Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

In broad terms, Turnstone can support the vision that the AAP proposes, however this comes with the following caveats: -

* The vision must be predicated first and foremost on the need for development to have a considerable employment content, as this is the most appropriate, sustainable and indeed best site in the City to accommodate future employment growth in a highly accessible location, in close proximity to a significant employment cluster, in particular the world-famous Cambridge Science Park;
* The possibility of an element of housing development at the southern end of the AAP area cannot be ruled out; however it is not believed that the City Council is dependent on this in terms of achieving its housing targets in the new Local Plan in the period to 2031. Furthermore, there is uncertainty as to whether the land in question (as highlighted in some of the development options) can in fact be delivered as there are existing occupiers who may not wish to vacate their sites. In light of this the AAP should downplay rather than highlight "sustainable urban living";
* Whilst the new railway station is undoubtedly a key piece of physical infrastructure it should not be viewed alone as the sole "high quality transport gateway" to the area. There are already good public transport links (including the guided bus and conventional buses), cycle and pedestrian links (e.g. the Jane Coston Bridge over the A14 to Milton) and also good road links (which cannot be ignored). There is also scope to link into new pieces of transport infrastructure such as the Chisholm Trail.

In general terms Turnstone supports the proposed development objectives, all of which are laudable and characteristic of what one would expect to see in high quality sustainable new developments. The only slight surprise is that one of the objectives does not specifically reference the significance and importance of the new proposed railway station, which has a pivotal role in supporting and enhancing new development at CNFE. The station is seen as a highly important piece of transport infrastructure that can ensure that sustainable transport choices can be made by future workers who will gain employment at CNFE. In particular rail links from the north and south, from locations with existing high levels of out-commuting to Cambridge e.g. Ely, Waterbeach, Royston etc. can facilitate access by non-car modes.

We would suggest an additional Proposed Objective which could say:

Provide excellent connectivity to more distant communities by sustainable transport routes through maximising use of the new proposed railway station, the guided bus, and cycle and pedestrian routes.

Turnstone has no significant issues with the extent of the AAP boundary but offers a few comments. Prior to doing so it takes issue with the factors described at Paragraph 4.2 i) - v) inclusive as to how decisions were reached about what should or should not be included.

Factor i) deals with transport infrastructure and rightly refers to the new station and to the guided busway extension. However, it is remiss in not referring to other elements contributing to the accessibility of the area including the Jane Coston Bridge from Milton, Milton Road itself (with its provision for all modes including cycling and pedestrians), links to the A10, proximity to park and ride at Butt Lane etc. It should be acknowledged that each of these pieces of physical infrastructure will deliver future workers to the CNFE site and accessibility by this choice of means of transport (and directions) should be defined as a factor dictating what the extent of the CNFE should be.

Turnstone does not consider that it is strictly necessary to include Cambridge Science Park (CSP) in the AAP area but it does need to be recognized as an important ongoing part of an R&D/Office cluster on the northern side of Cambridge, and this suggests to us that contrary to what the AAP Issues and Options document currently indicates, the focus for denser employment development should reflect this cluster at the CSP and the Cambridge Business Park as well as St John's Innovation Centre. At present, the AAP indicates denser development close to the new station which we do not consider makes sense as we explain elsewhere.

It is noted that the CSP extension appears to take in Cambridge Regional College (CRC). It is not clear why this would be appropriate.

Proposed Extension (B) is an important one we think and we support its inclusion in the AAP area as it will facilitate important cycle and pedestrian links to the south.

Turnstone does not have a strong view on this.

In relation to the train station it is suggested it should not be called Cambridge Science Park Station, nor Cambridge Fen Station. However beyond that Turnstone does not have any strong views.

In relation to the train station it is suggested it should not be called Cambridge Science Park Station, nor Cambridge Fen Station. However beyond that Turnstone does not have any strong views.

Turnstone do not object per se to the potential inclusion of an element of housing within the CNFE AAP area. However, the objective must be to maximise employment opportunities from this site and this must be the absolute priority. The emerging Cambridge Local Plan is not reliant on new housing in this location to meet the Council's assessment of objectively assessed needs. Housing should only be pursued if there are site specific reasons for doing so on the fringes of the AAP area, and land is available and deliverable for these purposes.

The Movement/Transportation section of this Chapter (paragraph 6.8) appears to downplay the fact that the site is off a major north/south, east/west highway network with Milton Road, the A14 and the A10 all carrying high volumes of traffic including buses. These modes will remain important in terms of the long-term accessibility of the site, irrespective of capacity issues.

In light of odour issues detailed (see paragraph 6.11) relating to the WRC, it will be important for the AAP in its final form to provide the necessary promptings to encourage and facilitate modernisation of the WRC in a manner, and in a timescale, which will enable the potential of the AAP area to be maximised as a new employment cluster sitting alongside existing areas.

In a similar vein, the AAP will need to provide support to the concept of relocating non-conforming uses away from the area so that uses causing environmental impacts of an adverse nature are directed away from this location e.g. aggregate batching. It will be difficult to deliver the high quality of development aspired to if new employment uses need to sit alongside visually intrusive and environmentally unneighbourly land uses.

Any open space which is seen as a potential resource for local communities should be located proximate to those communities and should therefore be on the periphery of the CNFE AAP area. It would not be logical or desirable to try and accommodate public open space in the heart of a commercial business or science park and there would seem to be far greater logic for situation such space close to the new railway station, possibly as part of its public realm.

In terms of visual impact of new development, it is clear that there is scope for higher density development in this part of the City and also that there is potential for some taller buildings. However, as ever, locations for these need to be carefully considered and it is not thought there would be rationale for pursuing large scale buildings around the new station in the manner of CB1, even if these are moderated to reflect the edge of City location. The station location is on the very fringes of the AAP area, adjoining the Green Belt and open land beyond the travellers' sites to the east of the main railway line.

Turnstone consider that the better scope for denser, taller development will be more inboard of the AAP area, towards its centre, with the scale of development generally reducing at its margins.

Paragraph 6.16 of the AAP Issues and Options report identifies infrastructure providing important services for Greater Cambridge and which need to be taken into account in any future development proposals. The absence of the new railway station seems to be an odd omission. It is also suggested that it should be acknowledged that there is potential for future changes to the WRC and the aggregates railhead so they are both possible variable constraints.

In broad terms Turnstone supports the Development Principles set out in the AAP document but would make a number of specific points where it is felt the emphasis or indeed substance of a particular point should be differently expressed, as follows: -

* Objective 2C - this objective should be strengthened to make it abundantly clear that the Council is seeking for CNFE to be delivered as a high quality, exemplar commercial-led scheme. As written the objective does not provide for this important aspiration.
* Objective 2D - Turnstone supports the concept of higher density development, but does not agree that this should be focused "around the transport hub" which implies the new railway station. That may well have been an appropriate response in Central Cambridge where CB1 achieves a hitherto unseen commercial density in its City context, but it is not felt to be appropriate in this case. The AAP should seek to ensure that such larger scale and denser development that takes place should be centrally located within the AAP area and should not be reflected by the erection of large scale buildings at the eastern edge of the wider site - i.e. where the railway station is to be situated. It is considered that the scale and massing as well as the density of development should step down where the CNFE area adjoins and interacts with open countryside and could impact adversely on the setting of the City unless carefully managed and integrated. Turnstone considers that there is an obvious interface for an aggregation of larger scale buildings where the designated CNFE area meets with the existing parks in the area, such as St John's Innovation Park, the Cambridge Business Park and the Cambridge Science Park.
* Objective 3F - this objective should have a higher ambition of relocating existing businesses, particularly where they are non-conforming, as being "appropriate" and not merely as "possible".
* Objective 3G - it should not be automatically assumed that the strategic aggregates railhead will be required to be retained on the CNFE site in perpetuity. There may be opportunities to consider other locations whereby its presence will not detract from the quality of development that the Council should be properly seeking at CNFE.
* Objective 6K - this objective needs to be broadened to reflect and recognise the other transport modes and routes by which people will access the CNFE area. As written it largely assumes that the railway station and the busway alone are what makes the area a transport hub. That is short-sighted as there is other transport infrastructure such as cycle routes, roads and conventional buses that can equally provide ready access to and from CNFE.
* Objective 7O - this objective should be caveated by the addition of the words "where necessary".