Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Search representations
Results for Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust search
New searchComment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Chapter 1: Introduction and purpose
Representation ID: 200227
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your team for your work in the preparation of the SPD for CBC.
We are pleased to see a final document which strikes an appropriate balance between the shared ambition we, the local authorities, and our campus partners share for the CBC, whilst also recognising that there will be a need to bring forward smaller scale projects, within a framework to manage and deliver incremental enhancements to the campus.
The recognition that proposals on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus will vary greatly, ranging from replacement roof plant through to high profile new hospital buildings, we welcome the pragmatic, flexible and proportionate approach advocated in the document. We also welcome the proposed proportionate application of the requirements of the SPD, which will necessarily be applied on a bespoke basis, based on the location, scale and nature of any given proposal. The recognition of the central need to deliver high quality healthcare outcomes, is welcomed.
I outline our key comments in respect of the draft SPD in the remainder of this letter.
See Letter
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Chapter 1: Introduction and purpose
Representation ID: 200228
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
In the interests of clarity, it is important that the Rosie Hospital is recognised as a separate hospital on the campus in the same way as both Addenbrooke’s Hospital and the Royal Papworth Hospital. It is therefore requested that Paragraph 1.4 of the document be reworded to read: “References to ‘the Campus’ made throughout this SPD refer to Phases 1-3 of development that are allocated within the adopted Local Plans and to the existing Addenbrooke’s, Rosie and Royal Papworth Hospitals and related buildings.”
In the interests of clarity, it is important that the Rosie Hospital is recognised as a separate hospital on the campus in the same way as both Addenbrooke’s Hospital and the Royal Papworth Hospital. It is therefore requested that Paragraph 1.4 of the document be reworded to read: “References to ‘the Campus’ made throughout this SPD refer to Phases 1-3 of development that are allocated within the adopted Local Plans and to the existing Addenbrooke’s, Rosie and Royal Papworth Hospitals and related buildings.”
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Chapter 2: Ambitions for the Campus and development to date
Representation ID: 200229
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
The third sentence of paragraph 2.8 should be reworded as follows: “This means that alongside Addenbrooke’s Hospital, the Rosie Hospital and the Royal Papworth Hospital (which moved to the Biomedical Campus in 2019), there will be five hospitals within the campus, consolidating it as a regional centre for healthcare.”
The third sentence of paragraph 2.8 should be reworded as follows: “This means that alongside Addenbrooke’s Hospital, the Rosie Hospital and the Royal Papworth Hospital (which moved to the Biomedical Campus in 2019), there will be five hospitals within the campus, consolidating it as a regional centre for healthcare.”
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Chapter 3: Site context
Representation ID: 200230
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
The campus is first and foremost concerned with the quality of the healthcare outcomes for its patients and greater emphasis should be given to this within the SPD. Paragraph 3.3 should be reworded to read: “This SPD meets the aims of the NPPF by promoting sustainable development that responds appropriately to the surrounding context of the site through high quality design, within the context of the need to deliver high quality healthcare outcomes.”
The campus is first and foremost concerned with the quality of the healthcare outcomes for its patients and greater emphasis should be given to this within the SPD. Paragraph 3.3 should be reworded to read: “This SPD meets the aims of the NPPF by promoting sustainable development that responds appropriately to the surrounding context of the site through high quality design, within the context of the need to deliver high quality healthcare outcomes.”
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Chapter 3: Site context
Representation ID: 200231
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
Paragraph 3.31 refers to the accessibility of the campus by public transport and the connectivity of the campus with the transport hubs; however, it neglects to mention the internal shuttle bus service that operates at the campus, linking the transport hubs to the rest of the site. In order to address the omission, it is proposed that the following sentence is added to paragraph 3.31: “The campus does benefit from an internal shuttle bus service for patients and visitors which looks to improve connectivity and accessibly across the campus.”
Paragraph 3.31 refers to the accessibility of the campus by public transport and the connectivity of the campus with the transport hubs; however, it neglects to mention the internal shuttle bus service that operates at the campus, linking the transport hubs to the rest of the site. In order to address the omission, it is proposed that the following sentence is added to paragraph 3.31: “The campus does benefit from an internal shuttle bus service for patients and visitors which looks to improve connectivity and accessibly across the campus.”
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Chapter 4: Cambridge Biomedical Campus development principles
Representation ID: 200232
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
Paragraph 4.12 looks to create a homogenous public realm that ties the campus together; however, such an approach risks creating an institutional feel rather than a diversity of design and the creation of character areas, which can aid legibility. It is proposed that the final sentence of paragraph 4.12 is reworded to read “A coherent approach to the public realm through the use of materials and street furniture is key to lifting the quality and coordinating streets and spaces on the Campus, while recognising that some variation in style across the campus can aid legibility and create character areas.”
Paragraph 4.12 looks to create a homogenous public realm that ties the campus together; however, such an approach risks creating an institutional feel rather than a diversity of design and the creation of character areas,
which can aid legibility. It is proposed that the final sentence of paragraph 4.12 is reworded to read “A coherent approach to the public realm through the use of materials and street furniture is key to lifting the quality and coordinating streets and spaces on the Campus, while recognising that some variation in style across the campus can aid legibility and create character areas.”
Support
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Chapter 4: Cambridge Biomedical Campus development principles
Representation ID: 200233
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
The recognition that there is a great variety of projects coming forward on the campus and that a flexible and proportionate approach will be taken when implementing the guidelines based on the scale, function, location and nature of the individual proposal is welcomed.
The recognition that there is a great variety of projects coming forward on the campus and that a flexible and proportionate approach will be taken when implementing the guidelines based on the scale, function, location and nature of the individual proposal is welcomed.
Support
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Chapter 5: Obligations and mitigation
Representation ID: 200234
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
The recognition in paragraph 5.3 that “…not all projects will be able to meet all of these objectives” is welcomed, given the diversity in scale and complexity of the projects coming forward on the campus.
The recognition in paragraph 5.3 that “…not all projects will be able to meet all of these objectives” is welcomed, given the diversity in scale and complexity of the projects coming forward on the campus.
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Chapter 2: Ambitions for the Campus and development to date
Representation ID: 200235
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
Paragraph 2.2, line 1 – suggests Addenbrooke’s Hospital opened on its current site in 1967; however, paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 suggests a date of 1962. The latter is correct.
Paragraph 2.2, line 1 – suggests Addenbrooke’s Hospital opened on its current site in 1967; however, paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 suggests a date of 1962. The latter is correct.
Comment
Draft Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document
Chapter 3: Site context
Representation ID: 200236
Received: 23/01/2025
Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Agent: Mr Michael Hendry
Paragraph 3.2 need updating to reflect the National Planning Policy Framework 2024
Paragraph 3.2 need updating to reflect the National Planning Policy Framework 2024
