Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

If housing (of any type) is to be provided it should be in a location where amenity issues from the Water Recycling Centre, aggregate railheads and existing and planned waste uses will not arise and / or can be satisfactorily mitigated.

The proposed approach to the delivery of supporting services is supported in principle. However, the location of facilities must have regard to other development existing or proposed in the locality, so that potential amenity issues arising for example from proximity to the Water Recycling Centre, waste management uses, and the railheads are avoided and / or can be satisfactorily mitigated.

Supportive of this policy, especially regarding co-location of services for community, retail and leisure uses.

The proposal on services and facilities are supported. Community facilities should be provided early in the development of the residential component of the development. Services and facilities should include community development.

The proposed new local centre in Options 2-4 is supported in principle. However, it is noted that it is proposed that this include a residential element and other elements which will be used by people, and in Option 2 the local centre appears to lie partially within the odour zone which is not suitable for such a use. The location of the local centre must have regard to other development existing or proposed in the locality, so that potential amenity issues arising for example from proximity to the Water Recycling Centre, waste management uses, and the railheads are avoided and / or can be satisfactorily mitigated.

The approach to the provision of open space is supported in principle. However, regard needs to be paid to amenity issues which may arise from other uses in the CNFE area, such as the Water Recycling Centre, waste management uses and railheads which could give rise to dust, noise and odour. Open space needs to be located in a position where such matters will not arise and / or can be satisfactorily mitigated; otherwise the areas will not be capable of being used and enjoyed for the purpose designed.

The policy to require open space is supported, as the action plan area is located in both Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire the local plan with the greater requirement for open space should be followed to ensure enough provision is made.

Access to open space is a key wider determinant of health.

See response to question 8.

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.

The CNFE is a mixed use area with a variety of uses existing and proposed through the AAP. There will be a wide variety of modes of transport ranging from pedestrian and cyclist to heavy commercial vehicles (HCVs) accessing the B2, B8 and Sui Generis areas. It is important to have some degree of separation between HCVs and other users. This is in part encompassed by the objective relating to safety, but the need to separate and avoid conflict between the less compatible transport modes such as HCVs and pedestrian / cyclists could be made more explicit in the transport and movement principles.

The approach on transport is broadly supported particularly the approach on walking and cycling.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The CNFE is a mixed use area with a variety of uses existing and proposed through the AAP. There will be an increasing number of users and a wide variety of modes of transport using this area, ranging from pedestrian and cyclists going to the offices and the station, to HCVs accessing the B2, B8 and Sui Generis areas. The redevelopment of the area through the AAP provides an opportunity to improve conditions across all modes for accessing the area. This includes improved separation between HCVs and other users, not least to ensure the safety of those moving in and through the area, given the significant levels of demand likely to be generated by the AAP proposals, but also to minimise the impact of such traffic on other land uses through the minimisation of noise and vibration of vehicles. There may also be occasion for example where the coated roadstone plant located at the Lafarge Tarmac railhead needs to be active out of hours i.e. when providing material for road repair and resurfacing schemes being undertaken at night, a dedicated HCV access would enable safe access and reduce the potential for amenity issues to arise.