Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Strongly agree

The vision for an inclusive, walkable, low-carbon new city district with a lively mix of homes, workplaces, services and social spaces, fully integrated with surrounding neighbourhoods is sensible but not specific to NEC. The Science and Innovation Parks need to be able to evolve in order to build upon their world-renowned reputations. “The protection, intensification and diversification of business and industrial floorspace within the existing employment areas” as a Core Element of the Framework is welcomed. The changes to the Use Classes Order whereby previous Business and Retail Uses (and others) are part of a broader Commercial, Business and Service Use Class will require a review of the AAP. Exceptional circumstances will need to be demonstrated to limit any future planning permission to a specific use(s) within that Use Class. It is accepted that the contributions the Science and Innovation Parks make to the national economy could constitute sound planning reasons to limit future permissions to Business Uses, but this also requires them to be able to evolve.

Mostly yes

Safe crossing of Milton Road is important but this does not necessarily need to be two new crossings (one likely to be an underpass and one likely to be a bridge) plus an improved junction where Milton Road meets the guided busway as indicated on the plan on page 14.

Mostly yes

The social and cultural hubs should be geographically spread as proposed. Their precise location should not be prescribed. The plan on page 15 should be treated as indicative - a local centre near St John’s Innovation Park is welcomed. This is a more general point in that the Plan is currently unduly prescriptive – see further examples below.

Mostly yes

The broad geographic location of business space and new homes shown on the plan on page 16 is appropriate. The reference in the supporting paragraphs to job numbers (20,000 new jobs) should not be treated as a ceiling. Further consideration to the development capacity of parcels will be required following receipt of the responses to this consultation including the comments on policy 12a and 8.9 Trajectories below.

Mostly yes

The proposed provision of social and cultural facilities for workers as well as residents is welcomed.

Mostly not

An approach where storey heights are generally greatest towards the centre of the area is sensible, but landmark buildings in key locations should not be discouraged. Commercial buildings in particular will often have a storey height of more than 3m, whereas the maximum storey heights are expressed as multiples of 3m. The LCVIA on which the AAP is seemingly based did not consider some taller buildings within areas and also only considered 3 scenarios – the majority of buildings being up to 6 storeys, 9 storeys and 12 storeys. A more nuanced assessment would support some taller buildings on parts of the site. The LVA submitted as part of applications 20/03523/FUL (South Cambs) and 20/03524/FUL (Cambridge City) for example demonstrates that some buildings taller than the maximum heights in metres shown on the plan on page 18 can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site in terms of landscape and townscape effects. It may be the intention that some taller buildings are appropriate where justified by the inclusion of “Localised increases in height should be located to help define key centres of activity within the area and help with wayfinding” in Policy 9, but reference to the maximum heights in the Policy makes this unclear. It should be noted that during the pre-application discussions with officers concerning the above two applications on land in the north west part of the Innovation Park, emphasis was placed upon the importance of a landmark building at this entrance to the City.

Mostly yes

Open spaces are important parts of places. Green spaces that are not open to the general public but provide open space for users (e.g. workers) of a site can also make an important contribution to health and well-being.

Yes, completely

Developments should achieve the national recognised standard of net gain, and if they can achieve this on site, there should not be a requirement to make contributions towards off-site improvements. At the time of writing the Environment Bill has not been made law.

Neutral

It is important that sustainable, active travel is encouraged and vehicle traffic is managed. The area should be designed to make walking and cycling the easy and natural choice. It will also be important to be “more efficient about how car parking is allocated” as proposed and limit the amount of parking that is built for new homes. More work is required on this, and as included in the comments on Policy 22 below, there should not be a blanket requirement for each land parcel to reduce its existing car parking allocation / occupancy.

Mostly yes

The AAP should not be over-prescriptive e.g. by stating that all new non-residential flat roofs will have green or brown roofs for biodiversity. Instead, developers should have flexibility to meet standards. The recognition that BREEAM ‘Outstanding’ should be an ambition but that ‘Excellent’ or equivalent is the requirement is welcomed.