Policy 15: Shops and local services
Support
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 53278
Received: 02/10/2020
Respondent: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)
The acknowledgement that healthcare related facilities that cannot be provided in multi-functional community or social facilities premises represent suitable ground floor level uses in the identified centres is welcomed.
The acknowledgement that healthcare related facilities that cannot be provided in multi-functional community or social facilities premises represent suitable ground floor level uses in the identified centres is welcomed.
Object
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 53915
Received: 04/10/2020
Respondent: Mr Jon Pavey
The Policy places a limit on the type/scale of potential leisure facilities (and specifically argues against the likes of cinema, bowling facilities and the like) on the grounds that these would turn NEC into a destination locality and consequently attract high volumes of car based travel from beyond the local area.
Also - and quite rightly - care is being taken to ensure the commercial viability of existing centres, from Milton to Cambridge City, are not undermined.
These are reasonable concerns but given the number of new people (potential consumers) arriving in the area and the low-car design philosophy, this approach risks undermining the intended vibrant community that is a characterful, lively, mixed-use new district where all can live and work.
1) There will be 18,000 people living in NEC, some employed in the 35,000 jobs. But many employed on site will commute from elsewhere (as now). There is thus a large pool of people on the NEC site who could engage in leisure activities in NEC. And this would be supplemented by residents and workers in the area immediately surrounding.
2) The low-car use strategy depends on good public transport and active travel facilities. The more customers the public transport has, the better chance it will be commercially viable and able to deliver the services necessary - including through the evening when some workers struggle with public transport availability. In these terms the NEC being a destination is not a bad outcome.
3) With NEC at the end of the Guided Busway, and with Cambridge North Station, there is already infrastructure for good non-car access to the site. A CAM stop would further enhance this. Thus the arguments about creating additional car journeys may be given too much credence.
4) On top of the new 18,000 people living and additional 20,000 workers in NEC, there will be an influx of people to Northstowe and Waterbeach further boosting the number of new leisure consumers. All these could access the NEC site by active travel or existing public transport infrastructure.
5) With the proposed density and building massing, NEC will feel like a town, not a suburb. To create a positive vibrant atmosphere requires good availability of a range of leisure facilities. This includes having somewhere appealing for young adults to spend time and equally, though of a different character, for senior citizens. And all ages and outlooks in between (as well as catering for children's needs).
6) There is a danger that the Policy as stated will create a dormitory town, that people travel from for their entertainment - so creating journeys - but also leaving quite streets, which perhaps, especially after dark could become threatening and result in residents shutting themselves indoors. Where then the vibrant community?
The Policy places a limit on the type/scale of potential leisure facilities (and specifically argues against the likes of cinema, bowling facilities and the like) on the grounds that these would turn NEC into a destination locality and consequently attract high volumes of car based travel from beyond the local area.
Also - and quite rightly - care is being taken to ensure the commercial viability of existing centres, from Milton to Cambridge City, are not undermined.
These are reasonable concerns but given the number of new people (potential consumers) arriving in the area and the low-car design philosophy, this approach risks undermining the intended vibrant community that is a characterful, lively, mixed-use new district where all can live and work.
1) There will be 18,000 people living in NEC, some employed in the 35,000 jobs. But many employed on site will commute from elsewhere (as now). There is thus a large pool of people on the NEC site who could engage in leisure activities in NEC. And this would be supplemented by residents and workers in the area immediately surrounding.
2) The low-car use strategy depends on good public transport and active travel facilities. The more customers the public transport has, the better chance it will be commercially viable and able to deliver the services necessary - including through the evening when some workers struggle with public transport availability. In these terms the NEC being a destination is not a bad outcome.
3) With NEC at the end of the Guided Busway, and with Cambridge North Station, there is already infrastructure for good non-car access to the site. A CAM stop would further enhance this. Thus the arguments about creating additional car journeys may be given too much credence.
4) On top of the new 18,000 people living and additional 20,000 workers in NEC, there will be an influx of people to Northstowe and Waterbeach further boosting the number of new leisure consumers. All these could access the NEC site by active travel or existing public transport infrastructure.
5) With the proposed density and building massing, NEC will feel like a town, not a suburb. To create a positive vibrant atmosphere requires good availability of a range of leisure facilities. This includes having somewhere appealing for young adults to spend time and equally, though of a different character, for senior citizens. And all ages and outlooks in between (as well as catering for children's needs).
6) There is a danger that the Policy as stated will create a dormitory town, that people travel from for their entertainment - so creating journeys - but also leaving quite streets, which perhaps, especially after dark could become threatening and result in residents shutting themselves indoors. Where then the vibrant community?
Object
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 54122
Received: 04/10/2020
Respondent: Mrs Anne Wildman
Covid has changed the way we shop and the results can be seen in the number of retail and hospitality units falling into disuse in our shopping areas. Is there some provision in the plans for alternative use of these spaces? Do we need so many?
Covid has changed the way we shop and the results can be seen in the number of retail and hospitality units falling into disuse in our shopping areas. Is there some provision in the plans for alternative use of these spaces? Do we need so many?
Comment
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 54519
Received: 05/10/2020
Respondent: Cambridge Cycling Campaign
Camcycle agrees with the proposal to limit the size of retail units so that they do not become a ‘destination’ for people driving from outside the area or generate the need for a car park. This will be essential to meeting the goal of 75% of trips within the site being made by sustainable transport. However, we believe there will probably be a need for further smaller areas of retail outside the main centres to minimise car journeys. Facilities to enable zero carbon deliveries (e.g. by cargo bike) also need to be taken into consideration.
Camcycle agrees with the proposal to limit the size of retail units so that they do not become a ‘destination’ for people driving from outside the area or generate the need for a car park. This will be essential to meeting the goal of 75% of trips within the site being made by sustainable transport. However, we believe there will probably be a need for further smaller areas of retail outside the main centres to minimise car journeys. Facilities to enable zero carbon deliveries (e.g. by cargo bike) also need to be taken into consideration.
Comment
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 55624
Received: 29/09/2020
Respondent: Historic England
Use Classes
Amend references to use classes in line with new use classes.
Suggested Change:
Amend references to Use Classes
Comment
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 55689
Received: 02/10/2020
Respondent: St John's College
Agent: Savills
Neutral:
As commented upon in response to Policy 10e, the Cowley Road Neighbourhood Centre 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.
This section in particular will also need to be reviewed in light of the changes to the Use Classes Order.
Comment
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 55849
Received: 05/10/2020
Respondent: Veolia and Turnstone Estates
Agent: Carter Jonas
The inclusion of additional shops and local services, including a new district centre, within the
North East Cambridge area is supported. However, these uses need to be delivered in locations
reflective of the land value generated where that it is necessary to facilitate release of land.
Lower value uses should not be proposed on the Veolia site.
Support
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 55907
Received: 02/10/2020
Respondent: GCR Camprop Nine Ltd
Agent: Carter Jonas
The inclusion of additional shops and local services, including a new district and local centres,
within the North East Cambridge area is supported.
Comment
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 55929
Received: 05/10/2020
Respondent: Ridgeons Timber & Builders Merchants and Turnstone Estates
Agent: Carter Jonas
The inclusion of additional shops and local services, including a new district centre, within the
North East Cambridge area is supported.
Support
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 55977
Received: 05/10/2020
Respondent: Hawkswren Ltd
Agent: Carter Jonas
The inclusion of additional shops and local services, including within the proposed District Centre
on Cowley Road, is supported.
Object
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 55999
Received: 05/10/2020
Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited
Agent: Carter Jonas
The inclusion of additional shops and local services, including within the proposed District Centre
on Cowley Road, is supported.
Comment
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 56095
Received: 02/10/2020
Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council
Agent: Carter Jonas
The inclusion of additional shops and local services, including a Local Centre for CSP, is
supported, but we seek clarification from GCSP on the proposed location of the Local Centre (it
appears to be in the location of where Xaar are). Could GCSP clarify that the landowner/developer
is supportive of a local centre in this location? – the buildings here are not particularly old,
and the landowner may not have any intention to redevelop. This could affect delivery of the local
centre. It would seem more appropriate to provide a zone of where the local centre might sensibly
be placed, and then leave it to respective landowners who, when and how the uses are brought forward.
Comment
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 56112
Received: 02/10/2020
Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council
Agent: Carter Jonas
The inclusion of additional shops and local services, including a Local Centre for CSP, is
supported, but seek clarification from GCSP on the proposed location of the Local Centre (it
appears to be in the location of where Xaar are). Could you clarify that the landowner/developer is
supportive of a local centre in this location – the buildings here are not particularly old, and
the landowner may not have any intention to redevelop. This could affect delivery of the local
centre. It would seem more appropriate to provide a zone of where the local centre might sensibly be placed, and then leave it to respective landowners who, when and how the uses are brought
forward.
Comment
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 56128
Received: 02/10/2020
Respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council
Agent: Carter Jonas
The inclusion of additional shops and local services, as part of the Cowley Road Neighbourhood
Centre, is supported.
Comment
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 56152
Received: 05/10/2020
Respondent: U+I PLC.
Agent: We are Town
How will Use Classes Order changes impact on provisions (Class E contains B1 + A Classes)?
The maximum size of 150m2 and restriction on merging of units are too onerous – need some flexibility to account for
changing retail trends over the years.