Question 1
There are insufficient details provided on the contracting processes and legal instruments that will be used to ensure that the vision will be realised. Have other previous projects entirely delivered on their vision? If not, what will be done differently this time?
No uploaded files for public display
My email says no comments. I said: too densely populated. Not covid friendly Money making for Developers and planners.
No uploaded files for public display
I think it is unrealistic to think new residents will not own cars and thus increase traffic on Milton road. There need to be specific safeguards such as a ban on car ownership if extra traffic is to be avoided.
No uploaded files for public display
I agree with the vision for a vibrant mixed-use low carbon district but it seems there will be an east-west divide with no housing or substantial shared community facilities planned for the west side of Milton Road. The Science Park will remain a dead area outside of business hours as it does today, and not become part of an integrated community across the whole area. It is not clear to what extent any green open spaces in the Science Park will be available and accessible to adjoining neighbourhoods. The plan envisions 8000 homes crammed into a mix of buildings ranging from 6 to 13 storeys leading to densities of 225-365 dwellings per hectare - far in excess of anything seen before in Cambridge. This is not a vision conducive to a sustainable quality of life and it is not clear whether this density will allow sufficient extra space inside dwellings for people to be able to work from home (not just in their bedrooms). The plan is not compatible with the adopted Local Plan policy H/8 which specifies an average net density of 40 dwellings per hectare.
No uploaded files for public display
The buildings should not be too tall. for instance no higher than the level of the hotel already put up- which is too tall anyway
No uploaded files for public display
Such a massive expansion is likely to undermine the city as a whole through increased congestion, water stress, pollution and pressure on publicly accessible green space. Much of the vision makes commendable efforts to mitigate these effects but it is likely developers will use viability assessments to compromise the vision. I therefore support the proposal by Cambridge Past Present and Future for a development corporation to lead development so that profits are directed into realising the vision.
No uploaded files for public display
I like the idea to build library or new schools, but I have doubts if such a big number of new houses won't create a congestion. It is great that the vision support cycling and walking.
No uploaded files for public display
The development is far too large for the area. 8000 new 'homes' and about 19000 new jobs? Tower blocks that will offer 'genuinely' affordable homes? Your designs have changed too often to trust anything that you are proposing. You might call it work in progress, but the plan has slowly crept away from greenery and from lower blocks to high-rise. That is what you are proposing is it: 13 floors up, close to the roars of the A14? Brookgate, the anointed developer, have made a dog's breakfast of the station area and especially given little care to residents who, perhaps innocently, bought their abode in Great Northern Avenue, which since then is often jammed up with evening traffic and endless fumes. The residents crammed between the A14 and the Science Park and an even busier Milton Road/A10/A14 junction will gasp. "Let's get some air in Milton Country Park - oh no, it's so full already!" or "let's use the scarce greenery on the doorstep, as promised on the plans." They will be disappointed!
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
I support the provision of a mix of housing and business development on well-connected brownfield land, however the vision is restricted by its focus on ultra high density housing, reduced provision of landscape wide open green space, and continuing reliance on car transport without more radical climate reducing infrastructure. The practical implications is that the reality falls well below the vision of ‘an inclusive, walkable, low-carbon new city district with a lively mix of homes, workplaces, services and social spaces, fully integrated with surrounding neighbourhoods’. To summarise: - I am unsure how ‘community well-being’ is to be met given that only 10 hectares of Public space is to be included. The provision of green space available is fragmented and linear, apparently dictated by the development restrictions imposed on the location of a drain rather than master planning. There is no large landscape area open space and it is unclear where there will be space for allocated for wider activities, for example there is no sports provision, country park, allotments, community garden etc provided. There is an unfortunate emphasis on Milton Country Park to facilitate this shortfall. As the Milton Country Park is already at high capacity it is unclear how this will be achieved – it would have been a better vision to incorporate reference to the County Parks and Sports Lake vision. - I am particularly concerned with the proposed density, the structures proposed are significantly higher than the Cambridge average. As the location is on a city/rural edge, it will have a harmful impact on protected green spaces such as Ditton Meadows and the low level housing that surrounds the area. This impact harm is unclear from the vision documentation. The only examples I have seen of the landscape harm are those undertake by the Hurst Park Community Forum. - As Cambridge has declared a 'climate emergency', it is good to see that there is an appreciation of some elements of climate aware planning, but if falls short of the Eddington provision. Although it is good to see that there is more awareness of walking and cycling, 0.5 spaces per household for car parking (4000 spaces over the entire proposed development) is exceedingly high for somewhere well connected. Proposed policy 4 is unclear ‘should’ rather than ‘must’ on the integration of carbon limiting systems, cannot this be incorporated? - The residential and workspaces do not appear to be integrated, with housing and business very much distinct areas, presumably this is being dictated by the separate landowners? It is also concerning that there is little reference, in the consultation stage, for what has already been granted development. It is difficult to provide a consultation response for something that is already in development, the station hotel being a poor and inappropriate example. - I am particularly concerned that the provision of cultural sports and recreation area (i.e. where Cambridge Regional College is located) is separated from the residential area by the business park. As there is already restricted provision of recreational area within the development, this is disappointing. I would strongly encourage more cultural facilities (a cultural music/theatre hub venue) alongside informal and formal recreational facilities. As a practical point, I found the dense, legalistic and complex documentation rather complex to understand quickly and even then it was difficult to truly appreciate the scale, use divisions and density, it is likely to be the case for a wide number of consultees. It is particularly unfortunate that there was no 3D diagrams of how the development would look, and an appreciation, particularly of the proposed scale and massing, from key views such as Ditton Fen.
No uploaded files for public display
I think it is important that there are local shops and offices so that it is not yet another massive residential area with no community life like what can be seen in waterbeach, etc. or just another business park which is a ghost town after office hours such as the science park as it is now. Public transport should be considered from the start and should be planned for the future size of the population rather than based on current usage otherwise people will use the car.
No uploaded files for public display
The vision of ‘an inclusive, walkable, low-carbon new city district with a lively mix of homes, workplaces, services and social spaces, fully integrated with surrounding neighbourhoods’ which will ‘foster community wellbeing’ and be ‘socially cohesive’ is great but I am not convinced these plans as they are at the moment will deliver it.
No uploaded files for public display
On the face of it, I expected to be positive about a vision for a neighbourhood that is described as 'inclusive, walkable, low-carbon ... [with] a lively mix of homes, workplaces, services and social spaces, fully integrated with surrounding neighbourhoods.' An area that 'respond[s] to the climate and biodiversity emergencies, leading the way in showing how we can reach net zero carbon' and which 'fosters community wellbeing'. However on looking more deeply at the plans, it seems to me that the plans you've laid out will not in fact deliver this vision, but instead will create a sort of urban jungle that is actually divided from the rest of Cambridge and will create the very opposite of 'community wellbeing'. You are proposing 8,000 new homes crammed together in highrise blocks - in fact exactly the kinds of places people do not want to live. The Covid crisis has reminded all of us how important space, community and the outdoors are, and yet you are proposing housing people in rabbit hutches with less outdoor space than other parts of Cambridge. Despite the fact that you are claiming that this development will be 'affordable', this project does nothing to address the fact that Cambridge is already the most unequal city in the UK. New housing stock in Cambridge has risen 15% in the past ten years which is faster than anywhere yet prices have continued to rise - faster than anywhere. Unaffordability has increased, not reduced. Building new homes (sold at any price by the private sector) does not solve the Cambridge housing crisis - certainly not if one is growing jobs quicker than you can house workers. Your plan says there will be 20,000 new jobs, yet you are only building 8,000 homes for perhaps 18,000 people. Assuming only half these people will be working, that leaves a shortfall of around 11,000 people who will need homes. Where will they live? Ten years of economic expansion has brought little to celebrate in Arbury, Kings Hedges and elsewhere. It has brought extra pressure on the public services that are so important and other disbenefits such as noise, more traffic generally, and still greater inequality. There's already a sense of 'us' and 'them' for too many people in this city. Let's improve the quality of life for people already here, rather than reduce it still further. Why this urge to build, build, build? It can only be about greed. I know there are government targets for housebuilding, but Cambridgeshire's plans appear to far exceed even those targets. Why? Cambridge is already bursting at the seams.
No uploaded files for public display
Whilst the underlying aims are sound, the proposed implementation results in building density and heights that are totally out of keeping with Cambridge and the surrounding edge-of fen landscape. The plan includes a major incursion into the Green Belt to relocate the sewage works for which there is no operational need and a major addition to the population with attendant infrastructure needs. The consequences are likely to be increased congestion and unavoidable degradation of the environment of north-east Cambridge. The traffic estimates and parking proposals can at best be described as unachievable utopia. The increased use of electric and hybrid vehicles and the potential development of fuel-cell driven vehicles are likely to maintain or even increase the demand for motor vehicle usage. The proposals will overload the parking capability and drive displacement parking into the surrounding areas. Planning applications and building upgrades on the Science Park are already increasing office space by two to three times within the same plot, with no attendant increase in car or cycle parking and no evidence of any improvement in public transport with surrounding areas.
No uploaded files for public display
I don't think in a Post-Covid world an abundance of flats will meet the needs of people who will necessarily be working from home. It surely is the case that more homes need to be built but most of these in the new development will be flats in high rise buildings. It's unclear where these jobs will originate. This is made more uncertain by the dire state of the economy. All signs are that the number of jobs is shrinking, not expanding. The plans aim to "discourage" car use but doesn't plan firmly for a car-free environment within the development. There are no plans to increase public transport or even bike lanes with access to the development. Given that Central Government has set a target (40,000 homes) well below the South Cambs plan to build 66,000 homes, this latter target aggravates an already difficult environment as far as public space, transport and supporting facilities such as shops, schools and medical facilities are concerned.
No uploaded files for public display
It's a very high density housing area for the existing and projected public transport if you are not catering for car use. You are using a brownfield site but in order to do so, the WTP is proposed to be relocated in a green belt site. The proposal has too many housing units so you are going to have to build high. I am not sure that that would be a good result. We are well acquainted with Hammarby Sjöstad, an inner city area of Stockholm having friends who live nearby. We have watched it change from a run down industrial area to a pleasant place to live. I don't recall any buildings over 3 stories, but it has wide open spaces and excellent public transport and also opportunities for car sharing. There are communal buildings which support the community. The expectation was that young people would move in but the reality was a broad mixture including young families and older people. They adjusted their design to accommodate them with communal meeting areas for the elderly as well as school and nursery provision. Your proposals look too intense with overhigh buildings and very little green space. I have heard suggestions of a tunnel under the A14 to link with Milton Country Park but that is already a well used space and relies heavily on the car parking fees to support the running of the park. Will there be any financial support if this is pushed through because looking at the plans, you are relying heaving on the use of MCP to support your green living claims. I love the idea and can see how it would work from Hammarby Sjöstad but this all looks far too big for the space it has.
No uploaded files for public display
There are not currently enough houses in Cambridge for people to live and work in nearby locations. However, this development is planned to increase the supply of housing and create more jobs, which is not the best possible solution to the problem. The water supply to the Cambridge region is already overused (I believe the correct term is that the chalk aquifier is 'over-abstracted'), so increasing the population of this area is just not sustainable - adding houses elsewhere in the country, that are able to support them, is a better option. Having read the plans for the development, lots of the things promised seem to be described with loopholes - lots of things are promised "where appropriate", "where possible", "pending further engagement", which I do not like.
No uploaded files for public display
A development of this size and density cannot contribute to the meeting of the target of net zero carbon by 2050. The detail of your plans indicate that you will not meet the targets or the vision you set out.
No uploaded files for public display
Needs to be affordable and safe entry and exit points to areas particularly for pedestrians and bikes
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
The need for housing in and around Cambridge is clear and also the need for an updated sewage works but i cannot support the building of a new sewage works on designated green belt land. I am also concerned that the local infrastructure can cope with so much development. Traffic congestion is already a problem on Milton Road and around Kings Hedges Road.
No uploaded files for public display
I just want to comment generally but can find nowhere to do so. I think the whole plan is a massive over development of the site. Where will all the traffic go? The dream of a community relying mainly on public transport and bikes is 'pie in the sky'. The whole area will he over run with cars in no time at all. Just look at the disastrous planning of Loves Farm at St Neots. The whole area became gridlocked very early on with narrow streets and very little parking, a complete disaster. I've heard rumours of 13 story buildings. Completely out of character for Cambridge and the surrounding areas. Just look at the horrendous apology for a building on the corner of Cherry Hinton Road and Hills Road. Who on earth in their right mind approves these things? I realise that money over rules everything these days but it's about time the environment and current communities were taken into account. In my humble opinion the whole plan is a complete disaster waiting to happen on many fronts.
No uploaded files for public display
The aims of the plan are laudable but the details given in the longer Area Action Plan and supporting documents do not give confidence that this vision will be implemented successfully. For example, the plan's aim for 75% of the additional journeys to be by foot, cycle or public transport depends on the Cambridge Autonomous Metro, "a tunnelled central core which will connect Cambridge station and the city centre to four portal locations". This sounds like science fiction costing billions and it may never happen: the additional car journeys generated by the site will further clog up Milton Road, further slowing down the existing bus journeys to/from the city centre along that route. This in turn will displace more of the new journeys towards cycling, making it even more important to provide sufficient cycle infrastructure connecting the site to the city centre. I support Cambridge Past, Present and Future’s recommendation to establish a special purpose vehicle such as a locally-controlled Development Corporation to ensure that the vision for the area can be properly realised.
No uploaded files for public display
I strongly support the vision and principles as described and would love to see this new area set the standard for zero carbon living in the UK, following inspiring examples from other places such as the Merwede district of Utrecht and the Vauban neighbourhood in Freiburg. However, I am concerned that there are many barriers to delivery, and relying on individual developers is too risky. I support Cambridge Past, Present and Future’s recommendation to establish a special purpose vehicle such as a locally-controlled Development Corporation to ensure that the vision for the area can be properly realised. I would also like to see more ambition in the individual policies: with both councils already having declared a climate emergency, all new development should be carbon negative.
No uploaded files for public display
1) Relocation of the sewage works has NOT been decided: it should not be moved. 2) The 'vision' was conceived in a different epoch. Post-Covid19, life and expectations have changed. Very many people will want more space around them - both interior and exterior space. More work will be done from home, and there is thus less need to co-locate office developments and housing to shorten commutes. I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE INCLUSION OF A FORCED LIKERT SCALE CHOICE ABOVE. MY SELECTION DOES NOT REPRESENT MY VIEWS: IT IS MERELY AN ENABLER OF THE TEXT SUBMISSION IN THIS FIELD. Such journeys will occur less often, and many people will be prepared to travel further on them. Usage of public transport will return to previous levels very slowly, if at all. Many of the premises of the 'vision' need to be revisited. 3) Assumptions about housing density required to support community functions appear to be founded on the model of a free-standing community (such as Cambourne). This does not apply to NE Cambridge - local shops, schools, transport routes etc. already exist and do not need inner-city levels of housing density to support them.
No uploaded files for public display
The plans mostly seem well thought out. However they do rely on moving the water treatment plant onto green belt which completely defeats any positive impact of any biodiversity attempts and environmental efficiencies.
No uploaded files for public display
I do not believe that the density proposed is in the best interests of the surrounding areas of North East Cambridge or in keeping with the makeup of Cambridge currently. For the most part, Cambridge is a low-rise city, with buildings rarely above 4 storeys or more. Building up to 13 storeys in this part of North East Cambridge would ruin the skyline in this area and the architectural character of the city. I think that building many small homes without much outdoor space in this area of North East Cambridge would be a mistake. If anything, the pandemic has shown how important it is for people to have ample space not only inside their home but also access to either private outdoor space and/or other outdoor settings such as though provided on greenbelt land country parks, etc. In my opinion, Cambridge has already become congested and I believe that building more homes in this area will only add to that problem - places like Milton Country Park are already busy. Where will additional households be able to go for outdoor recreation in this plan. I do not believe that green spaces planned with NECAAP will be enough to replace the greenbelt lost to the relocation of the Waste Water Treatment Plant. Moreover I dispute the statement in the NECAAP documentation that suggests that this part of Cambridge is served well by public transport. It doesn't provide adequate public transport for those in the area already, so how it will cope with 5000+ homes, I do not know and I don't think this has been sufficiently demonstrated in the consultation documents.
No uploaded files for public display
The density of the housing is far too high. Covid19 has shown the need for people to have more spacious living space especially with the significant change to more people working from home. The amount of outdoor green space for residents is ridiculously small. The amount of high-rise living space is totally out of place in Cambridge. It is irresponsible planning to allow this to take place. Simply 'discouraging' car use will not result in people not having and using cars. Suggesting that families do their shopping at Tesco by bike is unrealistic. There is the strong liklihood that affordable housing will be bought up by investors, and that those who are less well-off will be priced out of the housing market here as has so often happened.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display