Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 56155

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Whilst the transformative nature of a CAM system is recognised and the policy supported, the current proposed area
lacks definition. At Examination, an Inspector will need to be convinced that there is a reasonable prospect of the scheme
being delivered and the area to be safeguarded will require clearer justification and definition.

Comment

Representation ID: 56156

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

The policy states that development will not be permitted if vehicles exceed the trip budget, however the budget has been
proposed for the entire area as a whole and therefore it is unclear as to how the trip budget for the individual sites will be
apportioned.
Final version of the Transport Addendum evidence base has yet to be made available.
With very little parking currently available on the Core Site, objective a) of this policy cannot be applied to it; b) is
supported and we aim to go further than the number of parking spaces allocated in the draft AAP.
The current policy is wholly unrealistic in expectations as to the potential for reduction of existing parking and the
complex pattern of long-term leases in place on the Science Park in particular.

Comment

Representation ID: 56157

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Policy generally supported but note comments on infrastructure delivery plan and ensuring all NEC developments
contribute proportionately under policy 27 below.

Comment

Representation ID: 56158

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Support the use of CPO to prevent piecemeal or inappropriate development coming forward. Although it can’t neatly be
encapsulated in policy wording, the ‘threat value’ of CPO should not be underestimated and the process as a result
truncated where possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 56159

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Support policy and in particular the sequential approach to relocation. This policy should also refer to the high levels of
growth to be enabled by the relocation of the Waste Water Treatment Plant in the first instance.

Comment

Representation ID: 56160

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

The policy refers to both ‘contaminated land’ and ‘land contamination’. It has been assumed that the latter term is
intended throughout rather than former which has a distinct and specific statutory significance for land designation under
EPA Part IIA.
g) It is unclear why these particular land uses are singled out - residential with private gardens are a more sensitive end
use (in respect to land contamination) and it would be a primary role of the Phase 2 and dependent assessments to
determine the suitability of any land for a particular end use.

Comment

Representation ID: 56161

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Despite the protected nature of the sites, policy aspirations for their relocation in the longer-term could be more fully set
out. In particular we would like to see early relocation of the Veolia waste facility which is not hampered by the need for
railway access and sidings.

Comment

Representation ID: 56162

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

We accept the need to contribute to NEC-wide infrastructure as well as to provide that necessary to support
development of the Core Site. However, the late production of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, coupled with the
associated viability work, has a number of significant implications. It means that assertions as to the level of development
(and hence scale, density and building heights) required across NEC to support the infrastructure development and place
making cannot be tested. Also there is a risk of early developments not being sufficiently caught – either due to existing
(modest) capacity or by failure to have an appropriate infrastructure tariff or similar in place.
Aspirations for early funding of strategic infrastructure but this must be cashflowed by public sector (eg use of PWLB
funding).

Comment

Representation ID: 56163

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Support this policy including use of existing buildings which would otherwise remain empty.

Comment

Representation ID: 56164

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Support the policy. Targeted focus on construction upskilling would be useful as there no agreed targets for skills training
is in place.