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

More emphasis should be made on public transport, and cycling connections

This is a long term vision and should not go against current commitments of both councils. Therefore I would hope the vision is changed to:

North East Cambridge - A socially and economically inclusive, thriving, and ZERO- carbon place for innovative living and working; inherently walkable where everything is on your doorstep'

There is no reason the development should not be zero carbon when it is built - otherwise to meet the current strategies for the two councils it will have to be rebuilt almost immediately once it is completed.

In the same way that university employees have residential priority in Eddington, traffic and property speculation would be reduced if residence in this new district was given over to existing employees in the immediate locale. This would be possible with covenants.

You mention that previous feedback mentioned that infrastructure needs were highlighted, both in terms of services and facilities on the site, and transport connections off the site. I believe this is still an issue. Better connections out of and to Chesterton Fen should be developed as part of this plan.

Yes, this is an appropriate vision, especially the emphasis on low impact transport and economic inclusivity.

The vision of 'a self-sustaining new City District' is a good starting point. The illustrations in this section show large water features which would be appropriate given the proximity of Chesterton Fen, the existing function around water as a vital resource and the quality of such natural environments for example in the London Borough of Hackney.
The proposal for mixed-use is a well worn objective that has proved hard to deliver. With both corner shops and traditional high streets in decline the commercial underpinning for mixed use is ebbing away. It is predicated on economic development that has moved online.
For innovation one needs to look at the development of social capital which has been eroded by the tunnel vision of economic growth. To serve people we need to embrace the concept of 'provisioning' to make sure that quality food is available, quality education and growing spaces that promote self reliance, mental health and clean air.'
Whereas the traditional core of a district is a row of shops, innovation should provide a library, Post Office, Citizens Advice, doctors surgery, Friends meeting house, school, community workshop, mindfulness centre, open air market, plant nursery, winter gardens as well as the inevitable coffee house. Historically cities have created a dependency on the consumer model that constrains human development and resilience when our uncertain future demands resourcefulness and open minds.
Development requires energy and every roof should harvest solar energy while embodied energy should be minimised by substituting timber for steel and concrete.

How can the vision be reasonably considered socially and economically inclusive when the vision excludes the socially isolated and economically poor people living in the traveller and Gypsy sites to the East of the railway?

Very much support the low-carbon vision

Yes, I agree with this vision. I think it's really important that this new area integrated living and working (as well as other uses such as shops and community hubs) and is low-carbon to help this city meet (and ideally far exceed) its commitments to transition to zero carbon by 2050.

I am supportive of the vision overall, however, it seems not enough consideration is being given to the development of schools to serve this community.

The proposal states plans will seek to minimise car use, which I would certainly support, however, how will children and families travel to school - and which schools will they attend?

Published school capacity data indicates a shortfall of school spaces within the next 5 years - and this does not take account of development at NEC. If the neighbourhood is to be walkable and have its own sense of identity and community, this will mean new primary schools and a secondary school would need to be planned and built, which the children and their families can walk to safely. Accessing nearby schools is unlikely to foster the same level of community identity; the available data suggests there will be a shortage of capacity in nearby schools even without this development - and consideration would need to be given to improve pubic transport links to existing schools for children and families if the idea is to reduce car use. Traveling to nearby schools would not be in line with the proposed vision of a carbon free development and would miss an opportunity for a development with the strong bonds and links created with children attending their local school.

The statement ' a socially and economically inclusive ' area, is fine as far as it goes. However as it stands this will ' exclude ' the Traveller community from being ' included '. This community is cut off for a considerable portion of the day as their only access is along Fen Road, Chesterton, across the level crossing. Because of Cambridge North Station the crossing is closed for a long time. This community has a relationship with the new development area, and access for them should include the provision of a vehicular bridge across the railway from Cowley Road.

Redeveloping this area provides a great opportunity for "more Cambridge"; for more of the activities which already take place successfully in the city to be accommodated, in a modern and practical manner. There is huge potential for a great return on the significant national Government investment which is to be made in the area. The design of the area should be focused on enabling those living and working in it to contribute to the challenges facing humanity. As well as a financial return a successful place here has the potential to make life more pleasant for large numbers of people and help keep Cambridge as a global centre of knowledge based activity, biotechnology, and high tech engineering.

I strongly support the proposals for enabling more people to live closer to where they work; reducing commuting and congestion and for an increased density of business activity in the area, supported by the new station and other transport improvements.

I find the phrase 'everything on your doorstep' somewhat misleading to say the least. Do you mean the new station because I have seen no mention of schools, doctors surgeries, shops, chemists and banks which to me means 'everything on your doorstep'

In principle, I support this proposal, but I only support proposal if there is a higher proportion of social/council rent level and affordable (this definition needs re-defining at a national level) housing to ease the local housing waiting list.

We do not need another 'commuter community' where the properties are occupied by those commuting to London to work and who contribute nothing to the local economy and block accommodation from those in need locally.

More consideration needs to be given to the reality of car use- not the fantasy that planners have that all will use public transport or cycle. We need a decent public transport system - currently it is expensive, unreliable and not frequent enough. If Milton Rd is to be the main road, it needs redeveloping. Sort out the traffic light sequencing- it's ridiculous.

Hold developers to account for decent S106 and stop letting them 'renegotiate' because they suddenly decide the development is not financially viable.

This proposal must have community amenities (Orchard Park and Cambourne failed) such as community centres' schools, GP, pharmacy, café/social area, lots of small neighbourhood parks; early in the development, not several years later when the developer wants to.

Overall design/layout needs to facilitate interaction if a sense of community is to be achieved. Provide some structured activities/space and leave space opportunities for first arriving residents to create their own and contribute to the identity of the place. Get a community worker in early on to help with this. Doing so will save problems developing later. Development should be led by community's needs and interests, not the developers.

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.

Dear Cambridge North Eastern Fringe,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q70: OBJECT

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

Q75, 76: SUPPORT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q70: OBJECT

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

Q75: 76: SUPPORT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q70: OBJECT

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

Q75: 76: SUPPORT

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

I 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.

Dear North East Cambridge (NEC) Planning Team

Thank you for inviting a response to your proposals, which I received through my letterbox about a month after the start of the consultation period, and thus only two weeks before the closing date. As a result, I am having to write to you while on an extended foreign trip. That is not a satisfactory way to consult.

I write as a someone who has lived on the edge of the NEC area for over 40 years, a period which has seen many changes in the area, and on its periphery. I have followed these changes keenly. I welcome in broad terms the development of the NEC area, but wish to make the following observations:

1. Noting the proposed vision and objectives, I would strongly question whether "the place" as currently delineated could achieve "a strong identity", as proposed in objective 1. I think that the area is fundamentally two distinct places, on either side of Milton Road, north east of the Kings Hedges Road/Green End Road crossing.

2. To the left, heading north east are the established residential communities largely along the Kings Hedges & Lovell Road axes, plus their Regional College and Science Park neighbours. There is no scope for further residential development, without major change of use from commercial to residential use between Seeleys Court and the Science Park, which you are not proposing. It seems to me that the major issues in this part of the area are (i) the creation of a Local Centre to serve the residential population (plus that of Ramsden Square), for which provision is indicated in your proposal, and is welcome, and (ii) hugely improved links across Milton Road at its widest, busiest and most complex, to Cambridge North station by bike, foot and public transport. Again, this is outlined in your proposal and is welcome. However, wide and busy arterial roads delineate areas with which communities identify. There are no convincing arguments in your proposal that north east Milton Road is an exception to this rule. Given this major constraint, the two sides of the road are and will surely remain distinct areas for the great majority of people residing and/or working in them.

3. To the right, heading north east, is an utterly contrasting area, with little current residential provision, but plans for very substantial residential development to the north of Cambridge North station, including on sites that are currently industrial. This is welcome, but the ambitions expressed for this development - in your vision and objectives statement - seem to me muddled and of limited use. How about setting the vision in terms such as "a place that strives for the highest attainable health, wellbeing and harmony of all who live, work and play there, through setting, promoting and sustaining the highest possible standards of urban landscape design, environmental cleanliness, ease of transport, and work, recreational, and local democratic management opportunities, while achieving net zero carbon usage, and in so doing acting as a standard bearer for the whole of Greater Cambridge" Such a vision statement would lend itself better to the development of specific, measurable, achievable, reviewable, time-related objectives.

4. Finally, your proposals are inadequate as regards the involvement of the population of the area or areas in the development of their 'quarter(s)'. A series of one-off consultations, with or without 'proposals ping-pong' with residents associations and other interests, are not substitutes for an ongoing rich dialogue with the local residential, business and other communities, organised in a way that enjoys popular confidence in the area(s). This needs to be re-considered, and proposals brought forward for public discussion.

I hope that these comments are useful.

If I can get into your online interactive consultation system from my present location, I will attempt to respond via there as well.

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.

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.