North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

The proposal to include both the Cambridge Northern Fringe East (CNFE) and Cambridge Science Park is welcomed. The highway network in the vicinity of both sites already operates at capacity at peak times of the day and in order for the intensification of either or both sites to be acceptable in transport terms, the way in which people travel to, from and within the sites will need to be significantly different in the future. Now that Cambridge North station and the Guided Busway have been delivered, along with the prospect of the area being connected to the CAM network it is essential that these key pieces of infrastructure are used to their maximum potential and the area considered holistically. The proposed boundary is therefore supported.

The objectives for the North East Cambridge area to continue to meet the strategic needs of the city, and explicitly by enabling the continued use of the mineral railheads is supported. It should be recognised that this will have implications for the uses which can be located near to the railheads, and only development which will not be prejudicial to the ongoing operation of the railheads should be located in the associated Transport Safeguarding Area designed by the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Plan (see also the response to Question 7).

The eastern part of North East Cambridge AAP area (i.e. the area east of Milton Road referred to as CNFE) has two railheads which are critical to the supply of mineral which cannot be found locally, in particular crushed rock. It is vital that these railheads continue to operate in order to ensure a steady supply of mineral to support the development planned in Greater Cambridge and beyond. These facilities are currently safeguarded under the adopted Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Plan (Policies CS23 and SSPT2C), and will continue to be safeguarded under the new Minerals and Waste Local Plan. Safeguarding seeks to ensure that only development which is compatible with the railheads will take place in the safeguarded area; and that new development will not be permitted where it may give rise to activities which could prejudice the ongoing operation of the these facilities. This situation should be explicitly recognised in the AAP, and future proposals must have regard to the provisions of the adopted safeguarding policy.

In this context it is noted that a considerable area of land which has 'Opportunity for Residential and Mixed Use' (shown on Figure 5.1: Concept Plan) is adjoining the aggregate railheads and which falls within the railheads designated Transport Safeguarding Area. Residential development (including hotel development) immediately adjacent to the railheads would not be appropriate, as this could prove to be prejudicial to the operation of the railheads. The Concept Plan should therefore be revised to remove residential use from the immediate proximity of the railheads. If residential development is within the Transport Safeguarding Area, but not adjacent to the railheads such development must demonstrate that it would not be prejudicial to the ongoing operation of the aggregate railheads. Similarly it appears that mixed use development will be residential led development and therefore this must also be compatible with the railhead uses, and not be located in a position where it could be prejudicial to the ongoing operations of the railheads. Consideration of this matter should include the wider implications of the ongoing operation of the railheads for potential new neighbouring development, including the impact of any HCV movements, dust and noise emissions.

Please note that the railheads have been reconfigured since the adopted Transport Safeguarding Area was designated. However, this has been taken into account and the emerging Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Further Draft Plan 2019), which is due to published for public consultation in 2019, has a revised Safeguarding Area proposed.

The overall approach with regard to movement through the site is broadly supported, accepting that this is an early indicative concept plan and that the detailed work on making the two sites work in transport terms has yet to be undertaken. The indication of specific green links connecting these two sites is welcomed. Last mile links will be particularly important within the area, especially for connecting Cambridge North Station to the more westerly parts of the AAP area. It will also be important to be mindful of how the Greater Cambridge Partnership's thinking evolves on their Waterbeach to Science Park public transport link and to ensure that this is reflected and included in the AAP.

Any education facilities on site would be best located in, or close to, the District Centre.

Yes. The Ely to Cambridge Transport Study recommended that in order to redevelop and intensify the use of this important area of brownfield land, a more varied development mix would be needed which included residential as well as employment land uses as well as other ancillary land uses such as education, retail and leisure. We are pleased to be assisting colleagues at both SCDC and the City Council to help come to a clearer understanding of what this development might look like. This work hasn't yet concluded but it is clear that the mix will need to ensure that as many trips as possible are catered for within the sites themselves, that the number of jobs and homes will need to be broadly balanced and be of such a nature that the trips are smoothed across the day rather than resulting in a tidal movement of people in and out the site during peak hours.

The Transport Strategy and Funding team at the County Council is working closely with SCDC and the City Council to provide further transport evidence to support the development of the AAP. This work is taking forward the recommendations from the Ely to Cambridge Transport Study (ECTS) and one of its key elements is the development of a highway trip budget which will help to understand what transport impact a range of development mixes and levels in the area might have on the surrounding highway network. It is following the principles set out in the ECTS that there needs to be a suitable mix of residential, employment and ancillary uses which minimises the amount of external highway trip generation through a high level of internalisation. This work hasn't yet concluded therefore it is considered premature to give too much commentary on development types and mixes at this time.

The Transport Strategy and Funding team at the County Council is working closely with SCDC and the City Council to provide further transport evidence to support the development of the AAP. This work is taking forward the recommendations from the Ely to Cambridge Transport Study (ECTS) and one of its key elements is the development of a highway trip budget which will help to understand what transport impact a range of development mixes and levels in the area might have on the surrounding highway network. It is following the principles set out in the ECTS that there needs to be a suitable mix of residential, employment and ancillary uses which minimises the amount of external highway trip generation through a high level of internalisation. This work hasn't yet concluded therefore it is considered premature to give too much commentary on development types and mixes at this time.

Whilst it is not possible without further detail of the number of residential units and housing mix to determine the education need, it is envisaged there will be a need for at least primary school and early years provision on site.

As you are aware, the Transport Strategy and Funding team at the County Council is working closely with SCDC and the City Council to provide further transport evidence to support the development of the AAP. This work is taking forward the recommendations from the Ely to Cambridge Transport Study (ECTS) and one of its key elements is the development of a highway trip budget which will help to understand what transport impact a range of development mixes and levels in the area might have on the surrounding highway network. It is following the principles set out in the ECTS that there needs to be a suitable mix of residential, employment and ancillary uses which minimises the amount of external highway trip generation through a high level of internalisation. This work hasn't yet concluded therefore it is considered premature to give too much commentary around development types and mixes at this time.

The County Council supports the AAP requiring developments in the North East Cambridge area to apply Healthy Town principles.

The principles of Healthy Towns are compatible with the types of travel modes that this area will need to develop in order for it to be acceptable in transport terms. For the aspirational levels of development to be possible in transport terms, car mode share will need to be even lower than those being pursued at CB1 or on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and akin to those more typically seen in central London. For this to be achieved, a far higher proportion of daily trips will need to be made on foot or by bike, with the health benefits that these modes can realise.

Consideration needs to be given to the suitable location of schools to avoid high levels of car pollution and other local environmental considerations that impact on health.

Pedestrian and cycling connectivity both within and external to the AAP area will be critical to the success of this development and will be one of the determinants to what level of development can be accommodated. We are pleased to be working with colleagues at SCDC and the City Council to help provide further transport evidence to support the AAP and we will be considering all of these possibilities in the very near future. Therefore, at this stage no options should be ruled out and indeed we may wish to see further connections included as the work continues.

As already mentioned, we are pleased to be working with colleagues at SCDC and the City Council to help provide further transport evidence to support the AAP and we will be considering a range of possibilities in the very near future. Future plans for the rail network need to be better understood to inform the suitability of alternative provision for crossing the railway line. Therefore, at this stage no options should be ruled out and indeed we may wish to see further connections included as the work continues.