Question 1

Agree

I agree with the big picture vision, with no compromise on healthy district and green spaces in favour of higher density accommodation.

Strongly disagree

The very site it is due to be built on will mean most of these properties will be bought by London commuters. The same as Cambridge Central area. Local working people in great need of housing will not be able to afford to buy them and local working people will not be able to rent them.

Strongly agree

I approve of a high density mixed development with strong environmental underpinnings.

Agree

Many great ideas but excessive density. People here will still have loud parties, take drugs etc. like they do everywhere else and this will have an increased impact where so many people are living so close to each other. It would help to include a police base, this would help with policing of Fen Rd., Arbury etc. instead of frequent sorties from Parkside. How will lifts be maintained in these very tall buildings? How many staircases will there be? Will developers try to include private provision( e.g segregated playgrounds)? Green roofs are great, but no substitute for having a garden. What will there be for teenagers or for people of limited means? Lots of office space doesn't mean 20,000 jobs, and may not be needed if more of us work from home. I haven't noticed any provision for playgrounds or the teenage equivalent ( half-pipe, bmx/scooting track etc.) The tropical scale trees are a lovely idea, but won't they need an awful lot of water? Should the roofs of the flats be laid out with vegetation, seating,and some canopy cover to make up for the lack of gardens? Drones could dock in a dedicated area and parcels collected from there.

Strongly agree

The concepts are well decided - eco-credentials and connectivity are key.

Strongly disagree

No answer given

Agree

No answer given

Agree

No answer given

Strongly disagree

I work and live in Cambridge the last 20 years. CEO of a small start up in Cambridge Science Park. The vision statements are quite bold, however the development plan may be not the one to deliver. You are trying to create a packed neighbourhood of 8000 homes that conflicts with Milton village of just 4500 residences. With the risk here, to see the development as another set of apartments for commuters to London. If you want to make the change, you need to think BIG and outside the box. And deliver the wellbeing first. Try to understand more what a modern scientist want and enable a better wellbeing that delivers results. I don’t think young people or families would want flats, the wellbeing is not there. It is a model of failure. They need space, houses of 2-3 beds to create personal space and raise a family when young. And nowadays, people of the science park want A+ energy efficient houses. The developers don’t do that, energy efficient house and profits is a conflicts of interest for them. Have a look in US, in Boston, You will see the majority of Googlers, scientist and highly skilled engineers are living in houses. Just 2-3 bed house on a square lot of 300-500 sqm with a modest garden and a garage, and corridor gardens. A flat is very restrictive, and gives limits. Cambridge does not need that. It may be a cheap to build and may have higher yield. House prices are too high at the moment, adding a cost and stops families of growing. Need to reduce house prices buy enabling different development methods, and more organic methods. The answer here is simple: You need to spread the development in a bigger area around the Science Park, and allocate development lots for houses, and harmonize with Milton village. Create more serviced plots of modern houses. If you are targetting 8000 houses you would need about 8,000,000 sqm or 2000 acres of land space to allocate. That space is 500sqm per plot and 500sqm for access roads and facilities. Simply sell serviced plots to build A+ energy efficient only houses only. With a max complete costs of £300k up to £500k each. We need to understand that we are not getting any richer as a nation, just poorer. The globalisation is shifting the wealth to Asia, especially to China. We are trying to maintain the standards only. The inflation on goods and services has reduced our buying powers over the last 20 years. A young software engineer salary was £35K in 2000, and it is again £35K in 2020, however the young person has to live in rooms and stop him/her to develop a family. The situation is not going to change in the future, but it may get worse. To conclude , give more power to the communities to develop A+ co-housing on serviced plots.

Disagree

I think in light of COVID and future changes in lifestyle some aspects need to be reviewed

Disagree

No answer given

Strongly disagree

The World has changed since Covid and a development of this kind against the economic backdrop we now have, needs to be paused and reviewed. I strongly question the motives for this development and I question who will benefit. The amount of business space is significant and may not now be necessary as working practices are evolving due to the pandemic.

Agree

As a resident of Milton Road, I am very concerned about the volume of extra traffic in and out of Cambridge that this very large new project will cause. Because of the current closure of Histon Road, we're already experiencing a very unwelcome increase in traffic and air pollution. Bus services down Milton road are already very poor. What are your plans for the huge improvement to bus services which will be needed?

Strongly disagree

I strongly disagree over one crucial issue, which means your 'vision' for NE Cambridge is gravely defective. The amount of open spaces is already way below the Council's own stated requirement for a development of this size. There is no way this densely populated area can create a healthy future community, especially so near the surrounding urban area of N. Cambridge. I gather there is a further threat in the local Labour Council having designs on building houses on the precious Five Trees/Causeway Park area. Also as this is the only method possible for comments it is excluding a significant group of residents who do not e-mail, myself included, without a friend doing it for me. This is gravely anti-democratic & discriminatory.

Disagree

I think the transport vision is unrealistic. There is inadequate public transport in Cambridge and this doesn't look set to change. Walking and cycling are limited and assume people will use them in all weathers and only cater for journeys of less than 10 miles without baggage. They also assume a certain age and fitness level. Electric cars are the way to go.

Strongly agree

It looks great! I hope you can carry it through ....

Agree

It needs to be much better than Orchard Park and most of the other recent developments in Cambridge, Eddington has been done well, but the open market housing is unaffordable.

Agree

The whole design needs to plan for the increasing population of older people and disabled people living in the community, meeting their needs will ensure a good environment.

Strongly disagree

After the massive expansion of Cambridge in recent years, I'm not sure further expansion is appropriate at the moment. It might be better to pause and reflect. To have a moratorium on new development for a few years, at least. It is hard to argue against jobs, shops and community facilities. However I am completely opposed to the vast number of new homes proposed as this is not environmentally sustainable. We are constantly told that there is a "housing shortage", but this is in fact a myth. There are 50 million bedrooms in England - enough for one per person. However the existing housing stock is poorly utilized. There are 7 million homes with one spare room, and another 7 million with two or more spare rooms. Rather than building new houses unnecessarily, let's introduce policies at the national level that will release these 21 million or more spare rooms for use. For example, introduce tax and regulatory policies that will actively encourage people to rent out a spare room. And policies that would encourage older people living with their younger relatives rather than living alone.

Agree

In the context that the area will be developed and not returned to nature, this is a good vision because it focusses on the impact snd liveability of the built environment

Strongly agree

No answer given

Agree

However, it is essential that sufficient open space and community facilities, particularly for children, Young people and the elderly are incorporated, as at present, North Cambridge does not meet the minimum requirement laid down in the city plan.

Strongly agree

I think the vision is really thoughtful and identifies priorities that if realised could make the new areas and those nearby much improved in terms of people's wellbeing and opportunity. However they are very aspirational and I wonder what they mean in practice, what does success for each look like and how will you ensure along the way that your choices align with the vision when there are competing demands to deliver on time and budget etc. How transparent will such decision making be and how will local people and other experts feed into the planning and delivery of this project beyond this consultation?

Agree

The aspirations for zero carbon are great. Concerned that the limited car spaces and expectations to not increase local traffic are not realistic. A key cycle connection to the east of the Cam is missing.

Strongly agree

This is a crucial series of commitments to low carbon, sustainable, walkable/cyclable, liveable new neighbourhoods.

Strongly disagree

North East Cambridge must indeed respond to the climate and biodiversity emergencies, leading the way in showing how we can reach net zero carbon. However it is my opinion the development as proposed is not the correct response and question the need for any such development which necessitates the relocation of a perfectly adequate Waste Water Treatment Works to a green field site within the Green Belt. In the light of the economic crisis due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the uncertainties regarding 'Brexit' this is probably the wrong time to be considering a development based on earlier economic conditions and working practices. A sure method of integrating with surrounding communities would be to develop within those communities i.e. existing villages surrounding Cambridge.

Disagree

I feel that the space is too densely packed with housing and the blocks are too high for the surrounding area. There should be more provision for outdoor wide space, not just as corridors between places. Reliance on existing wilder areas should not be included. e.g. Milton Country park is already a busy and well used space. I don't feel that it is realistic to expect the plan to be carbon neutral. People will need to be driving in to the work places in the design from surrounding areas that are not well connected via rail for example.

Disagree

I feel that the space is too densely packed with housing and the blocks are too high for the surrounding area. There should be more provision for outdoor wide space, not just as corridors between places. Reliance on existing wilder areas should not be included. e.g. Milton Country park is already a busy and well used space. I don't feel that it is realistic to expect the plan to be carbon neutral. People will need to be driving in to the work places in the design from surrounding areas that are not well connected via rail for example.

Disagree

Not convinced it’s the best option at all. Too many empty and used property as it is.

Disagree

In these very uncertain times after Brexit and COVID do we need more offices and housing ? Would it not be better to sit tight and see how long the recovery from these two major changes to our lives will take , we might not recover for years so there maybe be no need to develop this area.