Question 1

Agree

The vision is good with some very important points including - climate change (which must include the Cambridge Valley water shortage), healthy wellbeing, beautiful. These MUST be met in any plans

Strongly disagree

This seems as usual to be a fait accomplis rather than a consultation. The results are inevitably the same as ever - the residents and people living and working in Cambridge will be ignored and this monstrous further decimation of our beautiful city will continue. It's so incredibly sad that badly built houses and flats will replace the wonderful green spaces we so need, both for recreation and even more importantly mental welfare. Renovate old and neglected properties - convert unused offices into decent well fitted large homes which are affordable both for purchase and rental. Do not allow "investors" to but properties to let or sell on at huge profits. Only allow Housing Societies and the Council to rent out property. There must be a time seal on the sale of privately owned homes so they cannot be sold within a certain time frame without having to pay back at least a large proportion of the profit to go back for more affordable housing. This is just naming a very few of the suggestions. Any right thinking person will agree that recycle the old and neglected homes! As to moving sewage works - this has been discussed so many times and it still has not happened. Upgrade what is there so that localities nearby such as Milton do not have to suffer the appalling odour when the wind (excuse the pun!) is in the wrong direction. MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL - Listen to the public who put you in a position of trust to look after them and care for their welfare!

Strongly agree

Very pleased to see climate change, biodiversity and health at the forefront. Would like to see a commitment to low carbon materials in the build.

Agree

I feel that part of Cambridge needs to be reinvented in a sustainable way and provide some green buildings and interesting architecture that address the government targets for zero carbon emissions by 2050. It should add to the local community there should be some affordable homes for our children so they can contribute to Cambridge for the future.

Agree

I feel that part of Cambridge needs to be reinvented in a sustainable way and provide some green buildings and interesting architecture that address the government targets for zero carbon emissions by 2050. It should add to the local community there should be some affordable homes for our children so they can contribute to Cambridge for the future.

Strongly disagree

Density of dwellings far too high. Considering what we have learnt and are experiencing from Covid 19, high density city housing projects are not resilient. People are moving away from this type and location not dwelling (if they can afford to)

Disagree

I am horrified. You have designed a ghetto in which the workspaces will remain empty and the warren of flats will be overrun by criminals and the most socially deprived. People with jobs are largely working form home now and in the future, so to design small flats with no gardens and large work spaces is totally redundant and will be an appalling waste of money. By the way, this question, "What do you think about our vision..." cannot be answered by agreeing or disagreeing, so it seems the questionnaire has been designed with as little expertise as proposed building work.

Strongly agree

No answer given

Disagree

Why use green belt land to build a WWPT and then try to make this "vision" green and pleasant on a brown field site. I question the need for so many dwellings and especially high density housing. All the recent experience has shown that high rise blocks are not compatible with good mental or physical health. The whole scheme seems to be for young active people who are going to cycle or walk to work. The reality is that the areas of high employment are to the south of Cambridge around the biomedical centre and not in north east. Why does the 40% affordable housing include buy to rent? That just pushes up the price and there will not be a high enough proportion of social housing (we need refuse collectors and bus drivers) or shared ownership.

Agree

No answer given

Strongly disagree

The premise that this is a green development is hugely flawed, as is the idea that there will be no impact on local traffic.

Strongly disagree

The planned development creates too dense a population of residential housing, with to much of an emphasis on high-rise apartment blocks; local infrastructure cannot cope with the existing density of population and does not do enough to explain what is planned for the transport infrastructure beyond walking and cycling. Whilst the documentation attempts to convince the readers that the development will include plenty of green space, the high-level figures boasting 10 hectares appear to include the existing green space at the Science Park and the 'public squares' that are most likely to be primarily concrete (as in Eddington, Aura and other new developments in Cambridge). It is positive that the existing green space and lakes at the Science Park will be retained, but a more green and open feel must be achieved to the east of Milton Road; the proposed linear park merely landscapes an unavoidable water management feature. The development does nothing to assist integration with the existing Kings Hedges and Chesterton 'estates', both of which are showing signs of neglect by the Cambridge City and Cambridgeshire Country Councils. A brand-new housing development will exacerbate this impression of neglect and risks the old Arbury and Kings Hedges estates falling back to the 'no-go' areas of the eighties and nineties. More must be done to limit the stark comparison between new and old in the well-established Kings Hedges, Chesterton and Arbury areas. Creating homes with a maximum 0.5 parking space per home is ridiculous. The planning committee must recognise that home owners will continue with car ownership regardless, and this risks exacerbation of the currently very troublesome on-street parking issues in the surrounding areas. Creating new walkways between the Science Park and Kings Hedges road will further increase this issue, where on-street parking is already at full capacity due to CRC and Science Park population using local residential streets for parking: making the pedestrian route easier to reach these areas will guarantee that on-street parking in the Kings Hedges area becomes completely unmanageable, where currently even occupants with off-street parking are impacted by uncontrolled on-street parking. Note: yellow/white lines are not the answer: sensible planning is the only way to mitigate this. More must be done by the the Greater Cambridge Partnership to substantiate its claim that 40% of the homes will be 'genuinely affordable': comparison with other new developments in Cambridge shows that the total cost of ownership for the 'affordable' shared ownership schemes is also vastly out of the reach of the majority of adult earners, for example, as a current 3-bed ex-local authority home owner, with a higher-band income, I cannot afford the purchase price of even 2-bed, smaller square-footage apartments currently being built in Cambridge, so I fail to see how the Greater Cambridge Planning initiative is delivering on its claims of delivering affordable housing.

Strongly agree

Really like the idea of it being designed for low car use, but there should also be routes for e.g. blue badge holders and taxis to be able to get to the station (or houses). But perhaps taxis and buses have to all be electric? Electric cars should be considered a preferable option.

Strongly agree

-

Strongly disagree

Your vision is apparently in a N E Cambridge bubble. You do not mention the implications for the area immediately around it. You want to achieve your vision at the expense of existing communities and green belt by moving the sewage works just to the other side of the A14. Those living in your new community will not stay in this bubble, they will go out on foot and by bicycle to the neighbouring villages and countryside - except that you are proposing to degrade the very attractive places on the doorstep of your new community - notably the conservation villages of Horningsea and Fen Ditton with Honey Hill, which is existing real countryside as opposed to artificially created parks. Your propaganda video has tweeting birds - but do you know how much wildlife there is on Honey Hill, which you will be making homeless? To be eco is a laudable aim but you intend to throw away the extraordinary amount of energy and materials which have been invested very effectively in the state of the art sewage works we already have - a criminal waste. especially as it was updated recently. Anglian Water have stressed that there is no operational need at all for them to move in order to provide Cambridge with an excellent sewage service

Strongly disagree

This requirement for new housing may be there but who will be able to afford to purchase them? Moving the water treatment plant to green belt land to allow for more houses is a decision based only on money to be made by the developer and not the needs and wants of the area.

Strongly agree

I love the vision, it is the implementation that I worry about. Yes, please, let's have a walkable, cycleable, car-discouraging development with a sense of community and clean air! However, I am discouraged by the lack of imagination and inappropriate scale of the buildings developed so far. The new hotel is so huge that it looms over nearby houses (including my own) and is a substantial visual presence even when walking down the river. The station square - which potentially could be a vibrant community space - looks set to be a desolate, car-dominated wasteland. The developers have 'form' in this area, as the square at Cambridge's other station is essentially a car park and taxi-rank, where the needs of pedestrians and cyclists have been subordinated to those of motor vehicles. So, strong leadership is required from the council to deliver something that is what Cambridge needs, rather than what is most convenient and profitable for the developers. As a final note, I would mention that Covid-19 has emphasised just how important local green spaces and a high-quality urban environment are, so please let us build something brilliant that will stand us in good stead for the future.

Agree

Has lots of really positive elements,

Agree

Looks positive, but not as inclusive as it could be.

Disagree

It is already difficult for rural residents to visit Cambridge, and this will increase congestion in an already congested area. Also the plans for getting rid of the Anglia Waste water management involve moving it into the Green Belt, and affect villages close by. Why are we urbanizing the countryside!!! The plans to view the sewage works also affect the beautiful Mere way

Strongly agree

I really like the emphasis on planning for our future environment - both climate and biodiversity, building mini town centres and prioritising sustainable transport.

Strongly disagree

There is much that can be commended about the vision. Much that has been written is necessary but it is not sufficient. The 2 key questions I would pose are: 1. How will this improve Cambridge? 2. What is the actual problem this is trying to solve? Overall, I don’t think we can say that this would be an improvement to Cambridge. Despite a lot of worthy intentions, it seems too similar to the CB1 development which suffers from anonymous architecture, traffic congestion, pollution, crime, poor social cohesion and a lack of good, or indeed any, green spaces. The development is simply too high and dense for the quality of life people would now expect in the post-covid era. It has been driven by the need to cram as many dwellings as possible into a small space rather than providing a good quality of life. The level of facilities does not reflect the size and density either. Residents will need to go elsewhere for things as simple as a swimming pool, any health care beyond their GP and even for secondary schools. To this extent it is more like a dormitory town that a self-contained development. This is bad for the inhabitants who will have the double disadvantage of both high density and poor facilities. It will also impact the quality of services available to existing Cambridge residents. It does not even meet the existing ratio of green space in north Cambridge, and this where most people are going to be living in flats. The original rational seemed to be to encourage young tech workers to work in Cambridge. However, this Tower Hamlets tribute act is simply not going to cut it in this respect. It is out of character with what people think of as Cambridge. It seems to certain that there will be a lot more WFH. This undermines that case for building offices for 20,000 workers when there is going to be a massive oversupply. This to the extent that people are already talking of converting offices back to housing. With WFH people will want to live where there is more space and green space. Not crammed into an expensive flat because it is close to an office they only visit infrequently. The key problem is implementation. Planners may say this is not their problem, but if the rhetoric can’t be implemented it is only so much hot air. It is worrying that some of the really good ideas, such as the green bridge, have been watered down or disappeared. If this is what happens in a year there is a concern about how much more will be watered down under intense commercial pressures over the next 20 years whilst the amount of development increases. We have already seen poor developments on the site which are circumventing the plan before it is implemented in 4 years time. This is besides the skill developers have at pushing the envelope of building sizes and heights above what is initially defined*, see the footnote to this section. There is a bit of a pattern where the planners say that, unlike existing problematic developments, this is all going to be marvellous. As problems emerge, we are told that, actually, this was were never within the power of the planners to promise. It came as a complete surprise to us when a poor hotel, 2 monolithic glass offices and an ugly multi-storey appeared in the area. It was only then that the loophole that the developers can build what they like for 4 years was admitted. The planners must have known about these developments at the start of the consultation process but didn’t tell us. The idea that a bit of discouraging of car traffic will mean no extra cars on Milton Road or Kings Kedges Road is simply laughable. Besides people travelling from the residential area there will be 20,000 more people travelling to the extra Science Park jobs, besides commuters from large new developments at Waterbeach and Northstowe. Normally, Milton Road is close to gridlock at key times and we haven’t even seen the affect of the new A14 on traffic in the area yet. The idea of mixed use is completely undermined by the Science Park half of the area being only offices. By what definitionis it mixed use if half of it is not mixed use at all? The planners have no doubt tried their best to enable local people to use the housing. However, it is a free market. In the free market a significant proportion of houses will be bought by London commuter and buy to leave landlords who can easily out bid locals. This means little housing for locals and extra traffic as people commute elsewhere from the site. So called affordable houses are not affordable by people on even average earning you get people in Cambridge, £400K a house?, and there is an ominous silence on this point in the actual plan. This is besides the fact the is government bringing in new planning proposals to make affordable housing and S106 even more difficult to implement. There needs to be an analysis of the impacts of proposed government legislation on the development. The Community Forum made the following submissions to the Issues and Options consultation which were related to the vision: Throughout the series of meetings, those attending have varied in number and focus. There have been no minutes or summaries circulated, and therefore these themes rely on notes taken and memory. The concept of a balanced, sustainable and attractive community was welcome. Those attending were pleased to see the emphasis on zero carbon in line with City and wider aspirations, and have confirmation that the intention was to avoid adding to traffic on Milton Road. All parties wished to see a full range of on-site facilities including a welcoming social space served by attractive independent outlets. It was important that the new community should engage with existing surrounding communities, so that it would not be seen as exclusive, and should offer ‘social gain’ to the less fortunate adjacent residential areas, e.g. King’s Hedges. Culture of development. We are very encouraged by the approach of some of the planners who advocate the ideas of people such as Jan Gehl. However, so much of the development culture around local developments does not match the continental examples which are held up as exemplars. It is difficult to see how stakeholders, such as Brookgate, will ever achieve what is required. Another problem is that although money can be found for capital there is no mechanism for providing sufficient revenue to support things such as bus services and social facilities. Until someone can find a solution examples from the continent, where this is not a problem, are not going to help. Sense of identity and place. There is nothing so far to indicate that there will be anything about the design which provides a sense of identity which is unique, let alone anything identifiable with Cambridge and the local environment. Many new developments are bland and soulless and could be from any new development in Europe. Archetypal square boxes with a lot of steel, glass and concrete abound. The development has got off to a flying start in soulless architecture with the hotel and offices outside Cambridge North. Implementation. There is a need to ensure that the balance of power lies with the planners and not the developers or we will have the familiar pattern of poor architecture (The Marque), facilities delivered decades after the development (Cambourne) and heights that creep up with soulless developments (CB1). There needs to be a quantum leap in the legal and governance framework at the outset to avoid this. Disappointingly, we already seem to be starting on the wrong foot. The hotel being built next to Cambridge North station is an exemplar of the type of development we would wish to avoid in terms of function, style, size and location. It has pre-empted a prime site for a transport interchange or cultural facilities. If we are gong to develop at a micro level of granularity then hotel accommodation could have been developed in this manner and not as something which is monolithic. There is a need to keep back resources and capabilities to rectify problems that become apparent later. Local inequalities. Local representatives expressed a view that the Science Park and the development are, and will be, a citadel of affluence surrounded by some of the less affluent local wards. Just this week Cambridge was quoted being as one of the most unequal cities in the country, (Varsity). We would like our local community to benefit from the jobs and opportunities this development would offer. The number of local people, particularly young people, who work on the science park in professional roles is virtually nil. This reflects the fact that local education and support is not empowering the local community to benefit from the local jobs. The development is an opportunity to rectify this. We would like this to change things so that the local community feels empowered by having opportunities in the science park. If an educational and enterprise-ship programme could be developed this would really create a positive impact to the hopes, expectations and aspirations in our community. In terms of education the employers should work closely with local schools, colleges and vocational institutions, such as CRC, to engage local young people and provide joint education, apprenticeships and career paths. Culture for local residents. The local inequalities are also an issue with regards to access to culture. We wish to have a community centre for community activities, arts and cultural activities. Research projects have shown that cultural activities in the surrounding area are almost non-existent. Very few of the local population have a strong educational, arts or cultural background. More affluent areas tend to make use of cultural amenities in the city centre and London but local people do not feel this is accessible to them. The development should be used as an opportunity to rectify these inequalities. Catering for all demographics. There needs to be a better attempt than usual to cater for all demographics including the elderly and disabled. There need to be effective routes for mobility scooters. Pavements are often too rough and mobility scooters are not supposed to use cycle lanes. Footnotes *https://www.sopra.org.uk/1/brookgate/ SOPRA on CB1 aparthotel plans: “We are deeply concerned that Brookgate has already pushed the envelope on what they have built to date, adding floors and mass to create what most people are describing as ugly, characterless blocks.” “The outline planning consent refers to F2 being up to three storeys high, 15m at the southern end and 9m adjacent to Ravensworth Gardens (8.271 & 8.277). The officer was hesitant to support an application for a building even as tall as three storeys (8.466), yet what is proposed is three to five storeys high (11.9m to 18m, including 2m of plant, which will be clearly visible from Devonshire Rd)”

Strongly agree

No answer given

Strongly disagree

It all sounds good, but the figures just don't add up: The Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Local Plans set aside land for 33,500 new homes to be built between 2011 and 2031 to support a forecast growth in employment of 44,100 jobs over the same two decades. 15,400 jobs have already been added since 2011 (based on ONS data, but not taking into account recent, hopefully temporary, job losses due to COVID-19). A back-of-the-envelope calculation of the employment space currently under development or planned at Cambridge Biomedical Campus, North West Cambridge, West Cambridge, Wellcome Genome Campus, Babraham Institute, Granta Park, Peterhouse Technology Park, 104–112 Hills Rd, Northstowe and Waterbeach New Town implies a further growth in jobs of 34,000. Add another 20,000 at North East Cambridge, and the total comes close to 70,000 jobs. The housing requirement for that number of jobs is approximately 20,000 more than the 33,500 homes current Local Plans provide.

Strongly disagree

I can't see how accommodating that number of jobs and residential accommodation in such a small area with limited transport links to Cambridge will work. It will soon feel detatched from Cambridge, both on an aesthetic level with high rise buildings and on a social level. This will encourage crime and antisocial behaviour, as with the CB1 development and other 'ghetto' areas which do not feel fully integrated within their town. It will not encourage families to interact with others living within the area or with the nearby villages e.g Orchard Park, Milton, Histon.

Strongly agree

I absolutely love it and think you should do it as soon as possible. I live in Milton and work in the Science park so these areas are very key in my life, I would love to have some more shops and social spaces within walking distance of work/home.

Agree

It is difficult to think anyone could disagree with the sentiment described in the vision, as set out here. The one item which I disagree with slight is the final one. It is all very well to discourage car use 'in order to address climate change', but his completely ignores the fact that, in the next 10 years or so, car use will switch to electric and eventually autonomous vehicles. You should be planning for the REAL future, not the present or the past. A future where everyone will want to be part of the transport revolution that is around the corner, not least be owning an electric vehicle.

Agree

It is difficult to think anyone could disagree with the sentiment described in the vision, as set out here. The one item which I disagree with slight is the final one. It is all very well to discourage car use 'in order to address climate change', but his completely ignores the fact that, in the next 10 years or so, car use will switch to electric and eventually autonomous vehicles. You should be planning for the REAL future, not the present or the past. A future where everyone will want to be part of the transport revolution that is around the corner, not least be owning an electric vehicle.

Strongly disagree

Creating a brown field site by moving a sewerage works onto green belt is counter to the green credentials that underpin the overall vision given the unnecessary loss of habitat, clean air, vista, and extra CO2 generated in servicing an ill-thought through waste treatment plan.

Strongly agree

I hope that the cycling and walking infrastructure and access in areas around this development will be improved so people can go further by these means.