Question 1
A poor analysis of the site and its location. This is a poor housing site located next to a major road. The whole scheme is based on two factors. 1. The relocation of the sewage works to a site in the greenbelt which will cause harm to the countryside. 2. An expansion of the science park and the other commercial areas to create additional jobs. The problem with our city is lack of housing not lack of jobs. Just like the endless discussion regarding the southern fringe where land was released from the greenbelt to provide more housing and immediately afterwards Astra Zenica relocated to Cambridge bringing thousand of highly paid staff with generous relocation payments that pushed up house prices and negated the benefit of the new housing
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
The vision is compelling and suitable for the site.
No uploaded files for public display
Love the liveable streets principle. Zero carbon and promotion of active travel is the only kind of development we ought to support. BUT I have little confidence that the details will ensure that the liveable area idea will actually come to fruition. Proposed housing is frighteningly dense (thinking about the pandemic and how inhabitants would cope); transport plans are unconvincing without proper, joined-up walking and cycling networks which link the new area to the rest of the city; and evidence of the work from developers in Cambridge over the last decade suggest that any vision or principle will simply be ignored when they actually come to build.
No uploaded files for public display
The principles specified in the vision are fine. However, it lacks several fundamental additional principles: 1. The development must ensure easy access to large areas of newly created high quality green space and to nature. Existing green spaces and nature sites are already full to capacity, so new spaces must be provided. 1 hectare of new, high quality nature-rich green space should be provided for every 40 dwellings, in line with the provisions at the Trumpington Meadows development. 2. The visual impact of the development must be designed to align with the fundamental characteristics of Cambridge, i.e. a city of spires, with minimal topographic relief, such that all new elevated buildings are visible from miles around in every direction. To this end, buildings should be limited to a maximum four storeys, with a very few architecturally beautiful centrepiece buildings limited to 6 storeys. 3. The development must foster a healthy community by providing new sporting facilities that must include as an absolute minimum: several large new playing fields; new indoor and outdoor 50 m swimming pools/baths; and several new public indoor sports halls. 4. Every new household should have access to a space to grow its own vegetables, with a minimum 50 square metres of growing space per dwelling. 5. The balance between housing and office space should take account of the enormous shifts in work patterns resulting from Covid 19. The residential to office space ratio should be 2 or 3 times what was originally planned.
No uploaded files for public display
The statements that comprise the vision for NE Cambridge are vague, open to interpretation and do not inspire confidence in specific, measurable outcomes.
No uploaded files for public display
As an initial point, I am confused about how the current proposals fit with the extant Cambridge Local Plan. Policy 15 of the current local plan. Specific area policy 15 states that the delineated area around the sewage works will be 'allocated for high quality mixed-use development, primarily for employment uses such as B1, B2 and B8, as well as a range of supporting commercial, retail, leisure and residential uses (subject to acceptable environmental conditions).' However, the current proposals state that this portion of the NE area action plan it will now be a housing led development at that portion of the site, with retail and business areas as subsidiary uses. From the overview I have undertaken, this conflicting policy background is not tackled transparently and directly. Indeed, it appears that the density and lack of open space is a result of attempting to comply with policy 15, whilst attempting to also make this a housing dominated site, likely led due to windfall cash allocation for housing. The inevitable consequence of this is that there is simply not enough space to accommodate both uses. Indeed, the lack of relocation of the aggregates yard demonstrates that this area would be better utilised as its current policy indication as a dominant business use. That said, subject to lower housing densities, 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
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Camcycle welcomes the vision and principles which focus on a place for everyone with everything they need nearby, beautiful buildings and green spaces, and good links with surrounding areas. The guidelines support the type of development needed to help more people to walk and cycle. More people walking and cycling would help the local councils create a safe and collaborative district with healthy people and a strong community which will lead the way to a zero-carbon future. However, the details given in the longer Area Action Plan and supporting documents do not give confidence that this vision will be implemented successfully. The density and nature of the site has been determined by government funding, transport plans rely heavily on the delivery of schemes by other authorities (such as CAM metro) which may not be delivered in time, and the aim of creating a mixed-use site across the whole area has been lost due to the balance of power lying with landowners over the local community. Relying on developers to deliver the plan is also too risky: existing construction and applications for the area are already posing a threat to the vision as a whole. Lessons must be learnt from other developments across Cambridge and we 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
Overall it has to happen and I (& my family) are supportive, even excited by, of it. We are though concerned that those developers/ planners/ designers etc are all keen to avoid a repeat of what happened in and around the central Cambridge station in terms of vehicular access & egress, namely "Great Northern Road" & its long litany of troubles to local residents/ users of the station/ taxis/ businesses/ passers by etc etc Similarly some inventive "soft landscaping" would be welcome to break up the hard surfaces/ water run offs etc In particular "water-wise" planting in order to reduce the need for watering, esp'ly as post building work leaves ground very unfriendly for new planting.
No uploaded files for public display
It's not very inspiring. I wouldn't want to live there. The vision seems to be cram in as much housing as possible and as little green space as possible, and ignore the adjacent traveller community.
No uploaded files for public display
None
No uploaded files for public display
It seems incredulous that at a time when there is a clear, permanent shift as a result of the coronavirus pandemic to expanded home working, that this scheme - which is so heavily reliant on the model of office workers living close to their workplace - should be proposed. Physical wellbeing is one factor mentioned, but mental wellbeing is vital as well - and residents in high density urban areas have had more mental health issues during lockdown/home working periods this year. See the UCL study here; https://www.covidsocialstudy.org/ Higher levels of anxiety and depression amongst those living in urban areas is referenced on this site; https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/blogs/emerging-evidence-on-covid-19s-impact-on-mental-health-and-health
No uploaded files for public display
Whilst the aims are laudable, I am very concerned about the scale and impact of the proposed plans, particularly on the surrounding neighbourhoods. The vision has not translated into the plans. The density of housing is twice that of parts of inner London, and will include high rise blocks to 13 storeys. There will be increases in traffic impacting roads boarding the new area and beyond. There will also be pressures on services - including GPs and schools (secondary) etc. I am concerned that there is not lot of green space, this also fails to meet the requirements as set out in the Cambridge Local Plan. There is an expectation that residents will use park facilities such as Milton County Park but this is already busy so this does not seem like a viable solution. Amidst the current pandemic where garden/green space is highly valued and needed, it is disappointing that there has been a missed opportunity to create an innovative "green" quarter to meet the needs of residents, and ultimately provide a space that residents want to live in and neighbours want to visit.
No uploaded files for public display
strongly support response from Camcycle
No uploaded files for public display
The vision and principles described sound good and support cycling and walking in the new district and surrounding areas. But how likely are they to be realised? * Will this new district be another area that brings congestion and problems to nearby communities rather than benefits? * How will surrounding infrastructure for cycling and walking be improved or expanded to accommodate the desired increase in active travel? * Do the profits of landowners and developers have more influence than the needs of the local community?
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
I acknowledge that Cambridge is experiencing a housing crisis, with many people unable to live near to where they work, and those on low incomes particularly at risk of insecure or unsuitable housing situations. However, building large numbers of new homes in this already densely populated city, while creating even more new jobs, is fundamentally unsustainable. The chalk aquifer that supplies the region’s water is already greatly over-abstracted: adding thousands of new homes and businesses (even if they are designed to be water-efficient) can only make this problem more acute. In social and economic terms, Cambridge is already in a ‘bubble’, with high costs of living (see for example https://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/savills-greater-cambridge-report-june-2017.pdf) and horrendous levels of inequality (https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/18-01-12-Final-Full-Cities-Outlook-2018.pdf). These problems will not be solved by a top-down focus on economic growth or ‘competitiveness’. Overall, I am opposed to the plans to redevelop North East Cambridge as put forward in this consultation. This area of the city needs much more careful planning to ensure any development there helps to provide solutions to the escalating, and rapidly changing, issues of inequality, poverty, climate change and water shortages. As a general point, picked up in our answers to the specific questions, I am concerned about the likely mismatch between the strategic vision and what developers will ultimately deliver. It will be vital for the local authorities to monitor the progress of the development and use all powers available to them to ensure that developers are meeting (or ideally exceeding) the targets set for environmental and social sustainability, that measures such as social housing and public green space are protected in perpetuity, and that the rapidly changing circumstances in terms of people’s working and commuting arrangements are taken account of.
No uploaded files for public display
I think that the vision sounds wonderful - as all visions tend to do - but it's the implementation and how you see it happening and whether it's realistic that is much more questionnable!
No uploaded files for public display
The Vision is wonderful but I think it is a pipe dream, especially in view of where things might be in the new post Covid world. The idea of 20000 new jobs being created in the area in addition to the current 15000 Jobs must be a joke, unless you are talking about all the construction workers involved in moving the sewage works and creating the new district?
No uploaded files for public display
Disappointing that the housing will be high density cramped high rise buildings. I acknowledge that there is a need for more housing in cambridge but the recent lockdown has highlighted the importance of space and gardens for every body and the plan does not recognise these important factors. The lack of green space is disappointing and the inclusion of Milton Country park and Stourbridge common as a available green space is misleading. These spaces are already close to capacity and during the lockdown were especially busy and at times had to limit visitors because of the number of people trying to use the space. The lack of garden space is also disappointing. Balcony spaces, roof terraces and courtyards do not provide habitats for all types of wildlife and threaten local wildlife populations like hedgehogs even more. The design was initially planned to provide more housing. Cambridge does need more housing but this design is cramped into a restricted space with people living very close to each other with very little green space and is therefore unlikely to attract the mix of people that the plan is aimed at.
No uploaded files for public display
Combination of greenwash and word salad, the concentration of homes and business you plan there doesn't match the vision you claim to have. Your vision is therefore a deeply cynical deception. Drop it.
No uploaded files for public display
Looks horribly overcrowded
No uploaded files for public display
Disappointing that the housing will be high density cramped high rise buildings. I acknowledge that there is a need for more housing in cambridge but the recent lockdown has highlighted the importance of space and gardens for every body and the plan does not recognise these important factors. The lack of green space is disappointing and the inclusion of Milton Country park and Stourbridge common as a available green space is misleading. These spaces are already close to capacity and during the lockdown were especially busy and at times had to limit visitors because of the number of people trying to use the space. The lack of garden space is also disappointing. Balcony spaces, roof terraces and courtyards do not provide habitats for all types of wildlife and threaten local wildlife populations like hedgehogs even more. The design was initially planned to provide more housing. Cambridge does need more housing but this design is cramped into a restricted space with people living very close to each other with very little green space and is therefore unlikely to attract the mix of people that the plan is aimed at. 2
No uploaded files for public display
You are trying to put too much into a relatively small area. Housing in particular will have to be high rise and this is not appropriate for families. Too little public open space will be possible.
No uploaded files for public display
It all sounds good - but it needs to actually happen. The same "vision" and words sound like what is said about most potential new developments, most of which do not actually live up to them at all. The most important thing is climate change - the plan needs to aim high, at actually achieving ABOVE carbon neutrality. Not just "aiming" at it.
No uploaded files for public display
The vision is very aspirational but I find it difficult to link it with the drat AAP
No uploaded files for public display
Far too dense and incongruous with Cambridge
No uploaded files for public display
I OBJECT to your vision for NE Cambridge. Your description elsewhere of what you mean by “significant growth” in bullet point4/6 completely negates the desirable attributes of the other 5 bullet points. I support the objections made by Fen Ditton Parish Council (I am not resubmitting these). Your proposed NECAAP is too dense, too high and requires the sewage works to move away and you have allowed Anglian Water to propose only 3 sites on the Green Belt. The sewage works should stay where it is; the site at Cowley Road was chosen more than 125 years ago because of its ideal geography and geology. It occupies a brownfield site that is in use; the site is NOT redundant. There is far more support for the works staying where it is than moving to the Green Belt. The communities in villages north-east of Cambridge, and citizens living in east Cambridge, recognise that relocating the works is unacceptable because of the resultant impact on their quality of life and their increasingly precious environments. Your Vision for growth in jobs with a growth in homes nearby supporting inward migration of workers to fill these jobs using widespread non-car travel to work is unrealistic. The need for such growth in NE Cambridge must allow for the effects of COVID and BREXIT to fully materialise and the Governments commitments to levelling up in other areas of the county and country to be put into practice. Growth in these areas can be achieved more speedily than NECAAP and without moving so many people around, making more use of existing buildings and homes that only require refurbishment and so avoid the high carbon cost of the NECAAP and sewage works proposals. We citizens expect our elected representatives on the councils and in Government to recognise these flaws and ensure that the NECAAP vision and other proposals as below are changed.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display