Policy 12a: Business

Comment

Representation ID: 53429

Received: 03/10/2020

Respondent: Fen Ditton Village Society

Is so much commercial space necessary? More people are working from home.
Employers-allocated employee designated housing contrary to Cambridge LP policy 45.
If small start-up trade units, e.g. for repairs, woodworking etc, users will need vans – increasing need for parking spaces.
Is it appropriate to make all the build to rent homes Houses of Multi-occupancy (HMOs)?

Object

Representation ID: 53486

Received: 03/10/2020

Respondent: Mrs Laurie Woolfenden

. reassess need – 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

Comment

Representation ID: 54099

Received: 04/10/2020

Respondent: Mrs Anne Wildman

The overall level of job provision is going to mean over-development of those sites. The current overall effect of the Science park buildings doesn't overbalance the surrounding trees and open spaces. This will be completely lost if the buildings are higher to accommodate the business provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 54114

Received: 04/10/2020

Respondent: Mrs Anne Wildman

I know you want transport to be as sustainable as possible but car parking is already stretched with the result that cars are parked in Milton with workers walking over the Jane Coston bridge to work. This is already causing problems in the village and this over development will not help. Will the walking / cycling / public transport links be in place before any development takes place? You are also making the assumption that the majority of the inhabitants will work in the locality and therefore able to work with walking / cycling distance. It will be a very delicate balance and I can't see the evidence that tells me you have the answers.
Will people want to live on a former sewage farm? Removing the WTP to a green belt site without ensuring that AW use the profits made, to ensure that the new site is as unobtrusive and disruptive as possible to communities that have already borne the proximity of the WTP. It's called passing the buck and doesn't indicate a responsible developing authority.

Support

Representation ID: 54436

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management

Agent: Turley

The proposed retention and intensification of Business uses in this location is supported. As with any City, Cambridge needs to be able to provide jobs for a wide mix of residents with a variety of skill sets. Currently this area, including the Science Park is able to accommodate a variety of business uses, including industrial, some of which complement one another. There are very few examples of this type of provision within the City and to lose such uses in this location would not only alter the character of the area significantly but would also alienate a large proportion of the local workforce.

There is, however, a need to ensure that the promoted uses are safeguarded and continue to offer a wide range of employment spaces to ensure that there is long-term flexibility in the future.

Comment

Representation ID: 54511

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Cambridge Cycling Campaign

We support the location of a variety of different types of jobs and businesses in the area so that as many people as possible are able to travel to work without driving. However, the distribution of jobs and homes is unbalanced, with the western half of the site remaining business-focused and therefore likely to be quieter and less used outside office hours. This could have an effect on the safety and perceived safety of those walking and cycling through the area.

We support plans to move existing heavy industrial activities away from homes, schools and key walking and cycle routes – e.g. by converting Nuffield Road Industrial Estate to residential use – although we feel this area should also include some shops and services. Consideration should be given to providing a connection from Nuffield Road out to Milton Road when reconfiguring the Milton Road junction with the busway, particularly if the underpass will be removed.

Object

Representation ID: 54585

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Dencora Trinity LLP

Agent: Carter Jonas

Policy 12A (Object)

The Policy refers to Trinity Hall Farm Industrial Estate creating up to 1500m2 additional B1 floor area. This figure should be slightly more flexible allowing for a net increase up to 2500m2. The current emerging scheme show an increase of just under 2000m2 net increase, but it is sensible to build in some flexibility. This figure figurer (1500m2 is referred to elsewhere) and should be updated accordingly. The existing site is a low density development comprising circa 5000m2, so it is reasonable to assume the site can easily accommodate a net increase of 2500m2.

Object

Representation ID: 55680

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

It is agreed that there is space to intensify existing business parks. The support in Policy 12a for the redevelopment of St John’s Innovation Park to support existing and future business needs (including the redevelopment of existing under-utilised premises, including associated car parks, and the introduction of other supporting uses) is also supported.

Policy 12a references up to 234,500m2 net additional B1 floorspace, including up to 35,000m2 on the St John’s Innovation Park. Capacity analysis previously provided to the Councils and included as part of applications 20/03523/FUL (South Cambs) and 20/03524/FUL (Cambridge City) demonstrates that some 50,000m2 of additional commercial floorspace can be satisfactorily accommodated on the Park. The capacities in the AAP need to be reassessed. The acknowledgement that “Proposals which exceed these figures will need to be justified in terms of the impact on the trip budget and Area Action Plan wide infrastructure and where the character, role and function of an area will not be compromised” is welcomed and should also be retained in the final version as an acknowledgement that the floorspace figures should not be treated as a ceiling.

Further clarification of the requirement in Policy 12b to provide 10% of the new floorspace as affordable industrial workspace, subject to scheme viability, is required particularly as to what constitutes affordable workspace. It is not appropriate to leave it to the Council’s Economic Development Team to work with developers to agree appropriate terms of affordability on a case by case basis as proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 55735

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

The Policy states that applications which create new employment floorspace and
promote increased jobs and job densities in the Area Action Plan area will be
supported where they are consistent with the other policies of the Area Action Plan
and adopted Local Development Plan.
Overall, up to 234,500 sqm of additional B1 floorspace is proposed in the NEC AAP
area.
The Policy states that ‘proposals that exceed these figures will need to be justified
in terms of the impact on the trip budget and Area Action Plan wide infrastructure
and where the character, role and function of an area will not be compromised’
Brookgate support the aims of Policy 12a in terms of creating new employment
floorspace and promoting increased jobs and job densities in the AAP area.
However, mix and quantum of new employment floorspace should be informed by
both market conditions and successful place-making. Bespoke solutions to
maximise economic and employment benefits should therefore be secured as part
of individual applications rather than through a generic and inflexible policy
approach.
~
□
□
□
□ □ ~
Indeed, initial assessment and design work together with its location adjoining an
existing transport hub has indicated that the Chesterton Sidings is capable of
accommodating greater than 36,500 m2 of additional B1 floorspace whilst having
no adverse impact on the trip budget or compromising the character, role and
function of the area.
It should also be noted that as of 1 September 2020, the Town and Country
Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 amend the
Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. Classes A, B1 and D1
applicable to retail, office and non-residential institutions are removed and a new
Class E ‘commercial’ use has been introduced in their place.
The Chesterton Sidings site (Land at Cambridge North) is capable of providing
significant additional capacity of commercial, Class E, floorspace than that
identified in Policy 12a to support the growing office and R&D market, with
associated increase in job creation.
There is a lack of Grade A office space in Cambridge. For the R&D and business
services sector, the location decisional drivers are access and ability to recruit the
right skill sets. Land at Cambridge North provides this, but the lack of available
space and lack of development pipeline puts that resilience at risk and could
undermine the growth of the R&D sector. Developing land at Cambridge North can
help address the demand and supply imbalance for quality office stock by bringing
forward Grade A space in close proximity to an existing transport hub.
A flexible and positive approach to employment growth should also be adopted in
the NEC AAP and considered in light of the CPIER and the target of doubling the
regional economic growth (GVA) of Greater Cambridge over the next 25 years.
This requires the area going beyond what it has achieved in the past (to double an
economy over twenty-five years requires an average annual growth rate of 2.81%.
Historically, since 1998, the local economy has only grown at around 2.5%.).
Achieving this requires employment growth and more importantly productivity
growth, as we are already at comparatively high levels of employment.
The Science and Technology sector is the engine of the Cambridge Phenomenon
that has driven the economy and it will remain an important part of the local
economy and job market. Alongside, it is important to have all types of commercial
space to provide for a wide range of job opportunities and to serve Greater
Cambridge at close quarters to not overly rely on long-distance travel to service the
area with goods and services. Further prime office floorspace in high quality
developments is also needed to consolidate and expand the world class facilities
which have recently put CB1 on the international property investment map.
The CPIER states that locations with high levels of public transport access, such as
Land at Cambridge North, should be identified for businesses with high
employment densities. This would include sites within walking distance of train
stations, travel hubs and along transport corridors.
“by ensuring good quality public transport is in place before development, the
number of those new residents who will use the transport is maximised. This is also
likely to be the best way to stretch some of the high-value businesses based within
and around Cambridge out into wider Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. These
companies will not want to be distant from the city, but these clusters could ‘grow’
out along the transportation links, providing connection to other market towns.”
Taller prime office buildings should be located close to Cambridge North station in
order to focus development at transport hubs; keeping the city compact, but
supporting the demand for high quality office space.

Support

Representation ID: 55905

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: GCR Camprop Nine Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

Policy 12a sets out the approach to the delivery of business uses in North East Cambridge,
including within Cambridge Science Park. The site at 127-136 Cambridge Science Park falls within
the area which the AAP identifies as the principal source of new business space via intensification
of existing buildings. The proposed redevelopment of the site for office/research and development
use – the subject of a current planning application - seeks to make a more intensive use of an
existing site that is substantially underused at present, and to provide a substantial increase in employment floor space from 1,000sqm to approximately 4600sqm.

The Design and Access Statement prepared in support of the planning application demonstrates how
the proposed building would be flexible and adaptable and will be able to meet
the needs of a variety of occupiers e.g. either a single large occupier or multiple smaller
occupiers.

The proposed redevelopment of 127-136 Cambridge Science Park would be consistent with development
strategy for the area, in terms of intensification of existing sites, increased building
heights, and proposed business use.

Support

Representation ID: 55973

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Hawkswren Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

The proposed development parcel containing the Barr Tech site is identified for business (B1)
and housing uses. Policy 12a sets out the approach to the delivery of business uses in North
East Cambridge. It is noted that Policy 12a proposes a flexible approach including for business
types and sizes, other types of uses to provide an appropriate mix, and adaptable buildings that
can be reused for other uses. It is considered that this flexible approach is appropriate at this
stage because it is likely that market demand and economics for different types of uses will
change during the lifetime of AAP. The redevelopment of the Barr Tech site could accommodate
a more flexible mix of uses including business, housing and short term serviced accommodation.
This mix of uses would be consistent with the proposed mix of uses for the Cambridge Business
Park area as defined in Policy 12a.

Object

Representation ID: 55997

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited

Agent: Carter Jonas

The proposed development parcel containing the Tarmac site is identified for business (B1) and
housing uses. Policy 12a sets out the approach to the delivery of business uses in North East
Cambridge. It is noted that Policy 12a proposes a flexible approach including for business types
and sizes, other types of uses to provide an appropriate mix, and adaptable buildings that can be
reused for other uses. It is considered that this flexible approach is appropriate at this stage
because it is likely that market demand and economics for different types of uses will change
during the lifetime of AAP. The redevelopment of the Tarmac site could accommodate a mix of
types of business and housing uses consistent with those identified for the Cambridge Business
Park area as defined in Policy 12a, but the exact mix of these uses would be determined once
the relocation strategy for the Tarmac site is known.

Comment

Representation ID: 56094

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

We would query the 70,000m2 of new business space for CSP, as indicated in Figures 29 and 30 (which
is also slightly different to the figure given in Question 4. The figure appears to have been
derived from Appendix A of the ‘Typologies Study and Development Capacity Assessment January 2020’.

The Site falls within zone ‘CC’ of that document (Annex 4), which states a parcel size of 3.14ha
(gross), and that a ‘discussion with landowner confirms that there is/are plot(s) within this
development parcel which will be available for redevelopment during the Plan period. Landowner has
confirmed that the intention is to intensify existing land uses within this site and not to
introduce residential development’. Site CC is identified as having potential capacity for 7,850m2
(NIA). It is not clear from the TSDCA plan which plots are considered for this, and we would
welcome clarification from GCSP on this point.

Building 140 is approximately 2,790m2 (GIA), and offers potential to increase floorspace
significantly, by increasing its height to 6-storeys (max) and utilising a large element of its
current car park.

It is noted that the policy seeks to make provision for additional development beyond the 70,000m2
figure, to ensure any such development is justified in terms of trip budget and AAP wide
infrastructure, but it is deemed sensible (and appropriate in Soundness terms) to ensure the
quantum of B1 development in the CSP reflects the most up-to-date information available (and
that the trip budget / AAP wide infrastructure cost is calibrated correctly).

Comment

Representation ID: 56111

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

We would query the 70,000m2 of new business space for CSP, as indicated in Figures 29 and 30 (which
is also slightly different to the figure given in Question 4. The figure appears to have been
derived from Appendix A of the ‘Typologies Study and Development Capacity Assessment January 2020’.

The Site falls within zone ‘KK’ of that document, which states a parcel size of 2.14ha (gross) but
has not been considered for any form of redevelopment on the basis that it is deemed to be
unavailable: ‘Single land ownership. Discussion with landowner confirms that there are no plots
within this development parcel which will be available for redevelopment during the Plan period due
to existing leaseholder agreements’. For the reasons set out in the earlier introduction, this is
incorrect. Both buildings are likely to be available within the first half of the Plan Period. We
therefore would request that GCSP reconsiders its assessment of potential for Buildings 270 and
296, which together could feasibly have redevelopment potential for 10,000 – 12,000m2 (subject to
assessment, modelling and design). Given that the existing buildings currently offer approximately
5,500m2 GIA, it is considered that redevelopment could provide an increase of 4,500 – 6,500m2 GIA.

It is noted that the policy seeks to make provision for additional development beyond the 70,000m2
figure, to ensure any such development is justified in terms of trip budget and AAP wide
infrastructure, but it is deemed sensible (and appropriate in Soundness terms) to ensure the
quantum of B1 development in the CSP reflects the most up-to-date information available (and that
the trip budget / AAP wide infrastructure cost is calibrated correctly).

We think it might also be useful for the table to refer to the recent consent (S/0630/15/FL) that
was achieved on part of site KK (excluding Building 296), which would provide some context to
what has previously been considered in terms of quantum, layout, density and scale.

Comment

Representation ID: 56127

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council

Agent: Carter Jonas

We would query the 35,000m2 of new business space for SJIP, as indicated in Figures 29 and 30
(which is also slightly different to the figure given in Question 4. The figure appears to have
been derived from Appendix A of the ‘Typologies Study and Development Capacity Assessment January
2020’.

The Site falls within zone ‘R’ of that document (Annex 4), which states a parcel size of 4.33ha
(gross), and that a ‘discussions with landowner confirms availability during the Plan period.
Landowner has confirmed that the intention is to intensify existing land uses within this site and
not to introduce residential development.’ Site R is identified as having potential capacity for
22,000m2 (NIA). It is not clear from the TSDCA plan which plots are considered for this, and we
would welcome clarification from GCSP on this point.

Vitrum is approximately 3,200m2 (GIA), and offers potential to increase floorspace significantly,
by increasing its height to 6-storeys (max) and utilising a large element of its current car park.

It is noted that the policy seeks to make provision for additional development beyond the
35,000m2 figure, to ensure any such development is justified in terms of trip budget and AAP wide
infrastructure, but it is deemed sensible (and appropriate in Soundness terms) to ensure the
quantum of B1 development in the SJIP reflects the most up-to-date information available (and
that the trip budget / AAP wide infrastructure cost is calibrated correctly).

Comment

Representation ID: 56146

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

‘An element of new business floorspace’ (see comment on UCO changes below table) insufficient. We are looking for
77,400m2 in our emerging masterplan. We are developing a mixed use city district not a housing estate next to a business park.