Question 1
Cramming 38,000 people (total residents + jobs) into this area with just 5% open space (cf. 38% at Clay Farm) is unsustainable in terms of the impact on natural resources, existing infrastructure and, I fear, the mental health of the residents and workers. Moreover the height of buildings required for this density, at 8-13 storeys, will change Cambridge's skyline forever. The growth agenda is out of control. We should be planning for truly self-sustaining communities amidst the local economy1, not attracting yet more businesses to the area.
No uploaded files for public display
It should explicitly aim for Net Zero Carbon:
No uploaded files for public display
It is exciting to see an emphasis on zero carbon development and an ambitious vision for this area. Is there also an imaginative and creative vision for the architectural design of buildings and communal space?
No uploaded files for public display
Proposed development is too big and will put too much load on our small mediaeval city centre. The residential part is too far and too separated from the centre of the city to be an effective new city district. It is largely cut off by the industrial/business areas.
No uploaded files for public display
Too dense a population and high-rised living is problematic. Likely shifts due to Covid 19 to less office working, more home-based and public transport is now a less desirable option. Much greater need for significantly increased access to green spaces, existing green spaces currently over populated. Conflicting needs for use of space e.g. dog walking, places dogs can be off lead, sports use, family spaces etc. Green space is already in short supply. High rise living is not desirable on many fronts, as we move to more electric vehicles, how can vehicles be charged in crammed in spaces. High-rise will change the character of the city / not be in keeping. Why so large a population? Whatever measures are put in place will not avoid the environmental impact of such huge growth in population.
No uploaded files for public display
How do you make sure this vision is implemented when you hand over the development to commercial developers?
No uploaded files for public display
On first seeing the documents, the vision appears to have many good aspects. The online consultation documents certainly gives a lovely idealist place to live and work but, sadly, in depth reading reveals a different vision. I strongly disagree with the high density which means that this area will have the least green spaces in Cambridge - Indeed maybe even in Europe! The tower blocks that will be seen from miles around and certainly not in keeping with Cambridge. I fear much of the housing (particularly in tower blocks) will become penthouses for the commuters (not necessarily for those working nearby) or social housing slums for the next generation - Planners pulled down the high rise housing of the 60s because of many eventual social issues. This development so different from the award winning Marmalade Lane and celebrated social housing in Norwich. I totally agree with more social housing but I fear most housing with be for the commuters from elsewhere (as so near to Cambridge North station). Significantly reduce the density and this new community may have a chance. I support the MRRA and HPERA comments
No uploaded files for public display
Too high-density. Not enough outdoor space or provision for cycling/walking. Not enough amenities. Will probably become the nearest to a future 'slum' area that Cambridge will see.
No uploaded files for public display
But need to be aware of not building to big now offices are being mothballed and the future is for more home working.
No uploaded files for public display
I don't believe that the plan for North East Cambridge meets the vision and aims set out. I am very concerned by the impact of the plans which will deliver a densely populated area with a lack of green space and adequate amenities for the number of residents (no pool, lack of healthcare provision, only 4 cultural/social centres, no guaranteed secondary school). The housing density will be twice that of inner London with a maximum storey height of 13. This doesn't really lend itself to an appealing built environment for residents or visitors to the district. The green space fails to meet the minimum as set out in Cambridge's Local Plan. 10 hectares pales in comparison to other recent developments in the area, such as in Trumpington or Eddington. In current circumstances, green space is highly valued and needed. A lack of green space will impact quality of life for residents and won't support the biodiversity aims of the NE Cambridge vision. There is also an expectation that residents will make use of existing park facilities such as Milton County Park, however the park is already very busy so it is difficult to see how it would have capacity for another 18,000 residents or that the substantial increase in foot flow wouldn't have a detrimental impact on the park itself. I am also concerned about the impact of traffic, particularly on Milton Road which is already very busy with traffic into Cambridge, the Science and Business Parks - leading to more pollution for residents of Milton Road and surrounds. The plan to discourage car journeys by NE residents or a belief that Milton Road will not see an increase in traffic is just not realistic. There is a real opportunity for the Council to make the NE development into a green quarter for Cambridge, to use passive building principles and to deliver a vision to meet both the current and future needs of its residents and for the whole of Cambridge.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
County officers have been involved in the development of the draft plan over the past two years. The overall approach to bringing forward the area for redevelopment is broadly welcome and its vision for an inclusive, walkable, low-carbon new city district is supported.
No uploaded files for public display
Completely agree with need to prioritise walking and cycling, with mixed uses, connections to existing areas and lively places. To achieve this it is essential to restrict car use.
No uploaded files for public display
I completely agree with the response by Milton Road Residents’ Association.
I'm very concerned that such a high-density development is being considered at this time. Covid has turned the country upside down and we don't know what impact Brexit will have. Many people are now working from home and there is strong indication that this will be a continuing trend. There are currently many under-used or abandoned offices and retail spaces - empty shop fronts etc., even in Cambridge. The need for development should be reassessed. I am also very against moving the WWTP from a brownfield site to any of the 3 proposed sites on the Green Belt. Anglian Water should not currently be in the position of having to make such a far-reaching decision now. The HIF grant was awarded before Covid and since then The Story Has Changed; the proposal to move the Sewage Works should be reconsidered.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
It should have a nets zero target in a specified timescale
No uploaded files for public display
Great to have a unified and considered approach to a large area. But with the size it may take too long to get off the ground, plus it is too high density and not enough green spaces. We need to incorporate other issues such as those on Fen Road Chesterton isolated from a lot due to the railway line. It would make sense to have a bridge over the railway line from this site to Fen Road instead of just a foot bridge.
No uploaded files for public display
The location as the last major brown field site close to the existing city is the only obvious place where major new development is possible. The need for such a development cannot be denied because Cambridge gas consistently been an area of growth to an extent exceptional outside Greater London. As a result, housing is almost unattainable for most younger workers. This growth would not have been possible without the bold steps taken in the 1970s and 1980s to build the current science and innovation parks around Cambridge, which have enabled many thousands of new firms developing a wide range of products transforming our lives – from medical technology to cleantech. A bold, ambitious plan is necessary if the ‘Cambridge Phenomemon’ of the past 50 years is not to choke on its own success. Integrating residential, commercial and retail on the same site with a sense of place built in from the outset represents a creative and much-needed departure from the piecemeal approach more common in recent years.
No uploaded files for public display
The plan comes across as unrealistic and muddled. If it is primarily about housing, for whom is this intended? Those employed at the Science Park or other well-paid, high-tech venues are unlikely to want to live in such a cramped development, with so little green space nearby. If these are so-called 'affordable' dwellings, will they really be so, and will they be well-designed and carefully built (with eco-friendly elements, like double glazing, solar panels, places to dry laundry, wet cycling gear and prams) or is this just another opportunity for developers to make a fat profit? And will there be a substantial proportion of social housing, built to the same high standards? Where will this huge number of residents work, shop - especially for food - visit health professionals, go to school or nursery, swim and keep fit, go to borrow books and spend their leisure time? And where will older residents live - will there be homes for them amongst those for younger families - and what about purpose-built care homes for our much older residents?
No uploaded files for public display
There are times when it is necessary to use a car to carry things, such as shopping, moving large objects etc In your statement you talk of wanting to create a "healthy district" and "it will be planned around walking, cycling and public transport first, discouraging car use" with no mention of any provisions for people with disabilities. I do not feel included. .
No uploaded files for public display
It is a very large development which it is difficult to envisage fully and a lot depends on how quickly it comes to fruition. I am pleased that there is an emphasis on environmental issues, but concerned that there is no commitment to anything specific until 2050
No uploaded files for public display
• While the aspiration to create ‘ … a welcoming, safe and inclusive place that integrates well with surrounding established neighbourhoods and existing environmental constraints’ this is not supported by the material provided. • The vision is for a very densely developed area that will have a huge visible impact locally. • The number of residents and businesses proposed will have a huge detrimental impact on the adjacent districts.
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? Do the profits of landowners and developers have more influence
No uploaded files for public display
I strongly support the ideals, and agree with it being an area with high density living, BUT to achieve the objective the cycling, walking and public transport infrastructure MUST be available before the first house is occupied. That happened in the new neighbourhood of Vauben in Freiburg, which I've visited, but even such half hearted objectives in "Carbourne", the Southern Fringe, and now Northstowe have failed. Eddington has been the nearest to achieving such objectives
No uploaded files for public display
Unnecessary over development of Cambridge. Creating issues with relocation of sewage works.
No uploaded files for public display
Completely flawed from beginning to end. Massive overdevelopment on inappropriate rural based site location: none of lessons of critical issues of quality-of-life post COVID 19 (C19) pandemic lockdowns etc. have been considered in ANY way. Totally inappropriate dense development for outskirts of rural/greenbelt based Cambridge. This site is NOT central London with likes of high-rise poor quality housing dense developments & Canary Wharf-style office blocks. Major dilution of original vision & concepts – clearly greedy Developers looking to make massive monies from dense, multistorey very high apartment blocks & office complexes. Exactly what C19 lockdowns showed as NEVER required/will never be wanted ever again.
No uploaded files for public display
I do not think your vision of NEC is acceptable for our beautiful city. Such an ugly development similar to CB1! It would be a miserable and unhealthy place to live, in such high rise blocks of flats up against the A14 with all it’s pollutants and not far from the railway line with very little open space. One and two bed flats seem as if you are only catering for dormitory inhabitants, for people to commute to London.
No uploaded files for public display
Please do not destroy the green belt and to allow greater congestion and overcrowding of Cambridge.
No uploaded files for public display
No, your vision is based on some strange concepts: that people will want to live in high rise buildings overlooking a high speed road and that they will be happy not to have a car.
No uploaded files for public display