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

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 43

Object

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 32497

Received: 18/02/2019

Respondent: J M

Representation Summary:

I object

Full text:

I object

Comment

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 32516

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Mr David Attmore

Representation Summary:

I think greater emphasis needs to be placed on the areas around Cambridge North station - what areas are to be included in any development linked to that?

Full text:

I think greater emphasis needs to be placed on the areas around Cambridge North station - what areas are to be included in any development linked to that?

Support

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 32519

Received: 11/03/2019

Respondent: Mr David Attmore

Representation Summary:

Perhaps more could be done to integrate the different sections?

Full text:

Perhaps more could be done to integrate the different sections?

Support

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 32526

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Prof Aled Jones

Representation Summary:

Yes the overall macro level approach is good. This should not be lost in the detail and while things (like walkability) will be designed in it is equally important to design out things that you are trying to encourage individuals to reduce (e.g. design out cars).

Full text:

Yes the overall macro level approach is good. This should not be lost in the detail and while things (like walkability) will be designed in it is equally important to design out things that you are trying to encourage individuals to reduce (e.g. design out cars).

Comment

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 32571

Received: 15/03/2019

Respondent: Alison Finn

Representation Summary:

A community tree nursery should be started now so that the trees planted in this new district are native grown from native seed.

Full text:

A community tree nursery should be started now so that the trees planted in this new district are native grown from native seed.

Support

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 32584

Received: 30/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Andrew Milbourn

Representation Summary:

The consultation needs to address the issues which are likely to be of most interest to residents such as: Sense of identity and place.

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

Full text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 32621

Received: 30/01/2019

Respondent: Hurst Park Estate Residents' Association (HPERA) *3

Representation Summary:

The consultation needs to address the issues which are likely to be of most interest to residents such as: Sense of identity and place.

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

Full text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 32638

Received: 30/01/2019

Respondent: Milton Road Residents Association

Representation Summary:

The consultation needs to address the issues which are likely to be of most interest to residents such as: Sense of identity and place.

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

Full text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 32657

Received: 22/03/2019

Respondent: Dr Roger Sewell

Representation Summary:

Sadly a "walkable neighbourhood" does not do away with the need for people to have access to a car for travel outside the neighbourhood, and no amount of wishful thinking will make it otherwise.

Further, the needs of visitors to be able to come to the area by car should not be forgotten, as it has been e.g. in the Aura housing development South of Long Road.

Full text:

Sadly a "walkable neighbourhood" does not do away with the need for people to have access to a car for travel outside the neighbourhood, and no amount of wishful thinking will make it otherwise.

Further, the needs of visitors to be able to come to the area by car should not be forgotten, as it has been e.g. in the Aura housing development South of Long Road.

Support

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 32675

Received: 21/03/2019

Respondent: Ms Lisa Buchholz

Representation Summary:

Particularly supporting the idea of a 'district scale' green space. Non negotiable if we are going to build all this hardstanding.

Full text:

Particularly supporting the idea of a 'district scale' green space. Non negotiable if we are going to build all this hardstanding.

Object

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 32741

Received: 22/03/2019

Respondent: The Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

The concept plan is severely lacking in green infrastructure provision and ability to deliver a measurable net gain in biodiversity on site. If the river corridor is added to the AAP this would increase the scope of provide better strategic green infrastructure solutions as well as deliver more by way of biodiversity enhancement associated with the site, rather than having to provide biodiversity offsetting elsewhere in the county.

Full text:

The concept plan is severely lacking in green infrastructure provision and ability to deliver a measurable net gain in biodiversity on site. If the river corridor is added to the AAP this would increase the scope of provide better strategic green infrastructure solutions as well as deliver more by way of biodiversity enhancement associated with the site, rather than having to provide biodiversity offsetting elsewhere in the county.

Comment

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 32754

Received: 22/03/2019

Respondent: Ms M Thompson

Representation Summary:

Unfortunately the lack of labelling of existing roads and some landmarks eg river make it impossible for me to understand the concept plan, although I know the area well! Needs clarifying and asking for further consultation.

Full text:

Unfortunately the lack of labelling of existing roads and some landmarks eg river make it impossible for me to understand the concept plan, although I know the area well! Needs clarifying and asking for further consultation.

Support

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 32815

Received: 24/03/2019

Respondent: Dr Robert Norton-Wright

Representation Summary:

I broadly support the plan, especially the variety of land use, new green spaces and improved permeability for walking and cycling.

Full text:

I broadly support the plan, especially the variety of land use, new green spaces and improved permeability for walking and cycling.

Object

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 32835

Received: 24/03/2019

Respondent: Jeremy Bickerstaffe

Representation Summary:

You ignore the community next door.

I don't understand this vision.

6.1 You want to regenerate the area, but not the neglected area next door?

6.2 You want to cohesively integrate into existing communities. But not the one on the other side of the railway? You show a "5 minute walk" circle by the station as if it's possible to walk across the railway line.

6.3 You see Milton Road with its two existing cycle and pedestrian crossings as a barrier to movement, but there's no need to reduce the barriers to transport across to the other side of the railway line?

6.4 You want to optimise accessibility, but leave the people on the other side of the railway with their limited access to Cambridge?

Full text:

I don't understand this vision.

6.1 You want to regenerate the area, but not the neglected area next door?

6.2 You want to cohesively integrate into existing communities. But not the one on the other side of the railway? You show a "5 minute walk" circle by the station as if it's possible to walk across the railway line.

6.3 You see Milton Road with its two existing cycle and pedestrian crossings as a barrier to movement, but there's no need to reduce the barriers to transport across to the other side of the railway line?

6.4 You want to optimise accessibility, but leave the people on the other side of the railway with their limited access to Cambridge?

Support

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 32882

Received: 24/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Anna Williams

Representation Summary:

I support this overall approach. I think enhanced green space and upgraded walking and cycling links are particularly important.

Full text:

I support this overall approach. I think enhanced green space and upgraded walking and cycling links are particularly important.

Comment

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 32999

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: Tarmac Ltd

Representation Summary:

There is a Tarmac rail fed asphalt plant and aggregate handling depot adjacent to land proposed for residential led mixed used development. The Tarmac site is within a transport safeguarding area under policy CS23 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Development Plan Core Strategy. The site is vital to enabling the sustainable transport of minerals which will be required to deliver the development of infrastructure in Cambridge and the surrounding areas. It is important that the rail fed asphalt plant and aggregates depot is safeguarded and appropriate development is proposed in the area surrounding it.

Full text:

There is a Tarmac rail fed asphalt plant and aggregate handling depot adjacent to land proposed for residential led mixed used development. The Tarmac site is within a transport safeguarding area under policy CS23 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Development Plan Core Strategy. The site is vital to enabling the sustainable transport of minerals which will be required to deliver the development of infrastructure in Cambridge and the surrounding areas. It is important that the rail fed asphalt plant and aggregates depot is safeguarded and appropriate development is proposed in the area surrounding it.

Comment

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 33012

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management

Agent: Turley

Representation Summary:

While the provisions set out in the Concept Plan are broadly supported, it is noted that the area shown for residential-led mixed use development relies on much of the existing employment uses being re-located and that the area allocated for this relocation is much smaller in scale. Many of the existing businesses on the site are successfully operating in this location, set on the periphery of the City and in close proximity to major road networks and rail provision. It is difficult to see how they could successfully be re-located to alternative sites without this being prejudicial to their success.

Full text:

While the provisions set out in the Concept Plan are broadly supported, it is noted that the area shown for residential-led mixed use development relies on much of the existing employment uses being re-located and that the area allocated for this relocation is much smaller in scale. Many of the existing businesses on the site are successfully operating in this location, set on the periphery of the City and in close proximity to major road networks and rail provision. It is difficult to see how they could successfully be re-located to alternative sites without this being prejudicial to their success.

Comment

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 33036

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council

Representation Summary:

It is noted that a considerable area of land which has 'Opportunity for Residential and Mixed Use' (shown on Figure 5.1: Concept Plan) is adjoining the aggregate railheads and which falls within the railheads designated Transport Safeguarding Area. Residential development (including hotel development) immediately adjacent to the railheads would not be appropriate, as this could prove to be prejudicial to the operation of the railheads. The Concept Plan should therefore be revised to remove residential use from the immediate proximity of the railheads.

Full text:

The eastern part of North East Cambridge AAP area (i.e. the area east of Milton Road referred to as CNFE) has two railheads which are critical to the supply of mineral which cannot be found locally, in particular crushed rock. It is vital that these railheads continue to operate in order to ensure a steady supply of mineral to support the development planned in Greater Cambridge and beyond. These facilities are currently safeguarded under the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Plan (Policies CS23 and SSPT2C), and will continue to be safeguarded under the new Minerals and Waste Local Plan. Safeguarding seeks to ensure that only development which is compatible with the railheads will take place in the safeguarded area; and that new development will not be permitted where it may give rise to activities which could prejudice the ongoing operation of the these facilities. This situation should be explicitly recognised in the AAP, and future proposals must have regard to the provisions of the adopted safeguarding policy.

In this context it is noted that a considerable area of land which has 'Opportunity for Residential and Mixed Use' (shown on Figure 5.1: Concept Plan) is adjoining the aggregate railheads and which falls within the railheads designated Transport Safeguarding Area. Residential development (including hotel development) immediately adjacent to the railheads would not be appropriate, as this could prove to be prejudicial to the operation of the railheads. The Concept Plan should therefore be revised to remove residential use from the immediate proximity of the railheads. If residential development is within the Transport Safeguarding Area, but not adjacent to the railheads such development must demonstrate that it would not be prejudicial to the ongoing operation of the aggregate railheads. Similarly it appears that mixed use development will be residential led development and therefore this must also be compatible with the railhead uses, and not be located in a position where it could be prejudicial to the ongoing operations of the railheads. Consideration of this matter should include the wider implications of the ongoing operation of the railheads for potential new neighbouring development, including the impact of any HCV movements, dust and noise emissions.

Please note that the railheads have been reconfigured since the adopted Transport Safeguarding Area was designated. However, this has been taken into account and the emerging Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Further Draft Plan 2019), which is due to published for public consultation in 2019, has a revised Safeguarding Area proposed.

The overall approach with regard to movement through the site is broadly supported, accepting that this is an early indicative concept plan and that the detailed work on making the two sites work in transport terms has yet to be undertaken. The indication of specific green links connecting these two sites is welcomed. Last mile links will be particularly important within the area, especially for connecting Cambridge North Station to the more westerly parts of the AAP area. It will also be important to be mindful of how the Greater Cambridge Partnership's thinking evolves on their Waterbeach to Science Park public transport link and to ensure that this is reflected and included in the AAP.

Any education facilities on site would be best located in, or close to, the District Centre.

Comment

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 33089

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Richard Taylor

Representation Summary:


It's important to consider the land owned by the Crown Estate as part of the public estate
There is an opportunity to provide space for flexible infrastructure in this area to connect the station, science and business parks, park and ride, and the new developments which could be used by a range of transport technologies.
One characteristic of many of Cambridge's green spaces is that they are connected. Green space in this area could be connected to Milton Country Park via an underpass and a bridge to the Fen Road area connecting to the river providing access to high quality green space.

Full text:

It's important to consider the land owned by the Crown Estate as part of the public estate; it should not be difficult to secure public access rights over it where they are in the interests of the area as a whole succeeding - particularly given the investments and interests held by other parts of the public sector in the area.

There is an opportunity to provide space for flexible infrastructure in this area to connect the station, science and business parks, park and ride, and the new developments which could be used by a range of transport technologies. The provision of corridors separated from traffic may benefit those developing novel transport systems for good and people as well as pedestrians and cyclists. The area should be open to innovation in transport, to reflect it's purpose as a centre for innovation in other areas.

One characteristic of many of Cambridge's green spaces is that they are connected. Green space in this area could be connected to Milton Country park and the River if means of crossing over/under the railway and the A14 were incorporated. Tunnelling an underpass to Milton Country Park and a bridge to the Fen Road area connecting to the river would provide easy access to large amounts of high quality green space, and natural environment.

Comment

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 33098

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sasha Wilson

Representation Summary:

And what is the wonderful high quality green route from Cambridge North to the Science Park going to be? The mind boggles.

Full text:

And what is the wonderful high quality green route from Cambridge North to the Science Park going to be? The mind boggles.

Object

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 33144

Received: 14/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Fenton

Representation Summary:

Your maps show the proposed centre of the development fairly near Milton Road on the Cambridge North Access Road. To my mind this will make the centre feel like somewhere to be driven past rather than a destination in its own right. I would prefer to see the centre towards the access road, incorporating the station development.

Full text:

I support the idea of having a high density residential zone with generous green spaces.

I would prefer the green spaces to include some larger areas.

I support the idea of a green bridge over Milton Road, I would like to see this in conjunction with a roundabout replacing the multiple traffic lights.

Your maps show the proposed centre of the development fairly near Milton Road on the Cambridge North Access Road. To my mind this will make the centre feel like somewhere to be driven past rather than a destination in its own right. I would prefer to see the centre towards the access road, incorporating the station development.

Comment

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 33181

Received: 22/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Bullen

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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.

Comment

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 33198

Received: 22/03/2019

Respondent: Dr Virgilio Leon Lew

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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.

Comment

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 33215

Received: 22/04/2019

Respondent: Ms Angela McIntyre

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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.

Support

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 33232

Received: 23/03/2019

Respondent: Alex Markham

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

Support

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 33260

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: The Master Fellows and Scholars of the College of Saint John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge

Agent: Savills

Representation Summary:

The College broadly supports the indicative concept plan. The College supports the identification of St John's Innovation Park as having 'opportunity for employment densification'.
Whilst there are some concerns and questions raised about the Council Officers assertions about the need for such visual connections between two significant employment areas, the College is supportive of improving linkages where they are capable of being delivered.
Overall, support linkages as expressed within the concept plan within the AAP.

Support

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 33264

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: Anglian Water Services Ltd

Representation Summary:

Anglian Water is supportive of the principles outlined in the Indicative Concept Plan dependant upon the outcome of detailed feasibility assessments. For example the location and appropriate uses within each area will be subject to the feasibility of removing and/or retaining any existing infrastructure in Anglian Water's ownership.

Comment

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 33285

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: Montagu Evans LLP

Representation Summary:

The Crown Estate notes and supports the recognition that the AAP area is not just about regeneration, but should also acknowledge the potential for the intensification and potential diversification of the range of uses on existing established sites. The Crown Estate considers that this could include Cambridge Business Park and this should be reflected in the Concept Plan. Potential options for The Crown Estate which could be reflected on the Concept Plan is "Opportunity for Employment Intensification" or "Opportunity for Residential Led Mixed Use).

Comment

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 33310

Received: 21/03/2019

Respondent: Mr D and Mrs R Savage

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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.

Comment

North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

Representation ID: 33331

Received: 25/03/2019

Respondent: Dr Isabel Winney

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

***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.