Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options

This option is underwhelming and should be the least favoured of all of those being considered. It does not maximise the opportunity for a vibrant new employment-led development and maintains the status quo to a very substantial degree save for localised redevelopment of specific plots.

This option is little better than Option 1, in fact it is arguably poorer, because it 'sacrifices' commercial land for more residential land when the emerging Local Plan is not dependent on such development coming forward.

This option is to be preferred to Options 1 and 2 in that it starts to make more efficient use of the land at CNFE and delivers a more significant amount of commercial development floorspace. However in common with all of the options, it aspires to a density of development around the station area that is not considered realistic or desirable. Paragraph 8.9 of the AAP states that "Higher densities have been included around the proposed new railway station similar to the CB1 development in Cambridge. No account has been taken in these redevelopment options of potential additional floorspace arising from intensification of existing Business/Science Parks or taller buildings." It is considered that this is inappropriate on the periphery of the AAP area and density, scale and massing should generally fall as one reaches the edges of the defined AAP area, except where the AAP area meets with large scale commercial premises on other established sites such as the Cambridge Business Park and St John's Innovation Park. In a similar vein, Turnstone also consider that there is no obvious reason why the AAP should not include as a perfectly reasonable objective/aspiration to increase the density of existing business or other employment parks nearby, as there is evidence that there is scope for intensification.

This option is to be preferred to Options 1 and 2 in that it starts to make more efficient use of the land at CNFE and delivers a more significant amount of commercial development floorspace. However in common with all of the options, it aspires to a density of development around the station area that is not considered realistic or desirable. Paragraph 8.9 of the AAP states that "Higher densities have been included around the proposed new railway station similar to the CB1 development in Cambridge. No account has been taken in these redevelopment options of potential additional floorspace arising from intensification of existing Business/Science Parks or taller buildings." It is considered that this is inappropriate on the eastern periphery of the AAP area and density, scale and massing should generally fall as one reaches the edges of the defined AAP area and specifically where the defined area meets open countryside. Turnstone also consider that there is no obvious reason why the AAP should not include as a perfectly reasonable objective/aspiration that of increasing the density of existing business or other employment parks, as there is evidence that there is scope for intensification.

As indicated in our responses to Questions 12 and 13, Turnstone consider that the key is that the CNFE is developed as an exemplar commercial-led employment site at a density that is appropriate to this edge of City location. That implies a mixture of densities but adopting the higher densities envisaged in Options 3 and 4, but appropriately sited. Densities should be graduated so that highest density parcels are delivered within the centre of the site and where it connects with existing commercial sites such as Cambridge Business Park, Cambridge Science Park and St John's Innovation Park. At its eastern edges, the scale and form of development should 'break down' and reduce in order to provide an acceptable interface with the edge of the City and the transition into open countryside and Green Belt beyond the main railway line.

Turnstone consider that if housing is to be included - and the case for it is not clear - then it should not be at a level any more significant than proposed in either of Options 3 or 4.

Question 12 Response to "Do you support option 3?":
This option is to be preferred to Options 1 and 2 in that it starts to make more efficient use of the land at CNFE and delivers a more significant amount of commercial development floorspace. However in common with all of the options, it aspires to a density of development around the station area that is not considered realistic or desirable. Paragraph 8.9 of the AAP states that "Higher densities have been included around the proposed new railway station similar to the CB1 development in Cambridge. No account has been taken in these redevelopment options of potential additional floorspace arising from intensification of existing Business/Science Parks or taller buildings." It is considered that this is inappropriate on the periphery of the AAP area and density, scale and massing should generally fall as one reaches the edges of the defined AAP area, except where the AAP area meets with large scale commercial premises on other established sites such as the Cambridge Business Park and St John's Innovation Park. In a similar vein, Turnstone also consider that there is no obvious reason why the AAP should not include as a perfectly reasonable objective/aspiration to increase the density of existing business or other employment parks nearby, as there is evidence that there is scope for intensification.

Question 13 Response to "Do you support option 4?":
This option is to be preferred to Options 1 and 2 in that it starts to make more efficient use of the land at CNFE and delivers a more significant amount of commercial development floorspace. However in common with all of the options, it aspires to a density of development around the station area that is not considered realistic or desirable. Paragraph 8.9 of the AAP states that "Higher densities have been included around the proposed new railway station similar to the CB1 development in Cambridge. No account has been taken in these redevelopment options of potential additional floorspace arising from intensification of existing Business/Science Parks or taller buildings." It is considered that this is inappropriate on the eastern periphery of the AAP area and density, scale and massing should generally fall as one reaches the edges of the defined AAP area and specifically where the defined area meets open countryside. Turnstone also consider that there is no obvious reason why the AAP should not include as a perfectly reasonable objective/aspiration that of increasing the density of existing business or other employment parks, as there is evidence that there is scope for intensification.

Turnstone is content that the general approach, whereby what will in due course be adopted Local Plan design policies, will be used for the AAP area, is both sound and logical.

No, whilst Turnstone consider that there is plainly scope for higher density development on the CNFE site, for reasons that are stated, it objects to the assertion that this is "especially around the proposed new railway station interchange". There is simply no logic to this assertion and the 'arrival' at this new station is wholly unlike the arrival one would expect or anticipate having at the Central Cambridge train station where the CB1 development is emerging. In response to other questions, we have raised the point that the station site is in fact very peripheral within the CNFE area; this does not indicate in our mind that there should be a focus of taller or denser development in this location. Rather, development should 'scale up' from this location into the interior of the site where it juxtaposes with pre-existing large scale commercial buildings. It is in these locations, with strong and well-defined connections and links to the station area, where greatest density should occur.

Yes, following the approach that will be taken in the Local Plan is sound and logical.

Turnstone will answer these questions collectively. As indicated in other responses, Turnstone takes the view that there is scope for different development densities and heights on different parts of the CNFE site. However, Turnstone take issue with the suggestion, repeated here in the AAP document, that there is scope for "occasional taller 'landmark' buildings around the new station" i.e. in excess of 6 storeys. Whilst it is considered that there may indeed be scope for taller 'landmark' buildings, the logic of placing any such buildings in a peripheral part of the wider CNFE site is not readily followed or agreed with. In Turnstone's opinion these taller buildings should be proposed more centrally within the CNFE site where there is an interface with existing taller development. The City Council should not be trying to recreate a further development on this site which echoes the 'arrival' as the Central Cambridge station with the taller buildings as are emerging at CB1.

Yes, in principle, the approach is supported but it should be made clear that the "wider communities" are not limited simply to those which adjoin the CNFE area, or even be limited to North Cambridge or Cambridge alone. Rather it should be an objective to make this unique site accessible to people who might arrive by road or rail or by public transport and who might come from some distance.