Environment Agency supports the use of SuDS where they do not present a risk to controlled waters. Infiltration SuDS need to meet the criteria in Groundwater Protection Position Statements G1 and G9 to G13.

Question 66: Are there additional issues we should consider in developing the approach to deliver an exemplar development?

Yes - Integrated Water Management (see imminent CIRIA Guide to Integrated Water Management) to tie together SUDS, GI and water use/re-use in an integrated way on site with innovative management techniques that break the usual barriers to these happening on the ground.

Information about groundwater resources should be included in the Area Action Plan.

We have no further comments at this stage with the information currently available.
Please contact me if you have any clarification or discussion needs arising, and to further the various joint-working with related plans and relocation issues when more is known. We look forward to recommencing the ongoing process of working with your team and relevant partners.

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.

Question 17
A new bridge should be built and it should include a road.

At the moment the Fen Road level-crossing is sometimes closed for 20 minutes
continuously. This prevents emergency services from reaching a critical incident leading to potential loss of life. This imposes a serious negative discrimination against the communities at the north end of Fen Road. A new road bridge is required if the council is to meet its equalities responsibility to this community.

Furthermore, a road bridge will improve access for this community to the new services and facilities, and deliver employment opportunities to this deprived area.

Question 83
The bridge mentioned in point 6.25 "Crossing the railway line" should include road
access to the north end of Fen Road. It would make a valuable positive impact on that community with regards access to the emergency services and employment
opportunities, currently limited by the Fen Road level-crossing.
I believe a 'fast train' serried is needed between Cambridge North, Cambridge and the proposed Cambridge South station. For this to be possible requires the level crossing to be shut permanently. This plan makes it essential to establish alternative access provision for communities and businesses North of the peel crossing and high quality waling, cycling links plus a new Raod bridge are required.

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.

Q2: Paragraph 3.6 of the Issues and Options consultation document is not agreed because this paragraph seems to assume that the AAP reflects not only that the land east of the railway is 'different in character' from the AAP area, (which it is) but that this means it can be treated as a separate entity (which it should not be, because of the issue of the only vehicular access to the area being via the Fen Road level crossing). The proposed boundary should therefore include the vehicular rail crossing on Fen Road as a material constraint on what should be permitted in other parts of the AAP area.

Para 7.6 of the consultationdocument refers to changes taking place in rail use, including increases in the north of the city which will inevitably have the impact of increasing train use of the Fen Road level crossing. These changes require consideration of alternative vehicular access to the area referred to (but then precluded from further consideration) in paras 3.6 and 4.7 of the consultation document

Current rail lobby and Lib Dem policy proposals to close the Fen Road level crossing to motor vehicles wouild leave those homes to the east of the railway along Fen Rd without vehicular access, unless opportunties are left open within the eastern section of the AAP to create an alternative vehicular access

Q3: This section fails to identify clearly the major physical constraints on the eastern part of the AAP area which are constituted by the A14, the railway, and constraining features on the south side including Bramblefields, the allotments, the current boundary with the Trinity Farm trading estate, the guided busway and the public drain, which combine to make Milton Rd and Cowley Rd effectively the only vehicular access to this part of the AAP site. These issues are referred to, but not adequately addressed in para 4.12: 'The NEC area has close connections to the A14 trunk road, and the A10, ..... Highway access to the site is mainly served via local junctions off Milton Road. Nuffield Road Industrial Estate is served fromGreen End Road. Parts of the highway network frequently operate at or nearcapacity, particularly in the morning and evening peaks with queuing and delays prevalent on Milton Road, as well as the A10 and A14, particularly at he Milton Interchange to the north'. But

These features are reduced to 'locational context' whereas they are evidently major physical constraints and should be included, referred to and addressed as such. The inference should be drawn that the eastern AAP site will suffer severe constraints on vehicular access to the site which will significantly constrain what development can take place within the AAP area.

Q4: The issues and options identified in this section fail to recognize either the impermeable physical constraints imposed on the original AAP area by the A14, the railway, the current frontier between Nuffield Rd and Cowley Park guided bus route, and the heavily used and frequently gridlocked Milton Road urban highway; or the fact that Milton Rd provides the only vehicular access to the eastern side of the AAP site Only an act of faith will persuade a reader (or, more importantly, an investor) that these constraints can somehow be addressed by more cycling and walking. Making a virtue out of such 'community cohesion' as this lack of permeability may create, appears to be making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Paragraph 1.13 of the consultation document glosses over contradictions by referencing the Ely to Cambridge Transport study, but this Study does not address the constraints imposed by existing Milton Rd congestion, but only what would be the best development options for the AAP site to minimise transport difficulties. Para 1.13 concedes that 'the Milton Road area is already 'congested', yet it is asserted that the AAP site is 'highly accessible'. The eastern half of the AAP area is only vehicle-accessible via Milton Road. It is therefore by definition 'congested' and not 'highly accessible' . It is not clear that opening up access to the eastern side of the AAP site via Nuffield Rd would improve that situation. An earlier (2002?) proposal to access the eastern side of the site directly from a slip road off the A14 roundabout appears to have been ignored or forgotten.

The 'highway trip budget' proposed is supported 'faut de mieux', but evidence is not forthcoming that development of the eastern part of the site by any combination of residential, commercial or exployment uses can achieve the appropriate level of 'balance' that para 1.12 suggests is required. All uses are likely to have broadly the same consequences in terms of unacceptable levels of congestion unless alternative transport access routes to this part of the site are opened up.

Q5 & Q6: The 'Vision' and 'Objectives' listed constitute a wish-list of desirable aspirations which do not evidently reflect the realities, and particularly the economic or transport realities, of such a heavily constrained site. For example, Objective 5 - integration with surrounding communities - though probably desirable, is likely to be exceptionally difficult to achieve within the eastern part of the AAP area in a context which is so physically constrained, which will be subject to pressures for the community to be extremely self-contained. These constraints are likely to force a high degree of separation on the eastern part of the AAP site, rather than integration with the area surrounding it.

Q14: Cambridge Regional Colege should be a major partner in the development of the AAP site, particularl in respect of the eastern secytion which will require major community develpoment input to achieve a viable community identity, to which CRC could make a significant contribution if it chose to take that responsibility seriously.

Q17: It is important that some form of vehicular mode of crossing the railway is established from within the AAP area, rather than just the cycling and pedestrian bridge proposed in para 6.25. One option would be to establish an access route to the AAP site from the A14 roundabout, and extend this across a bridge to Fen Road . Unless that option is properly considered, it is difficult to attach significance or meaning to the point in para 6.26 of 'an opportunity to reduce the dominance of Milton Rd'. How, if not by introducing an alternative route into and through the AAP site ?. This could also enable reduced pressure on the Fen Rd railway level crossing.

Q25: The chapter on Transport in the Issues and Options consultation paper rests on extremely shaky assumptions and lacks serious supporting evidence that any of the transport proposals being considered in the AAP are attainable. The Ely to Cambridge transport study proposes that 'the development of these sites will need to deliver measures that significantly reduce the car mode share for trips to and from the area through a combination of demand-side mechanisms such as parking restraint, and investment in measures to support non-car transport'. Para 7.2 of the consultation document concedes that 76% of work trips to the North East Cambridge area are currently made by car. There may be 'a real opportunity to improve this situation'; but despite the measures in place in para 7.8, those intended or being undertaken in para 7.5, and those wider improvements listed in para 8.9, the local authorities have not established the actual sustainable transport capacity which these and any other proposed measures will provide either for the Cambridge sub-region as a whole, or for the AAP area in particular, as required by NPPF paras 102,103 and 104 . 'Ambition' such as that referred to in 7.10 in respect of the Mayor's proposals is no substitute for the evidence of what might constitute the optimal possible 'balance' that can actually be achieved in this respect

The local authorities should establish first what sustainable transport capacity exists or can exist, both for this AAP area and for the Cambridge sub-region as a whole, in line with the National Planning Policy Framework

One way to relieve transport pressure on Milton Road could be to create an access to the AAP site directly off the A14 roundabout, which could also provide a bridge across the railway which could relieve the ptressure already experienced by vehicles using the Fen Rd level crossing (see response to qu 17).

Q26: While an ambition to achieve in the AAP area a low share of journeys made by car is supported, very little evidence is presented (or indeed available for comparable developments in our region ?) that this ambition is attainable or compatible with the proposal to develop 8,500 dwellings on the AAP site. Overall sustainable transport levels have never been established on the basis of evidence for the Cambridge sub-region, and until they have been and have been shown to match both existing realities on the ground and what can be sustainable in the future, this aspiration is just that: an aspiration, not evidently attainable

Q27: The 'highway trip budget' proposed is supported. This appears to be the most serious effort that the local aiuthorities have made to 'put transport first' in the the identification of development capacity of sites - an approach which the local authorities should have adopted from the start in identifying and supporting sites for development in their most recent Local Plans by establishing overall sustainable transport capacity across the local authorities' areas and using that information to compare all possible development options.

So this approach is supported 'faut de mieux', despite the fact that evidence is not forthcoming that development of the eastern part of the site by any combination of residential, commercial or employment uses can achieve the appropriate level of 'balance' that para 1.12 suggests is required. While The Ely to Cambridge Transport Study is used to justify a particular balance of uses including substantial residental development, all uses seem likely to have broadly the same consequences in terms of unacceptable levels of congestion of Milton Rd unless alternative transport access routes to this part of the site are opened up. It is not clear why (for example) an alternative access directly off the A14 roundabout has not been given consideration

Q55 & Q56: Responses to these two questions have been linked because both appear to be premised on the same assumption about the economic viability of commercial outlets within the AAP site which are highly questionable. The physical characteristics of the AAP area, and the aspiration (derived to a large extent from that constrained characer) for 'higher levels of internalised trip-making' must surely work against the likelihood of the sort of shopping self-sufficiency which is required to - or could even hope to - 'fully meet local needs' as sought in para 10.1. The record of local shopping centres in Cambridge remaining viable is not robust. It seems extremely unlikely that commercial outlets opetrating within such physical constraints and planning aspirations can hope to be economically viable, much less to be competent to 'fully meet local needs'

Q84: The possibility of moving the activities of Anglian Water away from the AAP site, and the possibility of consolidating their activities on a smaller site, has provided a very welcome stimulus to the local authorities to consider how the whole eastern part of the site might be re-configured. Added stimulus has come from the completion of Cambridge North station, the rerouting of public transport services to visit the new station, and the recent change to enable the City Council and SCDC to act jointly in respect of The eastern part of the AAP development sites.. All this is very welcome and is supported

But the exist ing area is the mess that it is for good reasons, not all of which pertain to the Anglian Water facility being located there, significant though that presence is. Because of its relat ive inaccessibility and the impermeability of its boundaries it is a convenient place to dump less desirable neighbours The area constitutes a hostile environment in itself which invites and encourages various forms of urban detritus: ugly buildings, car parking chaos, roadway congestion, large stretches of land effectively quarantined by lack of proper controls; and transport challenges unmet..

Unfortunately changing such features as Anglian Water Company does not alter the fact that all the original external constraints on the site still apply. These will be exacerbated by any increase in vehicle use of that section of |Milton Road which governs, and is likely to govern, access to the easter part of the AAP site.

Transforming such an unattractive and inherently disadvantaged area into a model of urban regeneration on the scale proposed can only be carried out with a massive investment of financial resources. These are only likely to be forthcoming as part of a level of growth which is fundamentally unattractive to many, and to which it is not evident that Cambridge residents have so far 'signed up' .

So objections are on two broad grounds
1. The inherent difficulties and expense of what is proposed in the 'vision' can only be addressed by raising the resources from levels of urban growth on a wider canvass which local people are unlikely to wish to support
2. The local authorities have not shown that the particular transport challenges which the proposals will pose for Milton Road can be addressed, or will be addressed, until the local authorities achieve a proper understanding of what levels of transport activity the Cambridge sub-region can sustain

We are responding to the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan:
www.cambridge.gov.uk/north-east-cambridge-area-action-plan
We note the overarching objectives under three headings:
1. A place with a strong identity that successfully integrates into Cambridge, bringing economic growth and prosperity that is delivered with social justice and equality.

2. A high quality, healthy, biodiverse place which will be a major contributor to achieving zero carbon in Greater Cambridge by 2050.

3. A City Innovation District which will deliver affordable homes, a diverse range of quality jobs and excellent neighbourhood facilities.

Note that we have not provided answers to Questions 9, 10, 11, 12, 34-54, 57-83.

Question 1: Do you agree with changing the name of the plan to the 'North East Cambridge Area Action Plan'?
The name should identify strongly with "Cambridge". However, we believe this area should also strongly identify as a "transit based" development and thus should be linked to the already well known "Cambridge North" rail and bus stations. The name should reflect this 'transit basis' and be known as the Cambridge North Area Action Plan and ultimately just as "Cambridge North".
In other words
"A place with a strong identity that successfully integrates into Cambridge, bringing economic growth and prosperity that is delivered with social justice and equality.
A high quality, healthy, biodiverse place which will be a major contributor to achieving zero carbon in Greater Cambridge by 2050."
Historic Cambridge must be protected by a series of strong identifiable districts. It must become poly centric.

Issue: North East Cambridge AAP Boundary
Question 2: Is the proposed boundary the most appropriate one for the AAP?
Fen Road East and River Cam towpath has been excluded between the level crossing and the A14 river bridge. This slither of land NE of the AAP (as the map shows clearly) is central to it as access to the river bank will be needed and be carefully managed and planned.

Leaving out the community established along Fen Road East is neither socially inclusive nor inclusive in terms of the physical planning for the AAP.
The success of the new AAP development may well depend on not creating "left behind" communities along its eastern edge.

Issue: The physical characteristics of the North East Cambridge area
Question 3: In this chapter have we correctly identified the physical characteristics of the North East Cambridge area and its surroundings?

Question 4: Have we identified all relevant constraints present on, or affecting, the North East Cambridge area?
Fen Road Level Crossing could become a real problem to train service development. The plan aims for "a high quality, healthy, biodiverse place which will be a major contributor to achieving zero carbon in Greater Cambridge by 2050". Without further train service development that enables more services to serve North Station those aims cannot be met. The level crossing should be closed with pedestrian and cycle traffic diverted by way of the adjacent riverside underpass. Road traffic along Fen Road East should be reversed and diverted by way of a new road that bridges the railway further to the north and crosses the AAP to join Cowley Road. The suggested bridge could be used jointly by the segregated users of bridge suggested in Q17.
Other measures to increase the capacity of Cambridge North Station should be consider such as making platform 2 the terminating platform and platform 3 the through platform with a cross over from platform 2 to the Southbound line close to the South end of the platforms.

Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed Vision for the future of the North East Cambridge area? If not, what might you change?
Yes, agree.

Question 6: Do you agree with the overarching Objectives? If not, what might you change?
Yes, we do agree.

Question 7: Do you support the overall approach shown in the Indicative Concept Plan? Do you have any comments or suggestions to make?
Yes, we do agree.

Question 8: Do you agree that outside of the existing business areas, the eastern part of the North East Cambridge AAP area (i.e. the area east of Milton Road) should provide a higher density mixed use residential led area with intensified employment, relocation of existing industrial uses and other supporting uses?
Yes, we do.
Questions 9 to 12:
No answers provided.

Question 13: Should the AAP require developments in the North East Cambridge AAP area to apply Healthy Towns principles?
Yes, it should together with active travel principles that show the development of pleasantly/interestingly designed footpaths and cycleways centres on North Station.

Question 14: How should the AAP recognise and make best use of the existing and potential new links between the AAP area and the CRC?
Way mark the cycleways paralleling the Busway from the North Station together with a cycleway protected crossing of Milton Road. See question 16 also.

Question 15: Should clusters of taller buildings around areas of high accessibility including district and local centres and transport stops form part of the design-led approach to this new city district?
Yes they should. Places of employment of high quality design should focussed on transport hubs in particular near North stations.

Question 16: Should the AAP include any or a combination of the options below to improve pedestrian and cycling connectivity through the site and to the surrounding area?
A - Create a strong east-west axis to unite Cambridge North Station with Cambridge Science Park across Milton Road. This pedestrian and cycle corridor would be integrated into the wider green infrastructure network to create a pleasant and enjoyable route for people to travel through and around the site. The route could also allow other sustainable forms of transport to connect across Milton Road.
B - Improve north-south movement between the Cowley Road part of the site and Nuffield Road. Through the redevelopment of the Nuffield Road area of NEC, it will be important that new and existing residents have convenient and safe pedestrian and cycle access to the services and facilities that will be provided as part of the wider North East Cambridge area proposals.
C - Upgrade connections to Milton Country Park by both foot and cycle. This would include improving access to the Jane Coston Bridge over the A14, the Waterbeach Greenway project including a new access under the A14 (see Transport Chapter), as well as the existing underpass along the river towpath.
D - Provide another Cambridge Guided Bus stop to serve a new District Centre located to the east side of Milton Road.
E - Increase ease of movement across the sites by opening up opportunities to walk and cycle through areas where this is currently difficult, for example Cambridge Business Park and the Cambridge Science Park improving access to the Kings Hedges and East Chesterton areas as well as the City beyond.
Yes to all of A,B,C,D....bearing in mind the importance of focusing on North Stations as the primary transport hub.
E. Cambridge Business Park is of particular significance as it has effectively "turned its back" to all sustainable transport facilities. It is effectively a gated and 'policed' community that is inaccessible to public transport users. It must opened up and made more porous with routes such as those suggested in B and links to C.

Question 17: Should we explore delivery of a cycling and pedestrian bridge over the railway line to link into the River Cam towpath?
Yes you should. This should be explored in conjunction with our answer to Q4. This bridge should also allow vehicle access to Fen Road East to allow the suppression of Fen Road level crossing. The different uses of the bridge should be clearly demarcated/ separated. Depending on its location the new road on the west side of the railway it could be linked to railfreight terminal so that heavy goods vehicles carrying building materials from the terminal could get separate from other movements across the area under review. This new road could link into the north end (the dead end) of Cowley Road.

Question 18: Which of the following options would best improve connectivity across Milton Road between Cambridge North Station and Cambridge Science Park?
A - One or more new 'green bridges' for pedestrians and cycles could be provided over Milton Road. The bridges could form part of the proposed green infrastructure strategy for NEC, creating a substantial green/ecological link(s) over the road.
B - Subject to viability and feasibility testing, Milton Road could be 'cut-in' or tunnelled below ground in order to create a pedestrian and cycle friendly environment at street level. This option would allow for significant improvements to the street which would be more pleasurable for people to walk and cycle through.
C - Milton Road could be significantly altered to rebalance the road in a way that reduces the dominance of the road, including rationalising (reducing) the number of junctions between the Guided Busway and the A14 as well as prioritising walking, cycling and public transport users.
D - Connectivity across Milton Road could be improved through other measures. We would welcome any other suggestions that would improve the east-west connectivity through the site.
E - Other ways of improving connections (please specify)
A,C

Question 19: Should development within the North East Cambridge area be more visible from Milton Road, and provide a high-quality frontage to help create a new urban character for this area?

Issue: Managing car parking and servicing
Question 20: Do you agree with proposals to include low levels of parking as part of creating a sustainable new city district focusing on non-car transport?
Yes

Question 21a: In order to minimise the number of private motor vehicles using Milton Road, should Cambridge Science Park as well as other existing employment areas in this area have a reduction in car parking provision from current levels?
Yes with emphasis on quality public transport (mainly quality frequent bus) linked to frequent train services serving North Station and buses on the guideway.

Question 21b: Should this be extended to introduce the idea of a reduction with a more equitable distribution of car parking across both parts of the AAP area?
Yes...see above Q21a.

Question 22: Should the AAP require innovative measures to address management of servicing and deliveries, such as consolidated deliveries and delivery/collection hubs?
Yes. Consolidation of deliveries should be considered not only for this area but from this area for the whole city. A consolidation centre close to the railfreight terminal accessed by the extension of Cowley Road mentioned in Q4 and 17 could use emerging plans from railfreight operators for the development of a national rail based express packages/parcels network. Distribution of parcels across the city from such a terminal by cycle couriers and other developing sustainable technologies etc should be developed. Land should be set aside for this consolidated centre.

Issue: Car and other motor vehicle storage
Question 23: Should development within the North East Cambridge area use car barns for the storage of vehicles?
Yes

Issue: Green Space provision
Question 24: Within the North East Cambridge area green space can be provided in a number of forms including the following options. Which of the following would you support?
A - Green space within the site could be predominately provided through the introduction of a large multi-functional district scale green space. Taking inspiration from Parker's Piece in Cambridge, a new large space will provide 24th March 2019 Railfuture East Anglia - North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Page 6 of 9

flexible space that can be used throughout the year for a wide range of sport, recreation and leisure activities and include a sustainable drainage function. The sustainable drainage element would link into a system developed around the existing First Public Drain and the drainage system in the Science Park. The green space could be further supported by a number of smaller neighbourhood block scale open spaces dispersed across the site.
B - Green spaces within the site could be provided through a series of green spaces of a neighbourhood scale that will be distributed across the residential areas. These green spaces will also be connected to the green infrastructure network to further encourage walking and cycling. Again, these spaces will include a sustainable drainage function and link into the existing First Public Drain and the Science Park drainage system.
C - Enhanced connections and corridors within and beyond the site to improve the biodiversity and ecological value as well as capturing the essential Cambridge character of green fingers extending into urban areas. These corridors could also be focussed around the green space network and sustainable drainage and would reflect the NPPF net environmental gain requirement.
D - Green fingers to unite both sides of Milton Road and capitalise on the existing green networks.
E - Consideration of the site edges - enhancement of the existing structural edge landscape and creating new structural landscape at strategic points within and on the edge of NEC. This would also enhance the setting to the City on this important approach into the City.
F - Creation of enhanced pedestrian and cycle connectivity to Milton Country Park and the River Cam corridor.
Wherever and in what form, open spaces must be created with users of active travel in mind. They must be obviously safe places to travel through from stations to home, to leisure and cultural events and to work at all times of the day. Open spaces are essential but barriers to easy movement by pedestrians and cyclists they must never be.

Issue: Non-Car Access
Question 25: As set out in this chapter there are a range of public transport, cycling and walking schemes planned which will improve access to the North East Cambridge area. What other measures should be explored to improve access to this area?
a) North Station should be developed as the main hub of train and bus services.
The station itself should be further developed to be more user friendly with the installation of escalators, longer canopies over the platform and a more welcoming entrance hall.
b) The railway track layout must be further developed to enable more trains services to pass through and terminate and start at the station. The present station and layout sub optimal. Best practice from elsewhere must be studied and adopted to make intermodal transfer easy and very user friendly. 24th March 2019 Railfuture East Anglia - North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Page 7 of 9

The whole development area must be active travel friendly with easy to use high quality safe dry supervised cycle storage, easy to use footpaths and cycle ways.
c) Remove the guideways from the ends of the busway extension bus only road so to enable all buses, not just guided buses, to use the busway extension to serve the station. This would enable nonguided buses to access Cambridge North Station along the bus only road and allow through routing of bus services to the station via Cowley Road and leaving via the bus only road and vice-versa.
Run more bus services to and from Cambridge North Station both along this bus only road and from Cowley Road and Milton Avenue.
Build a new footpath/cycleway on the East side of the East end boundary fence of Cambridge Business Park to provide a shorter connection between Nuffield Road and Cowley Road.

Issue: Car usage in North East Cambridge
Question 26: Do you agree that the AAP should be seeking a very low share of journeys to be made by car compared to other more sustainable means like walking, cycling and public transport to and from, and within the area?
Yes.

Question 27: Do you have any comments on the highway 'trip budget' approach, and how we can reduce the need for people to travel to and within the area by car?

Issue: Car Parking
Question 28: Do you agree that car parking associated with new developments should be low, and we should take the opportunity to reduce car parking in existing developments (alongside the other measures to improve access by means other than the car)?
Yes.

Issue: Cycle Parking
Question 29: Do you agree that we should require high levels of cycle parking from new developments?
Yes

Question 30: Should we look at innovative solutions to high volume cycle storage both within private development as well as in public areas?
Yes.


Question 31: What additional factors should we also be considering to encourage cycling use (e.g. requiring new office buildings to include secure cycle parking, shower facilities and lockers)?
Yes.

Issue: Innovative approaches to Movement
Question 32: How do we design and plan for a place that makes the best use of current technologies and is also future proofed to respond to changing technologies over time?
A route (s) should be protected for emerging light rail (or other similar technology) networks; a route for local autonomous mass transit vehicles say between North Station and the Science Park.

Issue: Linking the Station to the Science Park
Question 33: what sort of innovative measures could be used to improve links between the Cambridge North Station and destinations like the Science Park?
Autonomous small vehicles running at frequent intervals better North Station and The Science Park...early to very late everyday.

Questions 34 to 54:
No answers provided.

Issue: Retail and Leisure
Question 55: Do you agree with the range of considerations that the AAP will need to have regard to in planning for new retail and town centre provision in the North East Cambridge area? Are there other important factors we should be considering?
Yes, we agree. Such developments should be located around the transport hubs.

Question 56: Should the Councils be proposing a more multi- dimensional interpretation of the role of a town centre or high street for the North East Cambridge area, where retail is a key but not solely dominant element?
Yes

Questions 57 to 83:
No answers provided.
Issue: Any other comments
Question 84: Do you have any other comments about the North East Cambridge area and/or AAP? Are there other issues and alternatives that the councils should consider? If you wish to make suggestions, please provide your comments.
Ensure that construction materials for the development should be as far as possible be delivered to and through the modern multi user railfreight terminal already on site. This currently receives large quantities of differing types of aggregate from various parts of the country by rail. Large quantities of varying types of cement will be required. The developers should be encouraged to set up a rail served cement terminal for use locally and throughout the district.

Thank you for your consultation in respect of the above document. As the Government's adviser on the historic environment Historic England is keen to ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully taken into account at all stages and levels of the local planning process.

Historic England is primarily concerned with the historic environment and from an examination of our records it is clear that there are no designated heritage assets within, or immediately adjacent to, the area covered by the proposed Area Action Plan (AAP). However, depending on the scale of new buildings on the site, there is the potential for development of this area to impact on the setting of nearby heritage assets. Those include assets located within the historic core of Cambridge, the character and appearance of the central conservation area (and in particular the eastern arm that extends along the river corridor immediately to the south of this site) and the conservation area of Fen Ditton to the east of the site, including the wider setting of the many listed buildings that lie within that conservation area.

Our detailed comments are listed below by paragraph/question/figure.

Glossary - Historic Environment typo - time rather than tine. We also suggest the addition of a definition for Conservation Areas.

Paragraph 4.14 We welcome this section on townscape and landscape. We welcome the requirement to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance the overall character and qualities of the townscape and skyline of Cambridge as the city continues to develop into the future. We suggest that the Cambridge Central and Fen Ditton Conservation Areas are specifically mentioned in this paragraph. As set out above, development of this area has the potential to impact upon the wider settings of these conservation areas.

Question 6 Overarching Objectives. Whilst we broadly welcome the overarching objectives for NEC, there is no mention of the Historic Environment and in particular the conservation areas and listed buildings/townscape and skyline. Some reference to the historic environment needs to be included in the objectives. Objective 9 could also benefit from adding reference the need for development to draw on to local vernacular/buildings materials etc.

Question 15 of the document asks should clusters of taller buildings around areas of high accessibility including district and local centres and transport stops form part of a design-led approach to this new city district. We would broadly support higher density development around transport interchanges and district or local centres. However, the consultation refers to appropriate building heights with no mention of what height might be considered appropriate. 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. It is therefore difficult to objectively comment on the potential impact of taller buildings. You will be aware that we had considerable input into the Local Plan policy for tall buildings. We commend the approach set out in the Local Plan to this situation. We note that page 82 indicates that a Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment is to be completed. This work might help to inform an appropriate strategy in this regard. The impact of tall buildings on the Conservation Areas, listed buildings, townscape and wider skyline will require careful consideration.

We can comment that it is likely that new buildings of similar heights to those on the existing Cambridge Business Park would not adversely impact on the setting of nearby heritage assets. However, the new Cambridge North 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 (and in particular the eastward arm that extends along the river corridor to the south of this site), the Fen Ditton conservation area to the east and the setting of listed buildings within both conservation areas. Without a robust evidence base Historic England is unable to support a more flexible approach to the issue of building heights within the AAP.

Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

If you have any questions with regards to the comments made then please do get back to me. In the meantime we look forward to continuing to work with you and your colleagues.

Introduction

Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council is consulting on Issues & Options for the North East Cambridge AAP. The consultation deadline is 25th March 2019. The draft response on behalf of U+I Group PLC ('U+I') is set out below. U+I have been selected by the landowners Anglian Water and Cambridge City Council as Master Developer for land outlined in red in the accompanying Site Plan ('the Site'). It is noted that Cambridge City Council also own other land beyond the Site, which may be the subject of other representations.

The representations contained herein relate primarily to the development intentions for the Site, but also in the context of the wider AAP area (as sites within the AAP boundary are largely intrinsically linked).

Representations

Question 1: Do you agree with changing the name of the plan to the 'North East Cambridge Area Action Plan'?

It is recognised that there is a need for a collective reference for the AAP area. This will provide consistency and clearer definition as the process evolves. Whilst it is inevitable that sub-areas of the AAP will emerge with different branding names and strategies, this will have more relevance to the individual sub-area concerned, in creating identity when publicising forthcoming planning applications through to marketing/sales disposals.

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

Generally, we support the proposed boundary for the AAP area. We would, however, make two observations/comments.

Firstly, it seems logical to include the site of Cambridge Regional College ('CRC') within the boundary. It is noted that in paragraph 3.5 comment is made that it is not expected to undergo major change in the way other sites across NEC are. However, CRC considers itself to be 'one of the best Further Education Colleges in the country for 16-18 year old level 3 achievement and a leading apprenticeship provider, with thousands of full time students and apprentices currently in training'. The significant range of vocational courses it offers could be positively utilised to support the long-term construction process around NEC (e.g. architectural technology, mechanical engineering, electrical, carpentry, bricklaying courses and apprenticeships), and then the on-going operational phases of the different sub-areas of NEC (e.g. from courses relating to biological science for industry, laboratory technicians and computing technologies, to business and catering and hospitality). It therefore has the potential to play an important learning and development role in the future NEC area. The built form of the current campus appears to be relatively low density, with large areas of used for surface level car parking. Buildings are predominantly 2-3 storeys in height. With the transformation of NEC, recognising the different approaches to internalised trips/reduced car parking, and taller buildings, it would seem likely that the estate management of CRC might change in the future, and if so, it should be included in the AAP.

Secondly, we would comment that, owing to the nature of NEC, development is likely to be high density, optimising the use of all land to work efficiently and effectively. The strategy for on-site Public Open Space is likely to focus on qualitative provision, than quantitative, with a stronger emphasis on formal recreational and leisure space than informal open space. Access to the latter however, is likely to be facilitated through new and improved connections to the east (potentially including land to the east of the railway line north of Cambridge North Train Station, to the river) and north (potentially including land to the north of the A14, such as Land to the south of Cambridge Road, and land including/extending Milton Country Park) of NEC. We would therefore simply pose the question about whether there is a need to include within the AAP boundary additional land that could provide informal open space, biodiversity and drainage functions, which might otherwise not be achievable within the single control of the NEC boundary. It is considered that land to the north and east of the current AAP boundary would primarily be used to facilitate access to green infrastructure for NEC.

Question 3: In this chapter have we correctly identified the physical characteristics of the North East Cambridge area and its surroundings?

Generally, yes. However, we consider it might be beneficial to include more information about the composition of site areas. For instance, on the employment parks, providing details about site area, total floorspace of buildings on the park (including extant planning consents) and the range of authorised planning uses e.g. % B1a uses, %B1b uses, estimated no. of employees, audit of authorised car parking spaces, audit of public open space (estimated total hectares). This would help to inform a baseline of land use within NEC, and then contribute in developing future strategy e.g. highway trip budget, employment strategy, connectivity and green infrastructure etc.
We would also note that it would be beneficial to have mapping information available relating to the environmental constraints identified e.g. noise, air quality, odour, important habitats.
Finally, it would be beneficial to show the broader extents of key infrastructure for NEC, including the full Chisholm Trail link (connecting NEC to Cambridge City, and the south of Cambridge (Addenbrookes), committed routes for other new cycle, pedestrian and public transport in and around the City, and the proposed Greenways link to Waterbeach).

Question 4: Have we identified all relevant constraints present on, or affecting, the North East Cambridge area?

In general, yes. However, we note that there is no reference to Archaeology and Heritage, and would suggest that comment is given about this, even if it is considered that NEC has limited archaeological significance. In terms of heritage, whilst we believe that there are no listed buildings, conservation areas, or other notable heritage constraints within NEC, the intention for taller buildings in NEC will need to be more widely considered in respect of longer-distant views and townscape issues (historic core of Cambridge). Taller buildings may also have potential implications for Air Safeguarding Zones (consultation required with Marshall Airport and the Ministry of Defence on structures over 15m in height), and the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory (consultation with the University of Cambridge). We acknowledge that the issue of building heights and taller buildings is likely to be assessed as part of the on-going Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment that is being undertaken by Cambridge City Council (it is understood that a 'Stage 1' exercise has already been commissioned), and that the findings are then likely to inform future stages of this AAP process.

We would also suggest consideration be given to the inclusion of Green Belt boundaries around NEC. This will help provide clarity to interested parties that all land envisaged for development and associated physical infrastructure will be accommodated on non-Green Belt land. It will also help to provide reassurance that the development aspirations for NEC will not automatically lead to further development beyond the identified boundaries, unless it is deemed to be 'appropriate development' (i.e. not 'inappropriate' as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework'), or that exceptional circumstances are demonstrated in future Local Plans, or a Very Special Circumstances argument is made to support development via a planning application process. In all cases, strict mechanisms for controlling additional future development beyond NEC will apply.

Reference should also be made to the presence of UKPN's overhead power cables (132KV) that span across the AAP boundary. In terms of ensuring optimum reuse of the Site (and indeed other sites, including Cambridge Science Park), we would support a policy seeking their diversion underground.

Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed Vision for the future of the North East Cambridge area? If not, what might you change?

Yes, we support the proposed Vision for NEC. The addition of the word 'culturally' might benefit this Vision further (in the context of 'North East Cambridge - a socially, culturally, and economically inclusive....)

Question 6: Do you agree with the overarching Objectives? If not, what might you change?

Generally, we support the overarching Objectives. The addition of the words 'Natural Capital' might benefit Objective 7 further (in the context of '...connecting and improving biodiversity to achieve a Natural Capital net gain....)

Question 7: Do you support the overall approach shown in the Indicative Concept Plan? Do you have any comments or suggestions to make?

It is noted that the Concept Plan can only be treated as indicative at this stage in the AAP process, until the outcomes of the various Supporting Studies are known (notably Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment, Development Capacity Study, NEC AAP Transport Assessment, NEC Development Viability Assessment, NEC Infrastructure Delivery Plan), and wider consultation with relevant interested parties (e.g. landowners, developers, local communities, local authority bodies etc) has been carried out.

We support the residential-led mixed use allocation for the Site. We support the aspiration to create high quality pedestrian, cycle and public transport connectivity across the AAP area. We support the indication that a Mixed Use District Centre will be provided on the Site though we would suggest that its optimal location can only be determined after further study and masterplanning work. There may also be a need to include an additional Mixed Use Local Centre in the northern half of the Site (subject to further Masterplanning and an assessment on accessibility). We support the intention to provide and integrate Green Infrastructure throughout the AAP boundary, but what provision is made (and how/where it will be provided) will need to be determined following further studies/assessment and Masterplanning. Further consideration will need to be given to the suggested Industrial Development Sites in the north east corner of the Site, to understand what the rationale is for proposing to relocate existing industrial land at Nuffield Road and Cowley Road, to another part of the AAP site. It is assumed that the suggestion is made on the basis that it will provide noise abatement from the A14 to the new residential elements of the Site. However, we consider that there may be other more preferable solutions for controlling noise and, in Masterplanning terms it is less desirable bringing industrial-related traffic through a predominantly residential site. In the absence of clear justification for seeking relocation of industrial uses, we cannot support the industrial element of the proposal.

We aren't yet persuaded that the proposed location and quantum of industrial use is optimal. In particular we have concerns that this is currently shown at the furthest point from strategic highway connections. We also believe that different models and formats of industrial development should be further explored, specifically whether this should be concentrated in a single location, or whether it might be incorporated within a mixed-use approach throughout the Site.

We do not necessarily agree that the Site represents the best opportunity with the overall AAP area to accommodate a significant concentration of industrial uses in a single location.

We would suggest that the Cambridge Business Park is shaded as an Opportunity for Employment Intensification.

In addition to our response for Question 2, we would suggest that the CRC land we would suggest that this land is included within the AAP boundary, and that a new shading is applied that refers to an Opportunity for Education Intensification.

Question 8: Do you agree that outside of the existing business areas, the eastern part of the North East Cambridge AAP area (i.e. the area east of Milton Road) should provide a higher density mixed use residential led area with intensified employment, relocation of existing industrial uses and other supporting uses?

Generally, we support the initial development intentions for the area east of Milton Road. It is considered that this area could accommodate a high density mixed use residential-led development following the relocation of the existing Cambridge Water Recycling Centre and other industrial uses (subject to viability and finding suitable relocation site(s)) from the Site. A comprehensive, design-led, approach across the AAP will help maximise the redevelopment potential of a significant brownfield site in a highly sustainable location.

Question 9: Should Nuffield Road Industrial Estate be redeveloped for residential mixed use development?

Yes, we agree that consideration should be given to relocating existing industrial uses on the Nuffield Road Industrial Estate, in preference for higher density residential-led mixed use redevelopment. Consideration should be given to the viability of doing so (industrial land values are currently relatively high), and where existing businesses will be relocated. An Industrial Relocation Strategy might be appropriate, in order to understand what factors are important to businesses e.g. last mile strategies and what alternative sites might be available to accommodate relocation requirements. ]

As outlined in Question 7, the suggestion to relocate industrial uses from Nuffield Road Industrial Estate to the north east corner of the Site needs to be explained and justified. At this stage we do not support the suggestion to relocate industrial uses to the north-east corner of the Site.

Question 10: Do you agree that opportunities should be explored to intensify and diversify existing business areas? If so, with what sort of uses?

Yes, we broadly support this suggestion, subject to the establishment of a robust and equitable approach to Highways Trip Budget apportionment and s106 tariff system across the wider AAP area. The Cambridge Science Park was first established on the principle of accommodating 1-2 storey, low density commercial buildings within an attractive strategic landscape/parkland setting. Whilst much of the strategic landscaping remains, latter phases of the Science Park have sought to intensify development density, with taller buildings, lower car parking provision, and limited on-plot landscaping (other than to lessen/soften the impact of new development). This approach has been complemented by the introduction of Cambridge North Station Interchange, which has significantly improved accessibility via non-car modes. The growth aspirations now anticipated for the AAP area signals a radical change in approach to new development. New residential communities will be supported by existing and intensified employment and educational opportunities, potentially providing live and work/learning opportunities within walking/cycling distance of each other. Furthermore, access to inter alia Cambridge North, the Guided Busway, and the Chisholm Trail will support accessibility to existing business areas from a much wider catchment, therefore helping to improve the means of accessing work without the need to do so by car.

Opportunities to provide a greater quantum and diversity of employment should be encouraged. This will consolidate and strengthen the concept of the Cambridge Phenomenon, by creating a greater range and quantum of high quality accommodation for new businesses, in close proximity to a critical mass of similar businesses, thereby helping to support knowledge sharing and collaboration through co-location.

In order to promote diversity of employment types, planning policy consideration might be given to encouraging a certain percentage of 'affordable employment', to support the growth of new start-up businesses that require the same close links with similar businesses but cannot afford (and do not currently need) accommodation that becomes available.

Question 11: Are there any particular land uses that should be accommodated in the North East Cambridge area?

The North East Cambridge area should support any use that demonstrably contributes to the Vision and Objectives of the AAP area.
The AAP provides a significant opportunity to create thousands of new homes in a highly sustainable location. The growth of housing in this area will be supported by the economic benefits derived from the long-established science, innovation and business parks (many of which will be intensified), that have collectively grown from the success of clustering knowledge-based industries in close proximity of one another. The housing element of the Site will improve supply and affordability of high quality new homes to the many thousands of employees on these parks, helping to reduce the number of car movements on Milton Road. New homes and jobs on the scale envisage will need to be served by a number of social, retail, community, health, education, leisure and recreation facilities,

Question 12: What uses or activities should be included within the North East Cambridge AAP area which will create a district of culture, creativity and interest that will help create a successful community where people will choose to live and work and play?

It is considered that the inclusion of schools, community facilities, retail and leisure uses, open space, and transport services, in conjunction with walking and cycling connections to neighbouring areas will provide the attributes of a successful community.

The NEC AAP must recognise the wider role it plays in creating opportunities for surrounding communities, of which two neighbouring wards - East Chesterton and Kings Hedges - currently suffer from high levels of deprivation (included in the top three of most deprived wards in Cambridgeshire). The benefits of the AAP area should extend to these areas, to create new employment, education, social, leisure and recreation, health and community opportunities. Where new facilities are introduced to areas experiencing deprivation, a key challenge for optimising use of such facilities is affordability. Free or subsidised charging mechanisms should therefore be considered when providing new facilities for instance e.g. hire of sports pitches, meeting rooms etc.

It should, however, be recognised (and indeed it is in Question 79) that the ambitious development aspirations for the Site and wider AAP area will take a number of years to comprehensively plan and deliver. Certain elements will be possible to deliver early. Notwithstanding this, there is the opportunity to introduce 'meanwhile/worthwhile' uses the area as the transition progresses. Meanwhile/worthwhile uses offer creative and innovative ways of optimising sites on a stop-gap basis, creating a temporary opportunity to capture economic and/or social benefits for the wider area in the period between the closure/or reduction of an existing site operation and the commencement of the intended new development.

Question 13: Should the AAP require developments in the North East Cambridge AAP area to apply Healthy Towns principles?

NEC will provide a considerable opportunity for creating a healthy new community, and supporting neighbouring communities, through access to high quality housing, a design approach founded on sustainable modes of travel (walkable neighbourhoods), and improved employment, shopping, health, education, leisure and recreational opportunities. We also support the intended preparation of the Health Impact and Needs Assessment for NEC, which will take account of the wider deprivation challenges faced in the neighbouring wards of East Chesterton and Kings Hedges.

Question 14: How should the AAP recognise and make best use of the existing and potential new links between the AAP area and the CRC (Cambridge Regional College)?

Please see our response to Question 2.

Question 15: Should clusters of taller buildings around areas of high accessibility including district and local centres and transport stops form part of the design-led approach to this new city district?

We strongly support the principle that the greatest development densities should be located in the areas of greatest accessibility and public amenity. This maximises the potential for sustainable travel patterns and establishes a critical weight of local demand for leisure, cultural and retail uses.

It is important to note that 'high-density' does not automatically mean 'tall' and that compact mid-rise development can often be denser than taller development, particular where the latter is compensated for by a smaller overall development footprint. Compact mid-rise also typically enables a wider range of dwelling types and external amenity space, meeting a wider range housing needs.

We favour a 'transect' based approach to masterplanning which will ensure the density, scale, typology, and uses of development are allocated across the site as a whole and within each neighbourhood in a coordinated way, following the accessibility principle described above and responding to the opportunities and constraints of the Site. This may not mean 'clusters' - it could for example mean that the highest densities are located in 'corridors' along the primary streets, and/or at edges where having denser development acts to shelter lower-scale development from adjacent visual or noise intrusion. The masterplan will be backed up by a design code that will identify/mandate appropriate typologies for achieving the requisite densities in ways that are acceptable in other respects.

In addition to accessibility and other local factors, it is important to note that the extent and location of denser development will be affected by a range of detailed studies and appraisals (including Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment), that will recognise - and then balance - the challenges of creating areas of higher density and taller buildings in a highly sustainable location that is, nonetheless, on the edge of Cambridge with areas of open countryside beyond. This may also militate against achieving density through height.

Question 16: Should the AAP include any or a combination of the options below to improve pedestrian and cycling connectivity through the site and to the surrounding area?

A - Create a strong east-west axis to unite Cambridge North Station with Cambridge Science Park across Milton Road. This pedestrian and cycle corridor would be integrated into the wider green infrastructure network to create a pleasant and enjoyable route for people to travel through and around the site. The route could also allow other sustainable forms of transport to connect across Milton Road.

Yes. A strong east-west axis should be included to connect the different parts and proposed uses within NEC, and to encourage movement within the site by sustainable modes of transport.

B - Improve north-south movement between the Cowley Road part of the site and Nuffield Road. Through the redevelopment of the Nuffield Road area of NEC, it will be important that new and existing residents have convenient and safe pedestrian and cycle access to the services and facilities that will be provided as part of the wider North East Cambridge area proposals.

Yes.
C - Upgrade connections to Milton Country Park by both foot and cycle. This would include improving access to the Jane Coston Bridge over the A14, the Waterbeach Greenway project including a new access under the A14 (see Transport Chapter), as well as the existing underpass along the river towpath.

Yes. It is considered that improvements to connections with Milton Country Park and with existing and proposed pedestrian and cycle routes will be important for the success of development within the AAP. It is anticipated that NEC will provide a high density residential development, to take advantage of the close proximity of employment areas and public transport services, but which might limit opportunities for large scale open space/recreation areas. Therefore, it will be important to ensure that any proposal for an underpass will maximise connectivity through the Site, capitalising on permeability and wider Green Infrastructure initiatives (e.g. Waterbeach Greenway, Chisholm Trail, improving the public realm function of the 1st Drain etc).

D - Provide another Cambridge Guided Bus stop to serve a new District Centre located to the east side of Milton Road.

We support the suggestion to improve public transport accessibility around NEC but further work should be undertaken to determine whether an additional 'guided' busway stop is required or whether a 'normal' bus service, which could feasibly use the same buses as those on the Busway, could deliver the same benefits.

E - Increase ease of movement across the sites by opening up opportunities to walk and cycle through areas where this is currently difficult, for example Cambridge Business Park and the Cambridge Science Park improving access to the Kings Hedges and East Chesterton areas as well as the City beyond.

We very much support opportunities to increase the ease and convenience of walking and cycling movements across sites in NEC, as this will strengthen the concept of promoting internalised trips and reduce the reliance on travel by car.

Question 17: Should we explore delivery of a cycling and pedestrian bridge over the railway line to link into the River Cam towpath?

It is noted that the River Cam towpath is identified as a route within the Waterbeach Greenway project, and it would be appropriate to take the opportunity to provide a pedestrian and cycling connection from this route into NEC, subject to the availability of funding.

The high density redevelopment of NEC is unlikely to achieve the level of Public Open Space that might otherwise be required under local plan policy. The focus is instead likely to be on securing high quality, flexible-use open space on-site, and improving/providing new connections to informal open space networks to the north and east of the AAP area (including the Waterbeach Greenway). Accordingly, an appropriate means of accessing off-site Green Infrastructure for NEC will be required, and the suggestion of a pedestrian/cycle bridge would facilitate this.

Please see our responses to Questions 2 and 7.

Question 18: Which of the following options would best improve connectivity across Milton Road between Cambridge North Station and Cambridge Science Park?
A - One or more new 'green bridges' for pedestrians and cycles could be provided over Milton Road. The bridges could form part of the proposed green infrastructure strategy for NEC, creating a substantial green/ecological link(s) over the road.
B - Subject to viability and feasibility testing, Milton Road could be 'cut-in' or tunnelled below ground in order to create a pedestrian and cycle friendly environment at street level. This option would allow for significant improvements to the street which would be more pleasurable for people to walk and cycle through.
C - Milton Road could be significantly altered to rebalance the road in a way that reduces the dominance of the road, including rationalising (reducing) the number of junctions between the Guided Busway and the A14 as well as prioritising walking, cycling and public transport users.
D - Connectivity across Milton Road could be improved through other measures. We would welcome any other suggestions that would improve the east-west connectivity through the site.
E - Other ways of improving connections (please specify)

In response to all five options listed above, we generally support the principle for securing high quality east-west connectivity. However, the means of crossing Milton Road will involve a range of complex issues, which cannot be determined at this stage. The crossing solution(s) should not ultimately be compromised by concerns about short-term disruption and inconvenience. The east-west axis will be fundamental in the overall success of NEC, and the justification for internalising trips will be partly made on the basis that pedestrian and cycle connectivity across NEC will be safe and convenient (and therefore likely to be commonly used as a means of travel).

Option A is considered to be the preferred option as it provides the opportunity to create a substantial green link over the road without adversely affect the flow of traffic on Milton Road, which has existing network capacity issues. It will also limit the impact on the operation of the Milton Road during construction when compared with either Option B and C.

Option B would likely result in significant disruption to the road network during construction and would likely require the lowering or redirecting or Statutory Undertakers Utilities. Both Option B and C would result in alterations to the access junctions into the Science Park and the Site, both of which have limited access opportunities for their respective sizes.

Question 19: Should development within the North East Cambridge area be more visible from Milton Road, and provide a high quality frontage to help create a new urban character for this area?

We generally support the suggestion of making new development within NEC more visible from Milton Road and providing a high quality frontage to create a new urban character for the area. Milton Road is currently a highly car dominated environment, with a number of confusing junctions serving Cambridge Science Park and Cowley Road. However, it is noted that Milton Road acts as a key north / southbound route into and out of Cambridge, and the Milton Interchange forms part of the Strategic Road Network and connects Cambridge to the A14 (a major east to west route, which has recently been upgraded to improve capacity). Given the level of traffic using this stretch of the Milton Road to access the Strategic Road Network at this location, the potential to reduce traffic to provide a high quality new urban character for the area may be limited in the short term. Notwithstanding this, where Milton Road runs southwards the nature of the road starts to change and becomes more urban in nature, potentially becoming more conducive to active frontage and activity on the footway.

Question 20: Do you agree with proposals to include low levels of parking as part of creating a sustainable new city district focusing on non-car transport?

Yes, we generally support this principle NEC provides an opportunity to reduce levels of parking, as part of a package of transport measures including new and additional walking and cycling routes, public transport services, and car share schemes. However, we would also suggest that interim car parking strategies might need to be considered, to support 'pioneer' uses/development during transitional phases of NEC i.e. until the full package of transport infrastructure and initiatives can be fully realised. As new infrastructure/initiatives are introduced, interim car parking can be gradually phased out.

Question 21a: In order to minimise the number of private motor vehicles using Milton Road, should Cambridge Science Park as well as other existing employment areas in this area have a reduction in car parking provision from current levels?

We very much support opportunities to reduce the reliance on travel by car in and around NEC, and instead increase the ease and convenience of walking and cycling movements across sites in NEC, as this will strengthen the concept of promoting internalised trips.

Question 21b: Should this be extended to introduce the idea of a reduction with a more equitable distribution of car parking across both parts of the AAP area?

Yes, as part of a package of transport measures to encourage travel by sustainable modes of transport.

Question 22: Should the AAP require innovative measures to address management of servicing and deliveries, such as consolidated deliveries and delivery/collection hubs?

Yes, subject to further understanding of the requirements of businesses and the needs of residents. The North East Cambridge area could include a number of delivery/collection hubs.

Question 23: Should development within the North East Cambridge area use car barns for the storage of vehicles?

We support the idea of using car barns, as part of a wider package of parking solutions across NEC. Whilst it is recognised that private on-plot parking is unlikely to be widely encouraged, there will inevitably be demand from some residents to have access to the use of a car/secure car parking but this should be priced accordingly to the end user. Car barns provide communal access to parking, and are typically located in less convenient locations in order to discourage frequent use. As an example, if a car was needed to do a weekly shop, the resident would park outside their property to unload their car and then move the car to a car barn. Car barns can also be used by 'car clubs', so that a resident can book a car for a certain period of time but not have the long-term cost and use commitment to owning a private car. The versatility of car barns should also be recognised, as parking can be let on a temporary basis and, as trends change, can be converted into alternative uses to reduce car usage further.

Question 24: Within the North East Cambridge area green space can be provided in a number of forms including the following options. Which of the following would you support?
A - Green space within the site could be predominately provided through the introduction of a large multi-functional district scale green space. Taking inspiration from Parker's Piece in Cambridge, a new large space will provide flexible space that can be used throughout the year for a wide range of sport, recreation and leisure activities and include a sustainable drainage function. The sustainable drainage element would link into a system developed around the existing First Public Drain and the drainage system in the Science Park. The green space could be further supported by a number of smaller neighbourhood block scale open spaces dispersed across the site.
B - Green spaces within the site could be provided through a series of green spaces of a neighbourhood scale that will be distributed across the residential areas. These green spaces will also be connected to the green infrastructure network to further encourage walking and cycling. Again, these spaces will include a sustainable drainage function and link into the existing First Public Drain and the Science Park drainage system.
C - Enhanced connections and corridors within and beyond the site to improve the biodiversity and ecological value as well as capturing the essential Cambridge character of green fingers extending into urban areas. These corridors could also be focussed around the green space network and sustainable drainage and would reflect the NPPF net environmental gain requirement.
D - Green fingers to unite both sides of Milton Road and capitalise on the existing green networks.
E - Consideration of the site edges - enhancement of the existing structural edge landscape and creating new structural landscape at strategic points within and on the edge of NEC. This would also enhance the setting to the City on this important approach into the City.
F - Creation of enhanced pedestrian and cycle connectivity to Milton Country Park and the River Cam corridor.

In response to all six options listed above, we support the principle for securing high quality green infrastructure across NEC. Subject to further capacity testing and Masterplanning, on-site provision might feasibly take the form of a larger green space for the whole NEC and complemented by smaller 'neighbourhood scale' spaces and enhanced connections and corridors to off-site green infrastructure. We aren't persuaded that Parkers Piece is an appropriate comparable for the size and function of this space but do consider that the green space should draw lessons from existing green spaces in Cambridge. However, in supporting the theme of innovation at all stages of the development it will be important to consider smart solutions for the open space strategy, maximising flexibility across all areas of on-site open space. For instance, playing fields associated with on-site school provision should be available to the wider community, at times when it is not required by the school. Management and security issues will need to be carefully considered in this regard. Landscape vegetation should encourage biodiversity, whilst also performing softening/screening functions. Formal playspace should be able to accommodate multi-use activities during the day and evening and throughout the year. Green infrastructure might incorporate elements of food growing e.g. fruit trees, herbs, and vegetables, enabling free access to foods that help promote healthier lifestyles.

In terms of the suggestion of how open space will be provided (and in what format and amount), this cannot be determined at this stage of the process. A series of studies and assessments have been or are being commissioned by Cambridge City Council, which will help inform development principles and Masterplanning. Consultation will also need to be carried out with a number of interested parties, including landowners, developers, local communities and local authority bodies. Therefore, we are neither supporting nor objecting to any of the suggested options at this stage.

Question 25: As set out in this chapter there are a range of public transport, cycling and walking schemes planned which will improve access to the North East Cambridge area. What other measures should be explored to improve access to this area?

We generally support the suggested options for improving public transport, cycling and walking accessibility around NEC. The proposed Waterbeach Greenway should be directed through the Site, to create a coherent route from Waterbeach to the station. This will allow future residents of the Site to cycle to the station helping to providing a means of travel for the 'first mile / last mile' of the journey to / from the station.

A new route for a busway from the proposed Waterbeach development should be routed through the Site down to Cambridge North Station. Stops on the route could form transport interchanges linking to other bus routes and cycle routes. High quality cycle links should be implemented to connect into existing infrastructure such as the Chisholm Trail.

The route of these two transport spines through the Site will help develop a single coherent sustainable transport corridor down to the station allowing seamless interchanges between transport modes where the routes intersect with one another. The interchanges will be located within a high-quality urban environment close to high density district centres and attractive locations encouraging linked trips and improving access to the district centres by public transport.
It will important to ensure that consideration is always given to promoting access beyond the AAP boundary (as currently shown), such as recognising the education/social role that CRC plays in the west, the retail and leisure/recreational/biodiversity roles of Tesco and Milton Country Park in the north, the leisure/recreational/biodiversity role of the river and green corridors in the east, and the existing Cambridge communities in the south.

Question 26: Do you agree that the AAP should be seeking a very low share of journeys to be made by car compared to other more sustainable means like walking, cycling and public transport to and from, and within the area?

We support the concept of encouraging a greater share of non-car modes of travel for NEC, but note that it is a concept that will need to be accepted by all landowners/occupiers in the AAP boundary in order for it to be successfully implemented. This is broadly in accordance with the advice from the Ely to Cambridge Transport Study, and will be further tested in the NEC AAP Transport Assessment work (due to be commissioned).

Question 27: Do you have any comments on the highway 'trip budget' approach, and how we can reduce the need for people to travel to and within the area by car?

We support the principle of a 'trip budget' as there is limited scope for large scale engineering interventions to create more capacity on the road network. However, the trip budget must be carefully considered and tested to ensure that it is both suitable and realistic. Appropriate measures will need to be employed if the trip budget is exceeded. The monitoring process will need to be carefully considered, as various land uses across the AAP site will be allocated a share of the trip budget.

Question 28: Do you agree that car parking associated with new developments should be low, and we should take the opportunity to reduce car parking in existing developments (alongside the other measures to improve access by means other than the car)?

We generally support the concept of encouraging a greater share of non-car modes of travel for NEC. This is broadly in accordance with the advice from the Ely to Cambridge Transport Study, and will be further tested in the NEC AAP Transport Assessment work (due to be commissioned). It is recognised that many existing employment uses, such as those in Cambridge Science Park, St John's Innovation Park and Cambridge Business Park, will have authorised car parking at significantly higher levels than what is now intended for NEC. We would support the Councils working with various landowners in exploring innovative/incentivised ways of reducing car usage from those sites.

Question 29: Do you agree that we should require high levels of cycle parking from new developments?

We support the suggestion of requiring high levels of cycle parking from new developments. This approach will be supported by the new cycling infrastructure that is planned for Cambridge, including the Chisholm Trail and Waterbeach Greenways. Cycling helps support healthy lifestyles, and is a viable means of travelling around a compact city, assuming that safe and convenient routes and secure/covered parking can be provided. New and existing workplaces can be encouraged to provide showers, changing facilities and lockers to encourage staff to cycle into work.

Question 30: Should we look at innovative solutions to high volume cycle storage both within private development as well as in public areas?

Cycling is key to achieving a mode split and demand must be met, and therefore we support the suggestion of innovative solutions to cycle parking. As part of further capacity testing, Masterplanning and detailed design, consideration will be given to innovative storage solutions (using domestic and international examples) that enables cycle parking to be integrated appropriately into the public realm. The concept of micromobility should also be embraced, with provision made for parking dockless bikes to ensure that they are not left in inconsiderate locations such as the footway.

Question 31: What additional factors should we also be considering to encourage cycling use (e.g. requiring new office buildings to include secure cycle parking, shower facilities and lockers)?

New office buildings should include covered, secure cycle storage, showers and lockers. The cycle parking should also be conveniently located at basement/ground floor level or within easy access of lifts capable of transferring bikes between levels. Where possible segregated access for cyclists should be provided to minimise the conflict with pedestrians and vehicles accessing buildings.

Question 32: How do we design and plan for a place that makes the best use of current technologies and is also future proofed to respond to changing technologies over time?

Energy strategies
We will expect development on the Site to have a very low 'in use' energy demand, through robust design of built fabric and services. This will make it easier to meet more of the scheme's energy demand from renewable and low carbon energy sources - and in some case may allow a 'net positive' energy balance to be achieved. Implications for wider energy networks should also be considered, with consideration of energy storage and demand control options at building and community level.

Form and fabric

Development within the Site will be designed, at both masterplan and building scale, to result in minimal energy use through sensitive consideration of site conditions and a robust approach to fabric performance, using passive design strategies to achieve good comfort, day-lighting and air-quality.

Building services

Developments should ensure they build on high quality design of form and fabric by specifying robust and efficient building services. If care has been taken in the design of the built fabric, it should be simpler for efficient building services to meet the needs of those who live and work in a building.

Energy generation and supply

Once the gross energy demand for the proposed development has been reduced through efficient built form and services, it will become possible to evaluate how a greater proportion of its needs can be met through renewable and low carbon energy sources.

Provision for electric charging points for vehicles should be implemented to ensure that both residents and workers have access to electric car charging points. Way-finding points and real time journey time information should be implemented across the Site to ensure people have accurate up to date travel information.

Delivery hubs should be provided on the periphery of the site to intercept large delivery vehicles from accessing the site. This will also help to consolidate deliveries and reduce the need for large vehicles to enter the Site, with smaller electric vehicles providing the final leg of the journey to the front door of the residence or workplace.

Subterranean bins should be provided on the Site to minimise space requirements for waste storage and provide a secure location for the bins.

Question 33: What sort of innovative measures could be used to improve links between the Cambridge North Station and destinations like the Science Park?

It is considered unlikely that an at grade crossing can be located to link the Science Park with the station due to capacity constraints on Milton Road. A well-designed overpass for pedestrians and cyclists may provide the best option to effectively reduce severance caused by Milton Road and link the station with the Science Park. The journey from the station to the Science Park, will be the last / first mile of commuter journey and micromobility solutions such as dockless e-bikes should be provided to support the movement on this link.

Question 34: Are there specific types of employment spaces that we should seek to support in this area?

The knowledge-based cluster around Cambridge Science Park, St John's Innovation Park, and Cambridge Business Park is internationally recognised, and the significant economic role that it offers to NEC must be fully harnessed to encourage complementary industries (Artificial Intelligence, R+D and laboratories for smaller emerging businesses that need the cluster benefits, maker-space etc) and optimise further employment opportunities. We would therefore expect a range (in terms of use and size) of employment spaces across NEC, including Science, Research & Development and Technology-related employment. However, in advocating innovation throughout NEC, policy limitations should not be imposed that unduly restrict any particular use at this stage.

Question 35: In particular, should the plan require delivery of:
A - a flexible range of unit types and sizes, including for start-ups and Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs);
B - Specialist uses like commercial laboratory space;
C - hybrid buildings capable of a mix of uses, incorporating offices and manufacturing uses.
D - shared social spaces, for example central hubs, cafes.
E - Others (please specify).

We generally support all of the suggested options at this stage, and would seek inclusion of corporate headquarters within category A. These options should equally be applied to proposals for meanwhile/worthwhile uses, in order to optimise economic development benefits and promote innovation at the earlier stages of the development process for NEC.

Question 36: Which of the following approaches should the AAP take to existing industrial uses in the North East Cambridge area?
A - seek to relocate industrial uses away from the North East Cambridge area?
NEC represents a significant and unique opportunity to create a new and innovative high-density, high quality, mixed use Quarter for Cambridge and its surrounding area. The opportunity is dependent on Housing Infrastructure Funding that will facilitate the relocation of the Water Treatment Works, and optimise the quantum of new housing across the Site. Whilst it is recognised that other, non-residential uses, will also be needed in NEC in order to promote multi-functioning mixed communities and internalised trips, capacity testing and Masterplanning will need to carefully identify what uses (and how much) will be appropriate. Whilst the prospect of utilising some of the Site for industrial use has not, at this stage, been discounted, justification for the need and location of such a use will need to be very carefully considered. A greater understanding of industrial need is therefore required, and in particular how essential it is for certain businesses to be in Cambridge. Consideration should also be given to whether existing businesses are compatible with residential neighbourhoods, as if so, there may be scope to incorporate industrial (i.e. b1c) accommodation within a mixed use development. This might, for instance, include ground floor workshops/maker spaces where noise, odour, other forms of pollution, and type of deliveries will not give rise to unacceptable living conditions for neighbouring properties. For existing businesses where there is not a demonstrable need to be in Cambridge, relocation options outside the NEC should be considered.

B - seek innovative approaches to supporting uses on site as part of a mixed use City District?
See response to A, above.

Question 37: Are there particular uses that should be retained in the area or moved elsewhere?

See response to A, above. The AAP should set out the strategy for determining the needs of individual businesses (and whether there is an operational imperative to be closely related to Cambridge, and how the relocation of existing industrial uses can be appropriately implemented..

Question 38: Should the AAP require a mix of dwelling sizes and in particular, some family sized housing?

The residential ambitions and opportunities in NEC (and particularly the Site) will need to be fully understood and embraced in order for the Vision and Objectives of the AAP to be realised. For the high density levels of new housing envisaged, innovation will be essential at all stages and in all forms. Traditional approaches to housing in Cambridge are unlikely to be appropriate. Housing will be made available for a much wider market than might otherwise be expected for a new settlement/strategic urban extension elsewhere in the county (e.g. Northstowe, Waterbeach, Cambourne), including that which is more aligned to smaller household sizes e.g. students, post-graduates, young professionals, and older persons looking to downsize. Where family housing is to be provided, it will require 'smarter-space' solutions to reflect the Site-wide high density approach.
A greater understanding of need and demand, market trends and viability will be needed to define housing requirements for NEC in later stages of the AAP process.

Question 39: Should the AAP seek provision for housing for essential local workers and/or specific housing provided by employers (i.e. tethered accommodation outside of any affordable housing contribution)?

Yes, see response to Question 38.

Question 40: Should the AAP require 40% of housing to be affordable, including a mix of affordable housing tenures, subject to viability?

We generally support the suggestion of having a challenging target for the provision of affordable housing. There is a chronic shortfall of affordable housing in South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City, and the residential growth aspirations of NEC could make a significant contribution in reducing housing shortfall. It is also important to ensure that there are a range of homes of different sizes and tenures to achieve mixed and balanced communities. However, it is also important to ensure that the policy is sufficiently flexible to address viability challenges, and takes a pragmatic approach when recognising how different types of housing are provided and thereafter managed and maintained e.g. less reliance on traditional approaches of 'pepper-potting' etc. There is a significant cost in delivering the level and type of development envisaged and it will be essential to ensure that delivery of the development can be secured on a viable basis. Consideration must also be given to exploring other means of making housing more widely accessible, such as through PRS for instance.

Question 41: Should an element of the affordable housing provision be targeted at essential local workers?

We generally support this suggestion, but a more detailed understanding of housing need and demand in the area, and indeed an understanding of what key employers in the area require, should be undertaking before developing an AAP-specific affordable housing policy.

Question 42: Should the AAP require a proportion of development to provide custom build opportunities?

We generally support this suggestion, but again a greater understanding of demand, need and viability is required. Consideration should be given to examples where successful custom-build housing has been delivered, such as Marmalade Lane, Cambridge's first co-housing community made up of 42 custom build homes.

Question 43: Should the AAP allow a proportion of purpose built HMOs and include policy controls on the clustering of HMOs?

We support the suggestion of creating more shared living and co-living housing opportunities, as these can help improve variety and access to more affordable, good quality accommodation. This type of housing typically incorporates shared services and facilities and can benefit both younger and older aged groups. However, again a greater understanding of demand, need and viability is required.

Question 44: Should the AAP include Private Rented Sector (PRS) as a potential housing option as part of a wider housing mix across the North East Cambridge area?

We generally support this suggestion, as it typically lends itself to earlier delivery, it can be part of an affordable housing mix, and may suit the needs of the adjoining employment base. Similar to HMO's, PRS development needs to be well-managed to integrate successfully. Again a greater understanding of demand, need and viability is required.

Question 45: if PRS is to be supported, what specific policy requirements should we consider putting in place to manage its provision and to ensure it contributes towards creating a mixed and sustainable community?

We would suggest that this needs to be considered in greater detail, including need and demand, management of facilities, services, and amenities should be well defined and required.

Question 46: Should PRS provide an affordable housing contribution?

Subject to viability, policy requirements will need to reflect the distinct economics of this tenure. In most cases (as in London) this is acknowledging that a form of Discounted Market Rent (capped at 80% of Open Market Rents) is most applicable, as this can be managed by a non-Registered Provider and therefore enables tenure blind blocks to be delivered by PRS operators.

Question 47: What 'clawback' mechanisms should be included to secure the value of the affordable housing to meet local needs if the homes are converted to another tenure?

Typically a profit sharing mechanism up to an agreed cap (cap to be reflective of the affordable housing contribution possible for open market sale units - i.e. the value difference between a private for sale scheme at 40% and a PRS scheme at 30%)

Question 48: What would be a suitable period to require the retention of private rented homes in that tenure and what compensation mechanisms are needed if such homes are sold into a different tenure before the end of the period?

We would suggest a period of 15 years with clawback as outlined in Questions 46 and 47. This period is proposed in the London Plan and is generally accepted by institutional investors

Question 49: What type of management strategy is necessary to ensure high standards of ongoing management of PRS premises is achieved?

We consider that this should be agreed with each operator, and should be brief and relevant to planning matters. This could ensure all prospective tenants are offered the option of a three year tenancy.

Question 50: Should the area provide for other forms of specialist housing (including older people, students & travellers), either onsite or through seeking contributions for off-site provision?

We generally support this suggestion, but again a greater understanding of demand, need and viability is required. A comprehensive analysis of the demographic portrait of Cambridge and its surrounding environs over the next 25 years should be undertaken to assess how new policy interventions - such as NEC (intensified housing and employment uses; new housing 'products' to promote affordability and variety), new transport initiatives to improve access to employment, shopping, leisure and recreation etc, may affect demand and supply of different forms of housing for the local population catchment. In terms of 'housing mix', this might then manifest into redefining 'mainstream' housing, to expand into other groups such as students/graduates, first-time buyers, those requiring good quality rental properties, downsizers, elderly care.

Question 51: Should the AAP apply the national internal residential space standards?

We generally support this suggestion. This is a standard that ensures appropriate homes are delivered that meet the needs of the occupants. However, there may be some formats where exceptions may be appropriate - for example co-living formats including student and young professional accommodation, housing for 'downsizers' etc. These groups may prefer smaller homes with greater shared space and it may be appropriate to provide for this need in the context of a balanced housing offer. However, in these cases we would expect there to be clear requirements around the nature and quality of shared space. We would also encourage pilot testing (on a smaller scale) of more innovative solutions to housing, which might include other micro-living models that have not yet been used in Cambridge but have proved successful in other UK/international cities.

Question 52: Should the AAP develop space standards for new purpose built HMOs?

All new housing should meet the Technical Housing Standards and offer adequate shared spaces to not only provide adequate space in a HMOs scenario but above all provide homes that are future proofed as people's lifestyle changes and needs such as working from home also emerge. Future-proofed housing is to offer adequate space for a wide range of scenarios, not only HMOs. A specifically-developed space standards for new purpose built HMOs may prove unnecessary or irrelevant if HMOs within the AAP is then not delivered through a purpose-built type. Please see our response to Question 51.

Question 53: Should the AAP apply External Space Standards, and expect all dwellings to have direct access to an area of private amenity space?

We support the principle of ensuring that all homes have adequate and appropriate access to outdoor space and support the aspiration for most homes to have some private outdoor space. We would, at this stage, question whether it is realistic to expect that 100% of dwellings will have direct access to an area of private amenity space, given the quantum of development envisaged and the range of different housing typologies that will be necessary to deliver this quantum. In situations where it isn't appropriate to deliver private outdoor space, convenient access to high quality communal and public spaces would be provided. Ultimately, a flexible approach to residential amenity space must be taken, incorporating elements such as roof gardens and balconies as well as elements such as private gardens.

Question 54: Should the AAP apply the Cambridge Local Plan accessibility standards?

We generally support this suggestion in principle. This standard is meeting Part M of the Building Regulations, however due to the requirements of meeting a higher than normal housing number target on the Site, we require flexibility on how the standard is applied. It is important that the Cambridge Local Plan accessibility standards offers flexibility on how the standards are achieved across the many elements of the new masterplanned scheme. While designing for and incorporating accessibility standards is also accepted as a progressive way to future-proof new housing, it is important the standards do not affect the ability of the scheme to meet the density and the target housing required. Currently the Cambridge Local Plan has adopted the optional standard Part M4(2) and has also adopted M4(3) based on a percentage, which is still higher than the national standards, this may have an adverse impact on our scheme.

Question 55: Do you agree with the range of considerations that the AAP will need to have regard to in planning for new retail and town centre provision in the North East Cambridge area? Are there other important factors we should be considering?

The ambitious intentions for NEC are likely to see the creation of thousands of new homes and intensified employment opportunities forming part of new mixed, balanced and prosperous new communities. This new 'Quarter' will therefore require district and local centres to help support and sustain it. Non-residential uses will help create vitality and vibrancy to NEC.

Question 56: Should the Councils be proposing a more multi-dimensional interpretation of the role of a town centre or high street for the North East Cambridge area, where retail is a key but not solely dominant element?

We generally support this suggestion. We would highlight the importance of seeking innovative, creative and flexible solutions across the Site and this will be applied when considering how a District or Local Centre is planned and delivered. Longer term trends (national, regional and local) relating to retail and leisure uses will need to be carefully considered in arriving at a strategy that will support the long term vitality and vibrancy of NEC.

Question 57: What community facilities are particularly needed in the North East Cambridge area?

Opportunities will exist to provide access to new services and facilities for residents of NEC and existing surrounding local communities. In terms of the latter, where there are higher levels of deprivation, the cost of using new facilities will need to take account of affordability issues to ensure the cost of use is not prohibitive to those on no/low incomes.
Provision will need to be informed by the NEC Community Facilities Audit, whilst also taking account of the growth assumptions of NEC (including sizes and tenures of housing, as this will have potentially very different outcomes on need). Provision of facilities should offer flexibility and multi-functional spaces.

Question 58: It is recognised that maximising the development potential of the North East Cambridge area may require a different approach to meeting the sport and open space needs of the new community. How might this be achieved?

See our response to Question 24. Owing to the ambitious development aspirations of the Site (and NEC) it will be necessary to consider a comprehensive package of solutions (on and off-site) for open space and recreational strategy. This strategy will be complemented by the various improvements to green infrastructure provision in and beyond the AAP boundary, facilitating greater access opportunities by walking and cycling.

Question 59: Should open space provision within the North East Cambridge area prioritise quality and functionality over quantity?

See our response to Question 24.

Question 60: Should open space provision within the North East Cambridge area seek to provide for the widest variety of everyday structured and unstructured recreational opportunities, including walking, jogging, picnics, formal and informal play, casual sports, games, dog walking and youth recreation?

We generally support this suggestion. It will be important to ensure that all spaces within the Site are fully optimised, and creative/innovative solutions should be considered to allow for flexible/multi-functional uses.

Question 61: Where specific uses are required to provide of open space as part of the development, should the AAP allow for these to be met through multiple shared use (for example school playing fields & playing pitches for the general public)?

See our response to Question 24.

Question 62: Within this overall approach, in particular, which option do you prefer in relation to carbon reduction standards for residential development?
A - a 19% improvement on 2013 Building Regulations (the current Cambridge Local Plan standard); or
B - a requirement for carbon emissions to be reduced by a further 10% through the use of on-site renewable energy (the current South Cambridgeshire Local Plan standard); or
C - a 19% improvement on 2013 Building Regulations plus an additional 10% reduction through the use of on-site renewable energy (combining the current standards in the Local Plans); or
D - consider a higher standard and develop further evidence alongside the new joint Local Plan.

At this stage we support Option D. This is a complex area of policy setting due to the current grid decarbonisation and emerging guidance from different bodies such as the UKGBC task force, and the GLA London Plan. The context of the electricity grid decarbonisation should be considered to ensure that any targets set do not create perverse outcomes in the future over the timescales of the development and should consider the appropriateness of energy efficiency targets as well as carbon targets.

The AAP should aim to be exemplar while also drawing on the most up to date emerging evidence.

Question 63: Do you support the approach to sustainable design and construction standards suggested for the AAP?

Yes, we generally support the AAP sustainable design and construction approaches set out. However with regard to water recycling we think that while water recycling can be an important part of reducing water consumption if used inappropriately can be unsustainable. Therefore we would expect a rounded view to be taken as to when it is most appropriate to apply the highest levels of water recycling (as required by the maximum BREEAM credits for water efficiency), including an understanding of maintenance and carbon efficiency.
Question 64: Do you support the proposal for the AAP to be clear that review mechanisms should be built into any planning permissions in order to reflect changes in policy regarding sustainable design and construction standards in local and national policy? What other mechanisms could be used?

Yes we think it is important to recognise that not all future scenarios are foreseeable and that in order to avoid perverse outcomes in future it may be necessary to reappraise the policy requirements so that the most up to date and relevant standards are applied where necessary, reasonable and practicable.

It may also be advisable to follow guidance from notable charities and NGOs (e.g. UKGBC)

Question 65: Do you support the plan requiring delivery of site wide approaches to issues such as energy and water, as well as the use of BREEAM Communities International Technical Standard at the masterplanning stage?

Subject to further Masterplanning, technical assessment and feasibility testing, we generally support the approach to site wide water proposed and support the approach to innovate energy infrastructure such as smart energy grids. We support the view that infrastructure necessary for decentralised energy should be explored early on in consultation with relevant parties and that consideration should be given to a range of technologies and approaches to ensure the approach with the lowest carbon overall can be identified and supported.

We fully support the principles in BREEAM Communities and believe that while certification often brings a certainty of outcomes it does not always. The effective outcomes of applying BREEAM communities at this stage should be subject to further consideration.

Question 66: Are there additional issues we should consider in developing the approach to deliver an exemplar development?

Consideration should be given to the embodied impacts of buildings and infrastructure installed as well as opportunities to support the circular economy. Consideration should also be given to embracing and supporting innovative smart-tech and infra-tech initiatives where feasible and viable to do so.

Question 67: What approach should the AAP take to ensure delivery of a net gain in biodiversity?

In terms of the Site, owing to the on-going uses of land e.g. Water Recycling Centre, driving range, former Park and Ride site, it is considered likely that it will have limited biodiversity value. It will be necessary, at the relevant stage in the process, to carry out site specific investigations on the potential suitability of habitat for protected species, and to consider mitigation where appropriate. If the assumption is correct, it seems reasonable to believe that the Site can deliver net gains in biodiversity. Notwithstanding this, sites within NEC may be asked to consider biodiversity collectively, to show how habitat mosaics and corridors can be delivered on a more strategic basis. In this event, the AAP will need to provide greater clarity on what process is likely to be followed, and how this will be applied to individual development schemes.

Consideration will also need to be given to increasing the amount of tree canopy cover in NEC.

Consideration should be given to where biodiversity enhancements opportunities exist in nearby areas as well so that the best opportunities for linkages beyond the site boundary are identified as well as ensuring the best opportunities locally can be realised if necessary to meet the net gain requirements.

Question 68: Should the AAP require developments in the area to integrate SMART technologies from the outset?

We generally support the suggestion that NEC should seek to integrate SMART technologies from the outset. As we have previously noted, we will seek to encourage innovative, creative and adaptable solutions throughout all elements of development on the Site. It will be important to consider preparation of a digital strategy for NEC, to seek optimum speeds for broadband/fibre, opportunities to integrate SMART technology in homes, businesses and other development around NEC.

Question 69: Should the AAP require the use of an underground waste system where it is viable?

We support innovation throughout all elements of development on the Site (and indeed NEC). Rather than committing to any specific type of solution at this stage, it will be necessary to understand whether innovative systems used on other sites, such as North West Cambridge, can be applied on the Site.

Question 70: Do you agree that the AAP should prioritise land that can feasibly be developed early? Are there any risks associated with this proposed approach?

The obvious challenge with sites seeking early release/delivery is how they demonstrate that development will not prejudice the wider delivery aspirations of NEC. Where landowners/developers can explain how development can be carried out in a coordinated/comprehensive manner, it seems reasonable to expect that early delivery can be achieved. A coordinated/comprehensive approach must fully ensure that all development complies with s106 tariff/highways trips budgets, in an equitable manner.

As discussed later in Questions 79 and 80, we would encourage a positive policy approach be taken in supporting temporary/meanwhile uses in order to activate the Site in its earlier development phases, and to optimise economic and social benefits in the local area.

Question 71: Should the AAP include a relocation strategy in preference to leaving this to the market to resolve?

The representations of landowners and occupiers will inform the approach. It is considered that the AAP will need to identify and define a strategy for key sites/uses to be relocated, but maintain flexibility for others. Notwithstanding this the NEC has significant potential to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits, and whilst there are a relatively small number of landowners, the strategic opportunities must not be compromised by one or more parties that are unwilling to support the delivery of the NEC. Accordingly, the Councils cannot discount the possibility of using their CPO powers if required.

Question 72: Do you agree with an approach of devising a Section 106 regime specifically for the North East Cambridge area? If not, what alternative approach should we consider?

An infrastructure delivery plan should be prepared for the North East Cambridge Area to identify the infrastructure required and the costs associated with those projects, in order to inform discussions on planning obligations. It would be reasonable to expect all development within the area to contribute towards the required infrastructure, where it benefits the AAP area as a whole rather than individual sites/landownerships

Question 73: What approach do you consider the most appropriate basis on which to apportion the cost of the infrastructure requirements arising from different land uses to ensure an equitable outcome?

We consider that this should form part of a specific study that includes, inter alia, the following considerations:
*Identify the infrastructure required across the AAP area that is necessary to delivering the comprehensive vision. This might include key routes, connections, bridges / underpasses, transport, education, energy/utilities, social etc.
*Identify where these are most appropriately located to meet the AAP vision.
*Establish a cost base for these, including appropriate cost of land recognising that in some cases it would be otherwise used for residential or other development
*Establish an appropriate equalisation formula across the AAP, levied on all new development. This could be one or a combination of a tariff per m2, per net acre etc and may be varied by use class.
*Set this out in a policy / legal framework with an appropriate indexing mechanism

Question 74: How should the AAP take into account potential changes over time, both positive and negative, that might affect development viability?

We consider that this should form part of a specific study that includes, inter alia, the following considerations
*ensuring that development continues steadily over potentially a number of economic cycles - this possibility should be acknowledged and planned for at the outset
*Any viability test whereby s106 or AH requirements would be reduced would need to be carefully calibrated to ensure that infrastructure is protected.
*A review mechanism within the S106 Agreement would allow viability to be reassessed if circumstances change.

Question 75: Do you agree with the proposal to require land assembly where it can be demonstrated that this is necessary for delivering the agreed masterplan for the North East Cambridge area and/or the proper planning of development?

Yes. This does not directly affect U+I. Land assembly will help to ensure the delivery of comprehensive redevelopment of NEC.

Question 76: Should the AAP state that the Councils will consider use of their Compulsory Purchase powers? If so, should the AAP also set out the circumstances under which this would appropriate?

The NEC has significant potential to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits, and whilst there are a relatively small number of landowners, the strategic opportunities must not be compromised by one or more parties that are unwilling to support the delivery of the NEC. It therefore seems appropriate for the AAP to specify how the Councils will use their CPO powers if required, and the circumstances for doing so. This will need to include the viability and timescales of pursuing a CPO process.

Question 77: Should the Councils actively seek to facilitate joint working between the various landowners/developers within the North East Cambridge area? If so, what specific matters could we target for joint working?

Yes. There are a range of stakeholders and landowners involved in the development at the North East Cambridge area, and the successful delivery of NEC will require a coordinated approach. This will need to consider a range of issues including connectivity, infrastructure locations, parking/trip budget, smart-city coordination, delivery programmes, design principles, energy/utilities and waste etc.

Question 78: Do you agree with the Councils' proposed approach to dealing with planning applications made ahead of the AAP reaching a more formal stage of preparation?

Yes. It is agreed that a coordinated approach is required and decisions on applications should be made against the AAP with appropriate, equitable contributions made.

Question 79: What types of 'meanwhile uses' should the AAP support for the North East Cambridge area?

We would suggest a range of 'meanwhile uses' could be appropriate for NEC, and would not expect policy to impose any particular restriction on types of use. The emphasis should be on promoting innovation and creativity, with meanwhile uses serving to provide early foundations for the new Quarter that will emerge and subsequently replace the meanwhile uses in the coming years. Meanwhile uses could therefore provide start-up/incubator accommodation for emerging/expanding sectors, pop-up/small-scale A class uses, community space to begin community cohesion with surrounding neighbourhoods etc. A positive policy approach to obligations and planning requirements will be needed to encourage temporary/meanwhile activation, helping to avoid onerous situations that might otherwise render creative initiatives unviable.

Question 80: Should there be any limit on the scale of a proposed 'meanwhile use'?

It seems unnecessary to impose a limitation on the scale of a proposed 'meanwhile use', as the purpose of a meanwhile use is, fundamentally, to make optimum use of a site that will otherwise be under-utilised for many years. This can have many short-term economic and social benefits. A policy limitation may stifle innovation and creativity. It is considered likely that many of the meanwhile use proposals will require formal planning consent, which will provide the Local Planning Authority with the ability to control and enforce development that is deemed inappropriate.

Question 81: Do you think it appropriate to set a maximum period for how long a 'meanwhile use' could be in operation?

No. A minimum period should be based on the need and timetable for the permanent development. For the most successful meanwhile initiatives a reasonable period of operation is required in order to recoup the initial capital investment.

Question 82: Should the AAP also include a requirement for 'meanwhile uses' to demonstrate how they will add vibrancy and interest and/or deliver on the wider development outcomes and vision for the North East Cambridge area?

No. 'Meanwhile' uses are temporary in nature and an approach that seeks to make efficient use of land, in a compatible manner with surrounding uses, should be encouraged.

Question 83: What negative or positive impacts might the proposed plans have on residents or visitors to Cambridge with low incomes or who have particular characteristics protected under the Equality Act 2010? (The protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.)

We strongly support the intention of the Vision for NEC and Objective 5, to ensure social and economic inclusion, and as stated in our response to Question 5, would seek the addition of the word 'culturally' within the Vision i.e. 'North East Cambridge - a socially, culturally, and economically inclusive...'

It is recognised that NEC lies within close proximity of two highly deprived wards in Cambridgeshire, and that regeneration on the scale envisaged will create significant socio-economic opportunities for a wider catchment beyond the AAP boundary. Development on the Site, for instance, will create long term employment across a multitude of sectors and skill ranges, improved connectivity around the NEC and access to new services and facilities. We support the intention of the Councils to undertake a Health Needs and Impact Assessment, across an appropriate study area for the NEC, in order to better understand the challenges and issues faced in neighbouring wards, so as to link into opportunities that will arise in NEC.

As stated within our response to Question 5 we generally support the application of local plan accessibility in the NEC. This standard is meeting Part M of the Building Regulations, however due to the requirements of meeting a higher than normal housing number target on the Site, we require flexibility on how the standard is applied. It is important that the Cambridge Local Plan accessibility standards offers flexibility on how the standards are achieved across the many elements of the new masterplanned scheme. While designing for and incorporating accessibility standards is also accepted as a progressive way to future-proof new housing, it is important the standards do not affect the ability of the scheme to meet the density and the target housing required. Currently the Cambridge Local Plan has adopted the optional standard Part M4(2) and has also adopted M4(3) based on a percentage, which is still higher than the national standards, this may have an adverse impact on our scheme.

Question 84: Do you have any other comments about the North East Cambridge area and/or AAP? Are there other issues and alternatives that the councils should consider? If you wish to make suggestions, please provide your comments.

We would encourage a specific section on education and health provision within the NEC, noting the likelihood that if on-site provision is required, it may require different formats/approaches on how such provision is made i.e. traditional forms of provision in Cambridgeshire are unlikely to be suitable in a high density urban regeneration scheme of this nature.

If off-site provision is considered to be more appropriate, comment should be given on how and where need is expected to be accommodated (for instance it may be more appropriate to extend existing or proposed schools in Cambridge, to create additional Forms of Entry, rather than have a lower number of Forms of Entry on-site that falls below the recommended minimum sizes).

Question 4 - Have we identified all relevant constraints present on, or affecting, the North East Cambridge area?
1.2 Brookgate Land Limited consider that paragraph 4.16 (Odour) requires further clarification and comment.
1.3 To support the hotel and office applications, Brookgate Land Limited commissioned Arup to prepare an Odour Assessment Report to assess the odour from the Cambridge Water Recycling Centre. The Report has been shared with the Councils and is publicly available.
1.4 The Arup 2015 report confirms that the entire Phase 1b site is suitable for residential use. This was based on Anglian Water's own monitoring data and included an allowance for higher temperatures in the Summer months to ensure a robust approach.
1.5 The 1.5 ouE/m3 contour line from the Arup report (i.e whereby residential uses are no longer likely to be suitable) is shown by a dotted blue line below [in attached file].

Since the preparation of the above Arup 2015 Odour Assessment, the Councils have commissioned their own independent Odour Impact Assessment, as referred to in paragraph 4.16 of the NEC AAP document. This Assessment involved an odour measurement survey which was conducted at the Water Recycling Centre (WRC) in summer 2017 and the report is dated October 2018. Despite several requests to be provided with copies of the Assessment by Brookgate Land Limited as part of on-going discussions regarding the development potential of the Phase 1b site, the report was only made publicly available on 13 March 2019 when it was released as part of papers for the 20 March 2019 Joint Development Control Committee meeting.
1.7 The Odour Impact Assessment is due to also be reported to the City Planning Committee on 3 April 2019 and the South Cambridgeshire District Planning Committee on 10 April 2019. The Odour Impact Assessment is therefore being reported through the committee cycle but is not being subject to consultation, despite it being recognised as a key technical evidence base document relevant to the NEC AAP area.
1.8 Brookgate Land Limited therefore object to the lack of opportunity for consultation on the findings of the Councils Odour Impact Assessment.

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (AAP) - Issues and Options Consultation February 2019

Response on behalf of Veolia and Turnstone Estates

Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council is consulting on Issues and Options for the North East Cambridge AAP. The consultation deadline is 25th March 2019. This response has been prepared on behalf of Veolia and Turnstone Estates for land at Cowley Road, Cambridge outlined in red on the accompanying Site Location Plan.
The representations contained herein relate primarily to the development intentions for the Cowley Road site, but also in the context of the wider AAP area. Cambridge City Council own the freehold of the site where Veolia have a long leasehold interest in the land from which they operate waste transfer station which serves Cambridge and its sub-region.
There are a total of 84 Questions covering a range of themes provided within the consultation document and those considered relevant to the Veolia site at Cowley Road are summarised below:

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

We are generally supportive of the proposed boundary for the AAP area. However, land in close proximity should be included to provide relocation opportunities for existing established businesses within the area.

Question 3: In this Chapter have we correctly identified the physical characteristics of the North East Cambridge Area and its surroundings?

Generally yes, however it would be beneficial for additional information to be provided regarding environmental constraints associated with the Veolia business operation e.g. noise, air quality, odour. Veolia provide environmental services and operate a waste transfer station from the site, however the document has only made reference to the Waste Water Recycling Centre.

Question 4: Have we identified all relevant constraints present on, or affecting, the North East Cambridge Area?

Consideration has not been given or reference made to the existing Veolia business operation on Cowley Road. Careful consideration needs to be given to noise, air quality and odour as these may pose a significant constraint to development of the surrounding area.

There are commercial reasons for Veolia to be located on Cowley Road and some future uses such as residential would not be compatible with their business operation should they remain on site. There is a requirement for them to be located within the area.

We would also suggest that consideration is given to the inclusion of sites on the edge of the proposed NEC. If some of the existing industrial uses are to be relocated as part of the redevelopment proposals, these businesses are important to the Cambridge Sub-region and need to be located in close proximity to Cambridge.

Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed Vision for the future of the North East Cambridge area? If not, what might you change?

Yes, the proposed vision is generally supported, however this may need to modified should Veolia remain where they currently are on Cowley Road.

Question 6: Do you agree with the overarching Objectives? If not, what might you change?

Yes generally, however careful consideration needs to be given to existing established businesses within the area such as Veolia.

Question 7: Do you support the overall approach shown in the Indicative Concept Plan? Do you have any comments or suggestions to make?

It is noted that the Concept Plan can only be treated as indicative at this stage in the AAP process, until the outcomes of the various supporting studies are known and wider consultation with relevant interested parties has taken place.

The land to the north of Cowley Road is allocated for residential-led mixed use development. As outlined, the existing Veolia use constitutes a constraint to the surrounding land coming forward for residential purposes. The existing Veolia waste transfer use is not compatible with the movements and activities associated with a residential use, particularly due to environmental constraints such as noise, air quality and noise. Unless a viable relocation site is found, the vision and concept plan should be modified to enable Veolia to remain on site. The potential relocation to the north east corner of the site might be broadly supported, however further information on this needs to be provided. It is considered that the area would also constitute a suitable location for employment intensification. It is clear that further supporting studies need to take place before the concept plan can be finalised.

Question 8: Do you agree that outside of the existing business areas, the eastern part of the North east Cambridge AAP area (i.e. the area east of Milton Road) should provide a higher density mixed use residential led area with intensified employment, relocation of existing industrial uses and other supporting uses?

Outside of the existing business areas, we are generally supportive of the initial development intentions for the area east of Milton Road. However, careful consideration needs to be given to the needs and requirements of the existing Veolia business. If Veolia remains on site, this would be a constraint to the future residential led redevelopment of the area. No information has been provided on the relocation of the existing industrial uses. As outlined above, the Veolia business provides an invaluable service to Cambridge and needs to be conveniently located within the City.

Question 11: Are there any particular land uses that should be accommodated in the North East Cambridge Area?

The AAP provides a significant opportunity to create thousands of new homes in a highly sustainable location. However, careful consideration needs to be given to the needs and requirements of the Veolia and other established businesses within the area as these are of paramount importance to the continued growth of the Cambridge sub region. Veolia is an established Cambridge business that needs to be located in close proximity to Cambridge. These industrial uses need to be considered at the outset and if they are to be relocated, any future site needs to be conveniently located and also represent a viable alternative.

Question 16: Should the AAP include any or a combination of the options below to improve pedestrian and cycling connectivity through the site and to the surrounding area?

The options to create a strong east-west axis to unite Cambridge North Station with the Science Park is supported. This can successfully be achieved on Cowley Road without impacting on the Veolia site and operation. The options to improve connectivity between Cowley Road and Nuffield Road are also supported and this will ensure safe and convenient travel through the wider site ensuring coordinated development.

Question 20: Do you agree with proposals to include low levels of parking as part of creating a sustainable new city district focusing on non-car transport?

The sustainable approach towards car parking and the focus on non-car transport is broadly supported. However consideration needs to be given towards the requirements of the Veolia use. The Veolia operation needs to be conveniently located and given the industrial nature of the business, car parking for staff and customers along with access for various forms of vehicles (HGV's etc.) needs to be taken on board.

Question 28: Do you agree that car parking associated with new development should be low, and we should take the opportunity to reduce car parking in existing developments (alongside the other measures to improve access by means other than the car)?

The concept of encouraging non-car modes of travel is supported. However, as outlined above, consideration of the business requirements for the Veolia use is important.

Question 36: Which of the following approaches should the AAP take to existing industrial uses in the north east Cambridge Area?

As acknowledged within the Consultation Document, the existing industrial uses within the area are important to the Cambridge economy. If the uses are to remain in situ, careful consideration does need to be given to the compatibility with adjoining future uses such as residential.
The Veolia operation needs to be located within Cambridge and provides an invaluable service to a wide range of Cambridge businesses.

Question 37: Are there particular uses that should be retained in the area or moved elsewhere?
As outlined in the response to Question 36, it is imperative that the Veolia use remains within the area.

Please see attached representation