Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

The vision detailed in the CNFE is not realistic with regards to what can be achieved within the AAP and it does not detail any clear timescales for achieving the vision.
Any unrealistic, undeliverable and over-inflated vision will damage Cambridge's ability to meet the wider stated vision of both Councils - "... continued growth as an innovative, integrated, fair and sustainable city, whilst supporting sustainable economic growth and providing a high quality of life". Any misplaced vision for the AAP area may divert attention, infrastructure provisions and allocations away from more easily deliverable appropriate and suitable sites for the full range of business sectors.
One of the major factors to creating an employment led, mixed use neighbourhood at the CNFE site is the delivery of a sustainable transport network. Milton Road interchange to serve the site is questionable in terms of how it will be financed and there is currently no final design, delivery mechanism or phasing programme agreed on the delivery of this essential sustainable transport link.
The proposed vision details that the development will ensure that the aggregates railhead and the existing waste management facilities will be safeguarded and that new waste management facilities will be delivered. The retention of these uses and development of new waste management facilities within an area which would also provide for modern commercial business buildings / uses and urban living environs are considered to be incompatible. Noise, odour, vermin, dust and HGV traffic issues which would be associated with waste and minerals management operations will have negative impacts upon sensitive receptors and limit the marketability of the remaining land due to these factors and the perception of these factors.
The principles detailed in the vision are those which would be expected from a new modern urban regeneration scheme, however, the realisation of these goals is in significant doubt by virtue of several factors:
* transportation funding gap;
* lack of clarity on how and when the transportation improvements will be built;
* retention and creation of incompatible uses within the AAP boundary;
* lack of detail on how existing uses, which are also essential for Cambridge's continued growth, will be relocated;
* fragmented land ownership;
* a lack of understanding of market demands.

The objectives are ambitious; they do not appear to be based on fully researched realistic outcomes.
We would suggest that CNFE AAP should focus most particularly on what is deliverable in next five years. The objectives should be reviewed to provide guidance on setting development standards whilst also outlining how land use changes will be phased in connection with development of sustainable transport links and relocation of existing uses and facilities. The evidence base associated with the AAP should include a realistic assessment of alternative locations for any of the important displaced industrial uses.
The objectives should also focus on how best to achieve a mixed use scheme whilst retaining much of the important existing industrial uses.

The area identified for the AAP is concurrent with the Draft Local Plans.

Sufficient policy controls already exist for the Cambridge Science Park.

Land uses and creating balanced communities section highlights the following:
6.4 Neighbouring communities
Neighbouring residential areas are home to some of the city's more disadvantaged communities. This AAP and subsequent development proposals represent a significant opportunity to provide employment opportunities and other benefits to local residents.
Would the regeneration of the AAP site for residential, office and R&D purposes be the most advantageous way to provide employment opportunities on this site for those as described in paragraph 6.4 of the consultation document, adjacent "disadvantage communities"? It would be anticipated that those from the city's more disadvantaged communities will also have lower levels of education attainment and, therefore, they will be reliant on service / lower skilled roles being created on the site. Although we believe the site can offer opportunities for a wide range of employment uses, including offices and R&D, it will be important to ensure that opportunities are retained also for industrial uses.
6.6 Housing
There is a high level of housing need in the Cambridge area. While opportunities for housing on CNFE are limited, due to constraints such as odour and land contamination, the area can still make a valuable contribution to overall housing supply.
6.7 Community and Leisure Facilities
CNFE currently has very limited facilities (e.g. retail, leisure and community uses) both within its boundary and in the surrounding area. The AAP and future development proposals offer an opportunity for provision of a new community core with shops, services, restaurants, cafés etc. with possible links to improved facilities on the Cambridge Science Park.
Paragraph 6.6 highlights that the site will be heavily constrained in providing housing due to odour and land contamination issues but that the AAP site offers an opportunity to provide shops, restaurants and cafés.
If the site is largely unsuitable for dwellings both in terms of costs to mitigate contamination and odour issues why would it be conceivable that developments such as restaurants and cafés would be viable. Cafés, restaurants and shops will also require a high level of amenity and the income value on those types of uses will not provide developers with confidence to invest heavily in contaminated land remediation works.
The constraints listed are comprehensive but they give no indication of costs to mitigate against issues of noise, odour, vibration, flood risk or overhead power cables. A further constraint which should be highlighted at this point is that the AAP is reliant on sustainable transport measures being delivered. Failure to deliver these measures in a timely fashion will render the AAP site unsustainable and heavily constrained in its scope of development.

The Development Principles are a holistic range of positive planning text; they attempt to provide solutions to some of Cambridge's complex and serious issues associated with affordable housing, lack of quality office space, a mix of employment opportunities and open space deficiencies. This attempt to provide a development for everyone results in a lack of focus.

The redevelopment details outlined in Option 1 provide for what is likely to be the most realistic outcome in the extent of development opportunity, given the land ownership, land use and infrastructure delivery constraints associated with the AAP site.
However, the omission of residential development within Option 1 would indicate that the option is failing in some of its key objectives in creating a sustainable community.
The juxtaposition of areas which host very differing use classes will be difficult to control in terms of noise, odour and vibration and therefore the B1 provision should not feature B1(b) uses.
The land uses section of the analysis table does not take into account the loss of the golf driving range. As per NPPF and Sport England requirements should a facility of equal or greater value not be sourced within a short distance of the site?
The delivery of the development proposed will be subject to the delivery of the necessary infrastructure upgrades such as the Milton Road interchange. There is significant doubt on whether these will all be in place on time to meet with the residential, office and R&D sector demands. The concerns are related to how the infrastructure improvements will be funded and given that many have not reached a final design stage how long they will take to be implemented.
There is considerable doubt that given the infrastructure uncertainties the option could be, as contended, "delivered early".

The delivery of this quantum of development would be more likely to allow for the development principles outlined in the Issues and Options paper to be implemented. However, the positioning of B1(b) uses adjacent to the railway line, the aggregates railhead, industrial areas and access routes for HGV's will not be attractive to the R & D market. These sites will be subject to issues associated with noise, vibration, odour and dust which does not indicate that they would be suitable for R&D purposes. It would be more appropriate if these sites were allocated directly for general office use or intensification of B2 and B8 uses.
The land uses section of the analysis table does not take into account the loss of the golf driving range. As per NPPF and Sport England requirements should a facility of equal or greater value not be sourced within a short distance of the site?
The delivery of the development proposed will be subject to the delivery of the necessary infrastructure upgrades such as the Milton Road interchange. There is significant doubt on whether these will all be in place on time to meet with the residential, office and R&D sector demands. The concerns are related to how the infrastructure improvements will be funded and, given that many have not reached a final design stage, how long they will take to be implemented.

The reconfiguration of the Waste Water Recycling Centre site is not realistic within the plan period. The operator has committed to an investment programme of circa £20m to upgrade the operations to meet with the demands from a growing Cambridge population. It is extremely unlikely that the operator would be prepared to sell sections of a key asset in an area of population growth. Demand for their service will increase and this may require for more land within the Waste Water Recycling Centre site to be utilised for further infrastructure.
The land currently within the Waste Water Recycling Centre which is identified for re-use would be heavily contaminated and the costs of remediating that land would not be attractive to investors given that the returns gained from the development would be for B2 and/or B8 Uses.
The delivery of this quantum of development could allow for the development principles outlined in the Issues and Options paper to be implemented. However, the positioning of B1(b) uses adjacent to the railway line, the aggregates railhead, industrial areas and access routes for HGV's will not be attractive to the R&D market. These sites will be subject to issues associated with noise, vibration, odour and dust which does not indicate that they would be suitable for R&D purposes. It would be more appropriate if these sites where allocated directly for general office use or intensification of B2 and B8 uses.
The land uses section of the analysis table does not take into account the loss of the golf driving range. As per NPPF and Sport England requirements should a facility of equal or greater value not be sourced within a short distance of the site?
The delivery of the development proposed will be subject to the delivery of the necessary infrastructure upgrades such as the Milton Road interchange. There is significant doubt on whether these will all be in place on time to meet with the residential, office and R&D sector demands. The concerns are related to how the infrastructure improvements will be funded and, given that many have not reached a final design stage, how long they will take to be implemented.

The relocation of the Waste Water Recycling Centre site is not realistic within the plan period. The operator has committed to an investment programme of circa £20m to upgrade the operations to meet with the demands from a growing Cambridge population. It is extremely unlikely that the operator would be prepared to sell a key asset in an area of population growth when there is no clear and deliverable plan on the relocation of this essential infrastructure asset.
The Waste Water Recycling Centre which is identified for redevelopment would be heavily contaminated and the costs of remediating that land would not be attractive to investors given that the returns gained from the development would be for B2 and/or B8 Uses.
The delivery of this quantum of development could allow for the development principles outlined in the Issues and Options paper to be implemented. However, the positioning of B1(b) uses adjacent to the railway line, the aggregates railhead, industrial areas and access routes for HGV's will not be attractive to the R&D market. These sites will be subject to issues associated with noise, vibration, odour and dust which does not indicate that they would be suitable for R&D purposes. It would be more appropriate if these sites where allocated directly for general office use or intensification of B2 and B8 uses.
The land uses section of the analysis table does not take into account the loss of the golf driving range. As per NPPF and Sport England requirements should a facility of equal or greater value not be sourced within a short distance of the site?
The delivery of the development proposed will be subject to the delivery of the necessary infrastructure upgrades such as the Milton Road interchange. There is significant doubt on whether these will all be in place on time to meet with the residential, office and R&D sector demands. The concerns are related to how the infrastructure improvements will be funded and how long they will take to be implemented, given that many have not reached a final design stage.
The development outcome would be for 630 dwellings in an area which would provide for 27,600 jobs. This is not considered to be a sustainable balance of homes to jobs.