Policy 1: A comprehensive approach at North East Cambridge

Object

Representation ID: 52003

Received: 12/08/2020

Respondent: Miss Fiona Hynd

It looks cramped, and more motivated by money than to regenerate the area. Build some houses yes, but 8000 new homes, and expect it not to have an impact on the roads in the area is disillusional

Comment

Representation ID: 52570

Received: 13/09/2020

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Starkie

You have said that the Spatial Framework is not a masterplan but rather a high-level strategic diagram which identifies key development requirements that will help inform and guide subsequent developer masterplans and future infrastructure projects which are brought forward within the plan area. There is therefore no guarantee over the development period that the grand vision will be adhered to. In the current economic situation there is no guarantee that developers will be able to meet these criteria, leaving a waste land site and causing turning a green belt into a brownfield with the relocation of the WWTP.
The maps show areas which may be affected by the huge increase in housing and infrastructure but, though Fen Ditton and Fulbourn are shown, the village of Horningsea is not and it will be heavily impacted if the WWTP is moved to Honey Hill. There is no justification in so many dwellings, necessitating very high density and high rise building in this area. You will need to "create" jobs while the jobs already exist to the east of Cambridge (ARM) and the south at the biomedical complex. There is no guarantee that companies will want to move to this area; the hitches want to be near the university or are already catered for in the Science Park. Does that mean it will be an area of car repair and other workshops? If so the workers are going to need vans and lorries and it won't be carbon neutral.

Comment

Representation ID: 52992

Received: 28/09/2020

Respondent: Mrs Hazel Smith

The community to the East of the railway deserve better connectivity to Cambridge and to the new development. A bridge to take traffic across the railway line must be part of this plan, so that the railway can be used more, and the Fen Road crossing gates down more of the time. Routes to school for people from the Fen Road Traveller site must remain walkable. A 2-mile detour is not acceptable.

Also I would like to see a link from any sewage infrastructure that passes under the Fen Road area, so that they could have a mains sewage connection - this would do more than anything to improve the environment East of the railway.

Object

Representation ID: 53271

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)

Paragraph 3 of Policy 1A should be reworded as follows in order to make explicit the need to deliver health infrastructure as part of the development (changes in BLOCK CAPITALS):

“The Councils will work to secure the comprehensive regeneration of North East Cambridge during the plan period, in particular the creation of a new high quality mixed-use city district, providing at least 8,000 new homes, 20,000 new jobs, and new physical, social and environmental infrastructure, INCLUDING HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, that meets the needs of new and existing residents and workers, as well as delivering tangible benefits for surrounding communities. In order to achieve this, the Councils will work in collaboration with the County Council, Greater Cambridge Partnership, other strategic partners and landowners to:
a. Secure and deliver the interventions and infrastructure needed to deliver the vision and objectives for the area including: the required modal shift in accordance with the North East Cambridge Transport Study; district-wide networks and services; relocations and land assembly; environmental, amenity, and community health and wellbeing standards; a network of functional and multi-use open spaces; and innovative approaches to community facilities provision;
b. Actively manage the timely delivery and phasing of homes, jobs and infrastructure, INCLUDING HEALTHCARE FACILITIES, taking action where necessary to address or overcome barriers to delivery;
c. Engage local residents, community groups, schools, colleges and local enterprises in establishing ongoing partnerships and initiatives aimed at involving communities in shaping the places within North East Cambridge where they live and work, and to maximise job opportunities for local people in both the construction phase and beyond;
d. Implement measures to facilitate and administer a low car dependency culture; and
e. Create a cohesive, inclusive and strong community, including sustainable public sector service delivery in the area.”

Object

Representation ID: 53408

Received: 03/10/2020

Respondent: Fen Ditton Village Society

inappropriate post- Brexit and during pandemic
different working practices – too much commercial and retail space
James Palmer quote – Rethinking Cities – keep green spaces
moving WWTP to Green Belt to make way for development
size and density – denser than London , higher than Uni Library
phasing is 2030 – 2035 – when WWTP moves in two years its site will be derelict and open to crime and drug abuse
every sections lacks detail – transport, water use, restrictions on building heights, health care, sport and nursery provision
claim that Milton Road will not be affected but 4000 cars for residents and more for commercial and retail

Object

Representation ID: 53466

Received: 03/10/2020

Respondent: Mrs Laurie Woolfenden

Madcap NECAAP , wrong time, wrong place. Please see my letter which featured in the Cambridge News on Thursday 1st October 2020 in the letters section.

Support

Representation ID: 53713

Received: 04/10/2020

Respondent: Ms Clara Todd

I generally support the development of the area. It is quite a far-reaching and lovely plan in many ways - I like the green corridors, the new centres for commerce/socialising, and actually a fan of more dense in building but ensuring access to green space, trees etc).

I am a bit concerned given we will have the double economic shock of Brexit (and a distinct possibility of a no-deal Brexit) in January, and seismic changes brought about by Covid-19 pandemic that an ambitious plan such as this might hit some trouble.

Object

Representation ID: 53773

Received: 04/10/2020

Respondent: Rebecca Munns

I think it is frankly duplicitous and disingenuous to be promoting the eco advantages of using this brownfield site when nearby greenbelt land is being destroyed in order to free up the brownfield site through the relocation of the sewage works. I don't believe the eco and climate impact of the sewage works has been included in the eco impact assessment of this build and you cannot divorce the two

I think the population density proposed for the site is simply too high in a post-pandemic world where there is more focus on needing space, both within one's own home and in the immediate surroundings for exercise and recreation. There is simply not enough outdoor space for the proposed population and the nearby places like Milton country park which are already at capacity will suffer.

I fear that the office space will sit unoccupied because of a shift in attitude towards homeworking (driving the need for more space at home) so I believe this should pause whilst an assessment of the needs in the "new normal" of a post-pandemic world is carried out.

I don't believe that effectively banning cars from this development will have the desired effect. People will still need and own cars for a variety of reasons and if they can't be parked onsite, they will be pushed out to the local streets in nearby communities. Reduced car ownership might be encouraged with a car sharing scheme but there still needs to be parking for those cars.

I cannot see how adding an additional 18k people on this site will not increase traffic on Milton road and the local A14 unless there is significant investment in public transport across cambridge, including to places outside of the city centre, like the retail centres of Newmarket road, the station and addenbrookes

Comment

Representation ID: 53953

Received: 04/10/2020

Respondent: Mrs Tamsin Beevor

A piecemeal development would be nonsensical. While supporting the general approach it is unclear how this will be implemented and how the plans will lead to a cohesive and strong community. How will the policy result in overcoming the existing barriers between the communities on either side of the railway - both physical and cultural - without addressing the issue of improved vehicular access to the community to the east of the railway along Fen Road.
The format of this consultation makes it difficult to comment as a member of the public. Cambridge has a very high turnover of residents and a plan such as this will inevitably be commented on by different people at each stage of the consultation, this makes it challenging to have an inclusive process that takes into account the changing demographics and views of the community as the plans progress.

Comment

Representation ID: 54492

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Cambridge Cycling Campaign

Camcycle supports a co-ordinated approach to development at North East Cambridge, but is concerned that a piecemeal delivery may already be locked in by construction and planning applications currently underway and the reliance on individual landowners and developers. We support Cambridge Past, Present and Future’s recommendation to establish a Special Purpose Vehicle such as a locally-controlled Development Corporation to ensure that the vision for the area can be properly realised.

We think the requirement within this policy for at least 8,000 new homes and 20,000 new jobs needs to be rethought: the number of jobs implies that the new site would create demand for more housing outside the area and the likelihood is that these journeys will be made by non-sustainable means, increasing local issues of congestion and pollution.

The phasing of delivery of homes, jobs and infrastructure should be designed to support the ambition to achieve 75% of trips by walking, cycling and public transport and we suggest following the example of high-density neighbourhoods where this has been successful, such as the ‘Living First’ campaign in Vancouver (see Marshall, 2008*). It is important that infrastructure for walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing is in place before any residents move in.

*Marshall, Julian D. (2008). Reducing urban sprawl could play an important role in addressing climate
change. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 9, 3133–3137.

Object

Representation ID: 55467

Received: 27/09/2020

Respondent: Mr Matthew Asplin

Policy 1 seeks to approve proposals that contribute to delivery of the Action Plan’s vision ‘without
delay, subject to a full assessment of the particular impacts of the proposals and securing
appropriate mitigation measures where necessary’

No provision appears to exist for the existing published policies within the 2018 Adopted Local
Plans or the 2011 Adopted Mineral and Waste Plan.

The Draft Plan appears selective and fails to adopt a comprehensive approach to the
development.

The Draft Plan stops short at the North East Area and seeks to disassociate relocation of the
Waste Water Treatment Plant and in doing so doesn’t represent a comprehensive approach.

Comment

Representation ID: 55662

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

Neutral
The sentence starting “The Councils will work to secure…” should be revised to more clearly state that the 20,000 new jobs are a minimum. The “at least” in this sentence applies to the 8,000 new homes, needs to apply to the 20,000 new jobs and does not apply to the new infrastructure.

Any ‘active management’ of the phasing of homes, jobs and infrastructure must not delay the delivery of jobs.

The reference to maximising job opportunities for local people is well-intentioned and supported in principle, but the mechanisms by which it is intended to achieve this need to be clear.

Comment

Representation ID: 55726

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Neutral:
Brookgate broadly support the aims of Policy 1, the Spatial Framework and Land
Use Plan. However, as referred to under Section 1 of these representations, the
supporting diagrams as currently drafted are too precise. They should instead be
clearly marked as indicative.
Both the Spatial Framework and Land Use Plan also need to recognise the
potential for an educational facility within the Cambridge North site, a 16-19 offer in
the form of specialist Maths School. This is capable of coming forwards separately
to the proposed primary school sites and the potential safeguarded land for a
secondary school.
It also needs to be recognised that the adopted plans of South Cambridgeshire
District Council and Cambridge City Council make it clear that planning applications
are capable of being submitted and granted planning permission in advance of the
AAP being adopted (South Cambridgeshire Local Plan Policy SS/4 and Cambridge
City Local Plan Policy 15). Under both policies, the Cambridge North Site is
allocated for high quality mixed-use development, primarily for employment uses
such as B1, B2 and B8, as well as a range of supporting commercial, retail, leisure
and residential uses (subject to acceptable environmental conditions).
~
□
□
□
□ ~ □
The approach in the recently adopted local plan in respect of early submissions
should not be watered down through the AAP process, indeed, through the AAP
process the opportunity to bring Brookgate land forward early should be explicitly
acknowledged as beneficial to the regeneration of the area, creating a sense of
place and arrival around the new Station and evidencing in commercial terms how
the low parking ratios might work.

Comment

Representation ID: 55846

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Veolia and Turnstone Estates

Agent: Carter Jonas

The comprehensive approach towards development and regeneration at North East Cambridge is broadly
supported. However, a comprehensive approach must include the following: appropriate phasing of
redevelopment sites to ensure that proposed uses are compatible with existing business operations
on adjacent sites and in close proximity, including the existing waste recycling transfer facility
off Cowley Road; ‘meanwhile’ uses that are appropriate and compatible with existing business
operations on adjacent sites; and, the successful relocation of the existing waste recycling
transfer facility to a suitable alternative site within close proximity of Cambridge.

Support

Representation ID: 55899

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: GCR Camprop Nine Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

The comprehensive approach towards development and regeneration at North East Cambridge is broadly
supported. Policy 1 expects the criteria in Policy 23 (Comprehensive and Coordinated Development)
to be addressed for development proposals. It is noted that Policy 23 requires applications for
major development to successfully integrate with the surrounding area. In summary, it is proposed
in the AAP that there would be intensification of existing employment floorspace within Cambridge
Science Park including the redevelopment of under-utilised premises and associated car parks. The
redevelopment of the existing building at 127 – 136
Cambridge Science Park would be consistent with the development strategy for this area.

Comment

Representation ID: 55924

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Ridgeons Timber & Builders Merchants and Turnstone Estates

Agent: Carter Jonas

The comprehensive approach towards development and regeneration at North East Cambridge is broadly
supported. Policy 1 expects the criteria in Policy 23 (Comprehensive and Coordinated Development)
to be addressed for development proposals. It is noted that Policy 23 requires applications for
major development to successfully integrate with the surrounding area. The Nuffield Road Industrial
Estate (where the Ridgeons site is located) is proposed to be redeveloped for residential use in
the AAP; comprising 4 to 5 storeys and a maximum of 6 storeys. However, it should be expected that
the existing builders merchant operations at the Ridgeons site would continue and therefore the
activities associated with that existing use could be incompatible with the proposed residential
use of neighbouring land particularly if tall buildings are provided adjacent to the Ridgeons site.
Therefore, and as set out in the representations to Policy 23, the parameters for residential
development at the Nuffield Road Industrial Estate site should be defined and adjusted to ensure
that those uses are integrated and compatible with the existing builders merchant operations at the
Ridgeons site on the basis that it remains. Should a residential use be progressed on the site,
this could not happen until a suitable alternative site for
the existing Ridgeons operation has been identified and approved.

Support

Representation ID: 55965

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Hawkswren Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

The comprehensive approach towards development and regeneration at North East Cambridge
is broadly supported. Policy 1 expects the criteria in Policy 23 (Comprehensive and Coordinated
Development) to be addressed for development proposals. It is noted that Policy 23 requires
applications for major development to successfully integrate with the surrounding area. However,
as set out in the response to Policy 9, it is noted that the development parcel that includes the
Barr Tech site is proposed for buildings of 4 to 5 storeys and maximum of 6 storeys, when taller
buildings are proposed for adjacent development parcels. It is requested that similar building
heights are specified for the development parcel that includes the Barr Tech site as those for
adjacent parcels, in order to deliver a comprehensive and coordinated approach to development.

Object

Representation ID: 55990

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited

Agent: Carter Jonas

The comprehensive approach towards development and regeneration at North East Cambridge
is broadly supported. However, a comprehensive approach must include the appropriate phasing
of redevelopment sites to ensure that existing and proposed uses are compatible, and the
successful relocation of existing businesses to suitable alternative sites

Object

Representation ID: 56014

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Endurance Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy 1 states that the Councils will work to secure the comprehensive regeneration of North East Cambridge during the plan period, in particular the creation of a new high quality mixed-use city district, providing at least 8,000 new homes, 20,000 new jobs, and new physical, social and environmental infrastructure. Draft Policy 1

The Draft Policy references both the Spatial Framework (Figure 10) and Land Use Plan (Figure 11), as shown below. (See submission attachment)

We have concerns regarding the quantum of development required within Draft Policy 1, and particularly the specified provision of “at least 8,000 new homes” (emphasis added). Given that the vast majority of these homes are to be provided on the eastern part of the Action Area (as shown in Figure 11, Proposed Land Uses), we are concerned that such a strategic-scale housing allocation should be focused on such a relatively small and highly constrained site. In addition to the 8,000+ proposed dwellings, Draft Policy 1 requires the provision of 20,000 new jobs and new physical, social and environmental infrastructure including three primary schools and safeguarded land for a secondary school.

Compared with strategic sites such as Cambourne, Northstowe and Waterbeach, the scale of residential development proposed is comparable, but necessitates residential densities that are unprecedented in the Cambridge area (see further comments on density below, re: Policy 9).

Whilst the NEC area is allocated in both the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 and South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 (Policies 15 and SS/4, respectively), the Site is identified as a high-quality mixed-use development, primarily for employment within Use Classes B1, B2 and B8 as well as a range of supporting commercial, retail, leisure and residential uses (subject to acceptable environmental conditions). Whilst the local plan policies state that the amount of development, site capacity, viability, timescales and phasing of development are to be determined through the preparation of the AAP, we are of the view that the quantum proposed in the Draft NECAAP does not reflect the relevant policies within the adopted development plans. If the NEC Site is to be brought forward for the amount of development that is currently proposed, then this increased scale should be considered for allocation within the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan through the local plan process.

On a related note, the large number of unresolved constraints on development at NEC raise serious concerns regarding viability and delivery. Draft Policy 1 and the associated plans (Figures 10 and 11) provide very limited flexibility to accommodate local environmental factors, site constraints and market forces as land parcels come forward for development over time. In the meantime, we consider that the proposed quantum of development and the associated parameter plans should be considered indicative only. We remain of the view that requiring a minimum of 8,000 dwellings is too much, given both the size of the area allocated for housing and the various site constraints that remain at the time of the policies being drafted.

Comment

Representation ID: 56135

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Upfront should be a clear policy support for the relocation of the Waste Water Treatment Plant. Otherwise good and
strong policy but enshrines spatial framework drawings in policy - with all their inherent weaknesses. ‘Jobs’ not floorspace
target.