Policy 10e: Cowley Road Neighbourhood Centre

Comment

Representation ID: 53428

Received: 03/10/2020

Respondent: Fen Ditton Village Society

Many facilities are not in the high density area (Cowley Road) – may lead to social isolation.

Object

Representation ID: 53481

Received: 03/10/2020

Respondent: Mrs Laurie Woolfenden

Cowley Road centre appears to have highest density and highest buildings but served by fewer facilities
Where is the secondary school – children grow up?
Little detail on what the “services” are at the Science Park centre – do “services” imply those for vehicular travel? Currently Milton Road jammed with cars.
What guarantees are there that the developments will not become crime-ridden, sterile areas like that at Cambridge Station which was designed to be a similar wonderful mix?

Comment

Representation ID: 54508

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Cambridge Cycling Campaign

We support that this centre has been located on a key cycling and walking route. However, we note that plans for development of St John’s Innovation Park, submitted in August and September 2020, already threaten the delivery of the district’s vision with two car barns (rather than one) and substandard walking and cycling connections. Priority should be given to people walking and cycling on this part of Cowley Road, as elsewhere in the site, with improvements made to the Jane Coston bridge and its approaches to allow for the increase in cycle and foot traffic which the new district will bring. Phasing of employment and residential build-outs, along with supporting services and infrastructure, will be key to realising the ambitious goals for sustainable transport.

Comment

Representation ID: 55678

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

Neutral:
The broad rationale for the distribution of centres is understood. The Cowley Road Neighbourhood Centre (Policy 10e) is indicated to be partly on land owned by St John’s College. Whilst there are longer term plans for the redevelopment of parts of St John’s Innovation Park, further clarification and discussion is required as to how it is anticipated that the “small amount of ancillary retail space would extend the local centre over Cowley Road” into St John’s Innovation Park would be accommodated in advance of any redevelopment.

Object

Representation ID: 55734

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

The supporting text to Policy 10e states that ‘Beyond the District Centre, a new pedestrian and
cycling bridge will connect over Milton Road to Cambridge Science Park’.

Brookgate do not support the concept of a bridge over the Milton Road corridor, and are surprised
that it is categorically stated in the draft. Brookgate’s transport consultants have consistently
made the case (as have other NEC landowners) during the workshops on the NEC AAP that improvements
to the ‘at grade’ pedestrian and cycle crossings both at the Science Park entrance and the CGB
junction be looked at in more detail before any decision of a bridge is taken forward. Brookgate
had thought that this had been agreed by all parties.

The fundamental targets of the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) is to reduce vehicle movements
into the city centre of Cambridge by up to 20%. This clear policy target should be seen in the
context of highway intervention proposed on the Milton Road corridor. Reduced ‘through traffic’
on Milton Road provides the opportunity to give improved priority to pedestrian and cycle movements
(a key policy of the draft NEC) and to ‘humanise’ the Milton Rod corridor.

A grade separated bridge is an outdated 1960s concept and would create an inhospitable vehicle
dominated spaces at ground level with people ‘inconvenienced’ on detours over bridges, ramps etc.
The proposed bridge on Milton Road is at a location where pedestrians and cyclists need to access
the bridge from the north, south, east and west. How can a bridge facilitate all these
movements with ramps in excess of 100m long?

Comment

Representation ID: 56145

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Retail uses: 3,000m2– This is very specific, should state a range with a higher maximum. We do not yet know if this is the
right amount of retail here, further work and studies are needed before this is, eg on connectivity and movement.
Schools: Need further work to establish proposed location of schools and relationship to proposed neighbourhood
centres. Disagree with safeguarding for secondary school which is not supported by the evidence base.
Milton Road Crossing: The AAP is very specific about a bridge across Milton Road but the need for a bridge has not yet
been established, an at-grade option is still being considered.