Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

Figure 4 shows an indicative Household Recycling Centre location at the boundary with the A14 alongside an area for an inert waste recycling facility. Whilst we welcome the inclusion of this facility, and more importantly the footnote that states that 'the Household Recycling Centre could also be located on B2, B8 and sui-generis land in the vicinity of Cowley Road', we are concerned that at present the new entrance to serve this facility is in very close proximity to the Jane Coston Bridge and also crosses protected verge land. Such issues, alongside permeability into the site by pedestrians and cyclists, still need careful consideration.

The County Council is currently reviewing the strategic waste service provision of Household Recycling Centres. At present the allocation for a Household Recycling Centre, allocated through the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan, is intended to provide essential waste infrastructure which will be needed when the time limited Household Recycling Centre at Milton closes. This will be the only facility in the Cambridge area and must continue to be taken into account in future development scenarios.

We welcome the acknowledgement to the role of Anglian Water's Water Recycling Centre and the odour issues that need to be taken into account. We also welcome the acknowledgement to noise issues in relation to the A14 and the mineral and waste operations, all of which need to be taken into account when planning compatible uses in the future that do not prejudice the existing and planned operations.

Paragraph 6.14 discusses landscaping and enhancement for high quality development. However, reference to existing screening landscape on the site also needs to be taken into account, particularly alongside the boundary with the A14. Furthermore, existing waste uses also need to be considered in the context of landscaping, so this should be acknowledged within the issues and constraints going forward. In particular when the heights of buildings are being considered the consideration of views onto such activities also need careful consideration and should be acknowledged at this early stage.

o 6.7 - The need to provide leisure/community opportunities for the Nuffied Road area is supported as this area is a deprived area and these services/facilities can help improve health and social cohesion.
o 6.8 - The aim for modal shift welcomed but this needs to be an evidenced based figure of 24% i.e. the number of Cambridgeshire people who work less than a set distance from work who travel by car, also what are the current background levels.

The County Council supports the redevelopment of the area. With the new station, busway and proximity to the A14 and A10, the site is probably better linked than any other on the Cambridge fringe. The station will markedly improve accessibility into the area and could divert many longer trips onto rail, particularly on the Ely, Royston and Saffron Walden corridors. There is an excellent opportunity through the AAP to make sure that the local transport network from the station makes these trips as easy as possible for those going to the Science Park, Regional College, or to the other major employment sites in the area. At the same time, new employment in the area will have the opportunity to take advantage of the excellent transport links, particularly by rail, guided bus, walking and cycling. It is also fair to say that early development around the station would also improve the attractiveness of rail and bus trips into the whole area.

However, there is a need for a very careful consideration of how this growth can fit into the local transport network, and a particular focus on what level of growth might be possible to manage, given the constraints of that network. Some very high levels of new jobs are under discussion. Even at the lowest level, the number of new jobs is equivalent to around three new Cambridge Science Parks. If the transport network and peoples travel patterns remain as now, we do not need to model to know that the local road network will not cope with this.

The City Deal transport programme has obvious potential to help address this issue. Several work packages are likely to provide new sustainable transport capacity in the area:

* Milton Road bus corridor
* A10 north corridor transport package - rail, Busway, pedestrian / cycle networks, A10 improvements
* Eastern Orbital public transport - Science Park to Cambridge Biomedical Campus.

Work to further develop the Milton Road corridor is likely to commence early next year (subject to Member consideration). Work on the other two packages has yet to be programmed. However it will not be possible to complete the work in time to meet the timescales envisaged for the AAP. The level of growth under consideration in the area is likely to require a more radical approach to transport in the area and potentially in the wider city than is currently under consideration.

To put this into context, at the levels of growth under consideration, even very low mode shares of car use similar to those that are targeted in the CB1 development around Cambridge Station will cause very severe problems on the local road network. The Highways Agency has not accounted for growth at the levels under consideration in its planning of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon scheme. There is often a commercial imperative to produce development in areas with similar levels of parking to that historically seen. In this case, that would be wholly counterproductive, as the road network would not have the capacity to get people to these parking spaces. Growth at the levels under consideration will demand a wider consideration of how the current and new employment uses operate in transport terms, and quite possibly, how the wider city, fringes and employment catchment operate.

Development Principle G is supported, the continued operation of the Water Recycling Centre and the strategic railheads are essential for the growth and well being of the Greater Cambridge area.

Development Principle L seeks to deliver 'enhanced connections for pedestrians, cyclists, buses, prioritise these modes to encourage a modal shift'. However, care needs to be taken to how this can be delivered alongside existing and planned mineral and waste activity to avoid a potential conflict situation.

An additional development principle should be added which includes the need to ensure that essential services / infrastructure is retained and / or provided. This may be infrastructure which is essential to support the development proposed in the CNFE, or the wider Cambridge area e.g. a new Household Recycling Centre.

Support objective 1, but amend option B to read " By creating a sustainable, cohesive and inclusive area by ensuring there is appropriate support, improving access to jobs, homes, open space, leisure facilities and other services within the development and to the wider community".
This is supported but would benefit from "health" added to address any deprivation in the area of Chesterton.

All options will require more detailed transport assessment work to understand the transport implications, across all modes, of the proposals including their inter-relationship with emerging proposals under development by the County Council as part of the City Deal programme. Although this is true of all options, this is particularly the case for those that propose higher levels of development which might require significant transport intervention to ensure that transport impacts are not severe. This applies to both the local networks (walk, cycle, bus, and highway) and also the strategic road (i.e.: Highways Agency) and rail (i.e.: Network Rail) networks. This will need to be reflected in viability work.

The retention of the strategic aggregate railhead is supported.

The inclusion of an indicative location for the new Household Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility is also supported, together with the caveat that gives the flexibility for this to be located on alternative B2, B8 or sui generis land in the vicinity of Cowley Road.

It is noted that the Veolia Waste Transfer Station site would be redeveloped. This site is safeguarded through the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan, but scope exists for this use to be accommodated on other land proposed for B2, B8 and sui generis uses.

The retention of the existing inert waste recycling centre, within the curtilage of the Water Recycling Centre is supported. This existing facility is time limited but lies within an allocated Area of Search for a permanent site for such a use (allocated by the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan).

The provision made for the temporary storage of aggregates for the improvement of the A14 is supported. A temporary facility in this location (with time restricted access directly on to the A14) will assist in the efficient movement of mineral for the scheme.

All new development which falls within the Safeguarding Area for the Water Recycling Centre (designated by the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan) will in due course need to comply with Policy CS31 Waste Water Treatment Works Safeguarding Areas (WWTW SA) of the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2011). The proposed uses must demonstrate that they would not prejudice the continued operation of the water treatment works i.e. by an odour assessment report. It would be prudent to bear this requirement in mind now when new uses which would normally be occupied by people are being proposed, particularly if the juxtaposition of certain uses would give rise to future amenity issues which could pose issues / constraints to the future operation of this essential infrastructure. Under Option 1 all the proposed uses except for those in the new station area and in the Nuffield Road area fall within the WWTW SA. Option 1 places those which are likely to be less sensitive i.e. B2, B8 and Sui Generis, immediately adjacent the Water Recycling Centre, and those which are likely to be more sensitive i.e. B1 uses further away. This approach is supported, although consideration to heights of buildings, views and the use of any external landscaped areas being capable of being used for the purpose designed will still be required.

For the options listed on pages 33-41 the positive and negative aspects of each topic and options presented are supported. There needs to be a balance to ensure uplift to Chesterton, enough local facilities/employment to support new housing without detriment to new or existing residents - the redevelopment should present opportunities to reduce the sources of concern - odour, noise etc. as much as possible, and enhancing opportunities for active travel.

All options will require more detailed transport assessment work to understand the transport implications, across all modes, of the proposals including their inter-relationship with emerging proposals under development by the County Council as part of the City Deal programme. Although this is true of all options, this is particularly the case for those that propose higher levels of development which might require significant transport intervention to ensure that transport impacts are not severe. This applies to both the local networks (walk, cycle, bus, and highway) and also the strategic road (i.e.: Highways Agency) and rail (i.e.: Network Rail) networks. This will need to be reflected in viability work.

The retention of the strategic aggregate railhead is supported.

The inclusion of an indicative location for the new Household Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility is also supported, together with the caveat that gives the flexibility for this to be located on alternative B2, B8 or sui generis land in the vicinity of Cowley Road.

It is noted that the Veolia Waste Transfer Station site would be redeveloped. This site is safeguarded through the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan, but scope exists for this use to be accommodated on other land proposed for B2, B8 and sui generis uses.

The retention of the existing inert waste recycling centre, within the curtilage of the Water Recycling Centre is supported. This existing facility is time limited but lies within an allocated Area of Search for a permanent site for such a use (allocated by the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan).

The provision made for the temporary storage of aggregates for the improvement of the A14 is supported. A temporary facility in this location (with time restricted access directly on to the A14) will assist in the efficient movement of mineral for the scheme.

The provision of new heavy goods vehicle access is supported as this will enable traffic movements associated with the railheads, waste management and other B2, B8 and sui generis uses to be separate from Cowley Road which will be subject to additional use by station and other users.

All new development which falls within the Safeguarding Area for the Water Recycling Centre (designated by the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan) will in due course need to comply with Policy CS31 Waste Water Treatment Works Safeguarding Areas (WWTW SA) of the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2011). The proposed uses must demonstrate that they would not prejudice the continued operation of the water treatment works i.e. by an odour assessment report. It would be prudent to bear this requirement in mind now when new uses which would normally be occupied by people are being proposed, particularly if the juxtaposition of certain uses would give rise to future amenity issues which could pose issues / constraints to the future operation of this essential infrastructure. Option 2 places those which are likely to be less sensitive i.e. B2, B8 and Sui Generis, immediately adjacent the Water Recycling Centre, and those which are likely to be more sensitive i.e. B1 uses further away. This approach is supported, although consideration to heights of buildings, views and the use of any external landscaped areas being capable of being used for the purpose designed will still be required.

Support a focus on Option 2 but with the aim of moving to Option 3 if reconfiguration of the WRC is technically, financially (viability) and operationally deliverable within a realistic timescale. Given the uncertainty around the WRC reconfiguration Option 2 provides the best route for regenerating a substantial part of the area in the short/medium term including a residential element and local centre. The preference would be however to change Nuffield Road to residential. With Option 3 there still remains the issue of the proximity of proposed office/R&D uses to part of the adjacent railhead.

All options will require more detailed transport assessment work to understand the transport implications, across all modes, of the proposals including their interrelationship with emerging proposals under development by the County Council as part of the City Deal programme. Although this is true of all options, this is particularly the case for those that propose higher levels of development which might require significant transport intervention, over and above existing investment plans to ensure that transport impacts are not severe. This applies to both the local networks (walk, cycle, bus, and highway) and also the strategic road (i.e.: Highways Agency) and rail
(i.e.: Network Rail) networks.

The retention of the strategic aggregate railhead is supported. It's relocation onto land which is currently on the eastern side of the Water Recycling Centre would be consistent with the allocation for a new Transport Zone made by the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan.

The inclusion of an indicative location for the new Household Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility is also supported, together with the caveat that gives the flexibility for this to be located on alternative 82, 88 or sui generis land in the vicinity of Cowley Road.

It is noted that the Veolia Waste Transfer Station site would be redeveloped. This site is safeguarded through the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan, but scope exists for this use to be accommodated on other land proposed for 82, 88 and sui generis uses.

The existing inert waste recycling centre, within the curtilage of the Water Recycling Centre would be displaced under this Option. This existing facility is time limited but lies within an allocated Area of Search for a permanent site for such a use (allocated by the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan). There may also be an opportunity for it to be accommodated within the proposed new areas for 82, 88 and Sui Generis uses.

The provision made for the temporary storage of aggregates for the improvement of the A 14 is supported. A temporary facility in this location (with time restricted access directly on to the A14) will assist in the efficient movement of mineral for the scheme.

The provision of new heavy goods vehicle access and the new north-south route is supported; this will enable traffic movements associated with the railheads, waste management and other 82, 88 and sui generis uses to be separate from Cowley Road which will be subject to additional use by station and other users.

Option 3 is dependant upon the development of a new enclosed Water Recycling Centre, on a substantial smaller footprint than that existing. As Anglian Water has no operational need to make such a change and their shareholders will not bear the costs of doing so, for this to take place a viable financial arrangement would need to be in place, potentially involving other land owners/developers in the wider CNFE.

The Employment Options Study (October 2014) sets out the results of the high level financial appraisal of the 4 development options. In the case the Option 3 (Higher Development) the appraisal demonstrates that the development will deliver a deficit value of -£1,089,497/gross acre
(-£59,922,363). Despite an allowance already being made for acquisition costs this clearly does generate sufficient value across the whole of the AAP area to incentivise the landowner/s to bring the site forward under this option. A range of sensitivity tests were applied to consider variations to Option 3, e.g. increasing sales values, share of residential floorspace or storey heights. Neither of these variants improved the deficit. On this basis it is likely that significant public subsidy and/or reduction in policy requirements will be necessary to bring the viability to a position where development under this option could be considered.

Further information is also required with regard to the odour contours of the enclosed Water Recycling Centre; even with enclosure there will still be inlet works which is a main source of odour. This information will inform and enable us to understand what uses are suitable in close and intermediate proximity to the new works.

Although Option 3 sees the redevelopment and enclosure of the Water Recycling centre, the intent of safeguarding the facility remains (as enshrined in the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy). In due course all new development will still need to comply with Policy CS31 Waste Water Treatment Works Safeguarding Areas (WWTW SA) of the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2011). The proposed uses must demonstrate that they would not prejudice the continued operation of the water treatment works i.e. by an odour assessment report. It would be prudent to bear this requirement in mind now when new uses which would normally be occupied by people are being proposed, particularly if the juxtaposition of certain uses would give rise to future amenity issues which could pose issues I constraints to the future operation of this essential infrastructure. Option 3 places those uses which are likely to be less sensitive i.e. B2, B8 and Sui Generis, immediately adjacent the reconfigured Water Recycling Centre, and those which are likely to be more sensitive i.e. B1 uses further away. Consideration to heights of buildings, views and the use of any external landscaped areas being capable of being used for the purpose designed will still be required.
The redevelopment of the Station car park following provision of a new multi-storey car park is noted. The new multi-storey car park lies in South Cambridgeshire, and if the County Council were not the developer a planning application for this use would need to be submitted to South Cambridgeshire District Council as it will not be a County Council development.

To conclude, Option 3 is not supported due to the significant viability concerns and the highlighted concerns about the transport impacts.

All options will require more detailed transport assessment work to understand the transport implications, across all modes, of the proposals including their interrelationship with emerging proposals under development by the County Council as part of the City Deal programme. Although this is true of all options, this is particularly the case for those that propose higher levels of development which might require significant transport intervention, over and above existing investment plans, to ensure that transport impacts are not severe. This applies to both the local networks (walk, cycle, bus, and highway) and also the strategic road (ie. Highways Agency) and rail
(ie: Network Rail} networks.

The retention of the strategic aggregate railhead is supported. It's relocation onto land which is currently on the eastern side of the Water Recycling Centre would be consistent with the allocation for a new Transport Zone made by the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan.

The inclusion of an indicative location for the new Household Recycling Centre and inert recycling facility is also supported, together with the caveat that gives the flexibility for this to be located on alternative 82, 88 or sui generis land in the vicinity of Cowley Road.

It is noted that the Veolia Waste Transfer Station site would be redeveloped. This site is safeguarded through the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan, but scope exists for this use to be accommodated on other land proposed for 82, 88 and sui generis uses.

The existing inert waste recycling centre within the curtilage of the Water Recycling Centre would be displaced under this Option. This existing facility is time limited but lies within an allocated Area of Search for a permanent site for such a use (allocated by the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan). There may also be an opportunity for it to be accommodated within the proposed new areas for B2, B8 and Sui Generis uses.

The provision made for the temporary storage of aggregates for the improvement of the A14 is supported. A temporary facility in this location (with time restricted access directly on to the A14) will assist in the efficient movement of mineral for the scheme.

The provision of new heavy goods vehicle access and the new north-south route is supported; this will enable traffic movements associated with the railheads, waste management and other 82, 88 and sui generis uses to be separate from Cowley Road which will be subject to additional use by station and other users.

Option 4 is dependant upon the relocation of the Water Recycling Centre. As Anglian Water has no operational need to make such a change and their shareholders will not bear the costs of doing so, for this to take place a viable financial arrangement would need to be in place, potentially involving other land owners/developers in the wider CNFE.

The Employment Options Study (October 2014) sets out the results of the high level financial appraisal of the 4 development options. In the case the Option 4 (Maximum Development) the appraisal demonstrates that the development will deliver a surplus, after acquisition costs, of £354,6601gross acre (£21,988,933). Whilst this option generates a surplus this is less than 1 0% of the gross development value and consequently the viability could be considered marginal. A range of sensitivity tests were applied to consider variations to Option 4, e.g. increasing sales values, share of residential floor space or storey heights. Only the "Values up 1 0%" variant made positive impact on viability.

The relocation of the Water Recycling Centre has been considered in the past, if it is to be demonstrated at Examination that this Option is feasible evidence needs to be presented to show that a site(s) which meets Policy CS17 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy is deliverable in principle. It is suggested that this could be pursued through a bespoke study which considers potential sites against the criteria of the Policy and other relevant constraints.

The redevelopment of the Station car park following provision of a new multi-storey car park is noted. The new multi-storey car park lies in South Cambridgeshire, and if the County Council were not the developer a planning application for this use would need to be submitted to South Cambridgeshire District Council as it will not be a County Council development.

To conclude, Option 4 is not supported due to the significant viability concerns, previous experience of the difficulties of trying to move water recycling centres, concern that subsidy would be needed to move the water recycling centre and the highlighted concerns about the transport impacts.

The inclusion of more residential development within the Options needs to be carefully considered given the presence of the Water Recycling Centre (Options 1-3), strategic aggregates railheads (Options 1-4) and waste uses (Options 1-4). Residential development is particularly sensitive to development like the Water Recycling Centre and amenity issues may arise e.g. associated with odour. Similarly residential development close to the strategic railheads and waste uses may also give rise to amenity issues such as noise and dust. For these reasons these facilities, and other existing and proposed waste management uses, have consultation / safeguarding areas around them designated through the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Plan. These Areas all seek to prevent essential existing and planned facilities being prejudiced by incompatible development. If additional residential development is proposed it should be located away from these uses, and the evidence base should demonstrate that existing and allocated waste management / aggregate facilities will not be prejudiced, otherwise proposals will not be deliverable.

Consideration needs to be given to the type of use and the context of the site when setting out the requirements for place and building design, this will be particularly important for waste uses that could be adjacent to the A14 where existing screening and the surrounding uses should be taken into account.

Support from an economic development perspective

Any proposals will need to take into account the requirements placed upon development by the Safeguarding Zone for Cambridge Airport (referral for 15m and above in this area). In addition to this consideration needs to be given to the views from taller buildings across existing and proposed mineral and waste development to avoid the need for additional / unnecessary screening and landscaping.

Support from an economic development perspective