Question 1

Showing forms 391 to 420 of 479
Form ID: 54978
Respondent: Mrs Gill Griffith

Strongly disagree

Would you be happy living in a twelfth floor flat with a small child? Very unhealthy against the A14 and between the railway line. A tunnel to take you to the over used Milton Country Park.

No uploaded files for public display

File: 643_Response
Form ID: 54988
Respondent: Ms Ann Galpin

Strongly disagree

Too big and too dense. Will generate too much traffic into an already congested infrastructure. Planned before pandemic which is disrupting how people may need to live and work safely - unless you plan to review in 2 or 3 years post Coronavirus as it may not reflect what is needed in delivery. Smaller high quality developments like Eddington on the West side contrast drastically with what is planned for NE. Fens are an increasingly important biodiversity in rising sea levels.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55000
Respondent: Karen Willoughby

Agree

Seems good in principle but the details are unclear.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55010
Respondent: Emma Ormond

Agree

Some aspects are appealing but overall there are still concerns.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55020
Respondent: J M C Poole

Strongly agree

No comment.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55030
Respondent: Dr A Da Costa

Neither agree nor disagree

No comment

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55041
Respondent: Mr. Perry Sennitt

Disagree

Trying to pack too much into the development already. To shuffle the sewage works a short distance is crazy. It will need to be moved again in a short time as over development continues.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55052
Respondent: Mr Matthew Stancombe

Strongly disagree

The area is already overdeveloped and local infrastructure cannot cope.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55062
Respondent: Zedify

Disagree

Not ambitious enough re. green agenda.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55072
Respondent: Alison Muhr

Strongly disagree

Vision seems to include blighting another area be relocating the waste water treatment plant to the Green Belt. I believe the plan should be reconsidered in the light of the 2020 Pandemic (housing more people in central Cambridge and reviving businesses there?

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55085
Respondent: Mrs A Fiddes

Strongly disagree

It looks like inner city London. It is not suitable for Cambridge. The buildings are far too high. Should be kept at maximum 5 storeys. It looks as if it will bring more congestion to an already congested area of Cambridge.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55095
Respondent: Barbara Patterson

Disagree

Too many flats - density of population leads to overcrowding and spread of infectious disease.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55109
Respondent: Sally McLean

Strongly disagree

I am concerned about it Who is the "master developer"- why can't we know their identity

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55119
Respondent: Mr Matthew Asplin

Strongly disagree

The draft plan document is very well presented with some pleasing infographics that set out a professional view of the vision for North East Cambridge. However, beneath the polished cover there appears to be a number of concerns that are at risk of being glossed over: Integrated Planning: The current draft plan proposed hinges on relocation of the Water Treatment Plant to a likely Green Belt location in contravention of Green Belt policies, at a considerable cost and with a corresponding impact on the time to delivery of housing. Given the post Covid 19 economic crisis and the fact that there is no operational need to relocate the plant, this casts into question whether the spend is appropriate and the legitimacy of the current draft plan. This is compounded further by the fact that considerable sums were invested in the current water treatment plant in 2014 / 2015 to future proof the operational capability. Use of a Development Consent Order to relocate the Treatment Works under a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project could potentially be misleading as it implies the move is required to maintain national infrastructure, which is not the case, but prevents the overall programme from being viewed in a holistic integrated manner. Recent responses to the Call for Sites under the Greater Cambridge Local Plan provided 656 sites, well in excess of that needed for development. Although these sites have yet to be determined from a planning perspective, this output should also be considered in relation to the North East Area Plan in terms of cost, optimum delivery of housing needs and time to delivery. A ‘Once in a Generation Opportunity’: Cambridge is expanding and driving demand for both residential and commercial development on the outskirts of the city. The current proposed locations for the Water Treatment Works are being driven primarily by cost and are therefore proposed to be at nearby Green Belt locations, which is just moving the issues with odour and noise to other local communities and creating the same problem for the next generation, when the plant needs to be relocated again. The Treatment works should therefore either remain at its current location or be considered on a long term integrated planning basis as opposed to being divested to a third party company in isolation. Risk / Feasibility: Neither the Draft Area Action Plan, nor the proposed Waste Water Treatment Plant relocation appears to be underpinned with a suitable level of investigation or feasibility study to gain surety of either proposal. This represents a risk to delivery of both plans.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55127
Respondent: Jill Bloxhau

Strongly disagree

Comparing a 13 storey ugly block of flats to King's College Chapel is a joke! We do not want high rise in Cambridge. This style of development will be a dump in 10 years.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55138
Respondent: Mr M B Lopresti

Agree

No comment

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55148
Respondent: Mr Paul Jenkins

Disagree

Biodiversity target not sufficiently ambitious. It's partially in the wrong place. The area to the east close to Chesterton Fen should be redeveloped instead of the WWTP which should remain where it is instead of being moved to the Green Belt.

No uploaded files for public display

File: 541_Response
Form ID: 55158
Respondent: B Fuller

Strongly disagree

Doesn't matter what I think, you will still do what you want.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55168
Respondent: Chris Brown

Neither agree nor disagree

Some good aspirations, some areas where the vision does not really get to grips with the challenges we face.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55178
Respondent: Jonathan Wilkins

Disagree

Concerned that this will push existing industrial facilities- particularly the sewage works- out into the green belt. High building density= poorer quality homes and out of character for Cambridge.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55188
Respondent: Paul Clark

Strongly disagree

No comment

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55197
Respondent: Tony Dadoum

Neither agree nor disagree

I like most of the proposed environmental improvements, however the development is too dense, too high and will have negative impacts on the existing surrounding community. More needs to be done to support the existing community.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55207
Respondent: R Fairhurst

Disagree

The vision is blinkered. The taking up of greenbelt land for sewer treatment does not fit with the environmental ethic.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55217
Respondent: Mrs V S Gringell

Agree

No comment.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55227
Respondent: Mrs C Sinclair

Strongly disagree

Totally out of character with Milton village, height of new buildings inappropriate.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55237
Respondent: Christine Turnbull

Nothing chosen

I have seen too many of these appear in the city and this particular site is more suited to commercial use.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55247
Respondent: Mary Hall

Disagree

Too many houses resulting in too much traffic.

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55259
Respondent: Graham Fairweather

Strongly agree

Good ideas but will need 'ambassadors' to encourage inclusiveness. I applaud 'genuinely affordable' council & social housing and mixed private/social housing developments but given the current govt. how will you stop the council/social housing being sold to landlords who will then charge high rents?

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55268
Respondent: Simon Wilcox

Agree

Too many homes/residents/high rise buildings

No uploaded files for public display

Form ID: 55280
Respondent: J Staggs

Nothing chosen

Will there be some houses, not just blocks of flats?

No uploaded files for public display