Question 1
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
The focus on local amenities, jobs, education etc. seems very sensible, as do the strong emphasis on walking and cycling. A secondary school might be a sensible addition to the plan. There could be more integration of businesses and accommodation, similar to the land use around Mill Road.
No uploaded files for public display
Is this the right time to be planning such a large development of very high-density housing? We are in times of economic crisis when Covid:19 has meant a change to working practices. People are looking for housing with outside space and home offices, not high-rise blocks of flats. The plan is the exact opposite of what the new normal will be. The example around the station is a demonstration of how this "fashion" does not work in practice. It is a windswept wilderness of AirBnB apartments. The other example of Eddington has no community feel and is another concrete jungle, designed under the same fashion. It is not a nice place to live, especially for families. It would be better to build in existing villages all around Cambridge, not just in the north east. Is there really a need for so many homes in this area? I question the demand for over 275,000m2 of new business space when office blocks up and down the country are standing empty. There also seems to be a history of placing poorer, high density housing in the north of the city.
No uploaded files for public display
It would be nice to have a neighbourhood with lots of safe areas and cars "stored away" safely, with green cycling and walking facilities but how likely is this to actually be realised? How easy and quick is it to cycle into the town centre from the new estate? Wil there be sensible cycling facilities along (say) Milton road? I have attached a picture of a "cycling chicane" at the CRC. How likely are people to use their bikes if a crossing with the main road is as badly implemented as this?
The vision is helpful but the plan does not fully meet any of the objectives.
No uploaded files for public display
Your vision for this area is disappointing. It looks like a carbon copy of the development around Cambridge station which is disliked and, according to recent articles in the news, people wish they had not bought there. The economic crisis that will follow the Covid-19 pandemic will mean that there is less money available for development plans and the change from working in an office to working from home will remain in place for many people, so they will not need office space but will want larger space in the home and private outdoor space. Cambridge is awash with apartments at a time when people really want a house and garden.
No uploaded files for public display
the aims are noble but do not appear to be realistic
No uploaded files for public display
High-rise housing completely inappropriate for the rural fringe of our city.
No uploaded files for public display
Ambitious and quite unrealistic proposal.
No uploaded files for public display
I like the vision of planning the area around walking, cycling and public transport. My doubts are around the claim of wellbeing and recreation being built into the design are that there aren’t enough integrated parks or sports pitches. The suggestion to use Milton’s will not work since Milton Country Park is often at full capacity already and so are the sports pitches. I agree with Cambridge Past, Present and Future’s suggestion establish a locally-controlled body that would oversee all development and ensure that that the vision for the area can be properly realised instead of being diluted by land-owners and developers interests. I have concerns that the new development will destroy the village character of Milton, since it will no longer be separated from Cambridge. I also have concerns that the development is out of character with Cambridge, which is known for its rural location, research and development expertise and the scenic buildings and academic expertise of the University. A densely populated area with lots of tower blocks is not in fitting with this image. Section 2.1.3 mentions the problems of traffic congestion on the A10 and at the Milton interchange, this will be made worse if jobs created in the NE cambridge area site require people to travel from outside the area to work there.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
I think all of the vision bullet points are well thought through and rooted in a positive view of human and ecological flourishing. Not explicitly mentioned above, but I think implied, is the importance of there being a significant amount of affordable housing so the new community can be truly representative across the socio-economic and age spectrum.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
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?
No uploaded files for public display
8,000 homes in such a small area ! Vision has been watered down. Very little public space - only 10 hectares.
No uploaded files for public display
I have major concerns about (a) the road traffic on MIlton Rd and the A10 and about plans to close the Union Lane/ Milton Road junction which will mean that there are only two routes out of Chesterton - both already very busy. It would be OK to make Union Lane one way - OUT of Chesterton. (b) Very concerned about the additional commuting cycle traffic along Fen Rd and in particular along the Haling Way. Haling Way is a PUBLIC FOOTPATH ond only a PERMISSIVE CYCLE ROUTE. Far too many cyclists take no account of pedestrians already. The solution is to close the railway crossing and route traffic from Chesterton Fen across a new bridge to Cowley Road and to put all cycle traffic between the Chisholm bridge, the station and Chesterton along Fen Road
No uploaded files for public display
The Wildlife Trust follows the logic of high density development in this area of the city and agree that it is possible to deliver this type of development whilst also creating a sustainable community. The accessibility of North East Cambridge and the potential for sustainable travel options into the city centre are real benefits. Figure 1 in 2. Context and Objectives shows the future plans for the Area delivering 8000 new homes for 18 000 residents whilst delivering just 10ha of public parks and squares. This aspect of the vision is surprising and seems to be at odds with its stated aims: Strategic Objectives 2 and 4 describe the area being ‘characterful, lively’ and ‘healthy’ where ‘Healthy lifestyles will be enabled through access to open spaces, sports and recreational facilities, public rights of way, local green spaces and active travel choices’. We do not believe that the policies at present contain sufficient scope to deliver on this and will discuss further under Q.7. We are also unconvinced by Objective 1 ‘Green infrastructure will enable everyone to lead healthy lifestyles, and will protect and enhance biodiversity’. Whilst the policies do contain some commendable plans for habitats within the site, these are limited in scale due to the available space and we would argue that for an Action Plan of this scope and ambition, sufficient biodiversity enhancements will not be achieved through green infrastructure alone.
No uploaded files for public display
While the commitment to building a healthy community is welcomed, explicit provision must be made for health care infrastructure proportionate to the level of development proposed. Bullet point four should be reworded to explicitly mention health care provision as follows: “It will provide a significant number of new homes, a range of jobs for all, local shops and community facilities, including appropriate health care infrastructure”
No uploaded files for public display
It sounds excellent, especially the focus on promoting health, encouraging walking and cycling, encouraging use of outdoor spaces, and community
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 than the needs of the local community?
No uploaded files for public display
The Waterbeach & District Bridleways group was formed in order to promote the communities’ needs with the proposed Greenways initiative and major developments in the local area, and to use that opportunity to expand access. Our group members include equestrians from Horningsea, Waterbeach, Chittering, Landbeach, and Lode. The group represents 150 riders from Waterbeach itself (including riders attending the village riding school Hall Farm Stables) and an additional c50 riders from the surrounding villages plus the College of West Anglia. It also represents some 200 horses owned by these riders and riding establishments. Roughly 50% of group members are British Horse Society members. Goals for our advocacy • To support equine use in and around the communities to the north of Cambridge. • Safe and accessible non-motorised user (NMU) access to the existing and emerging local green networks. • Use the Greenways initiative to expand and link to non-motorised routes between villages • Advocate for equine usage of paths to ensure our inclusion in the decision-making and design processes • Maintain and expand long-standing legal rights of way Equestrian access to bridleways and multi-user paths which is an ongoing concern to the equestrian communities north of Cambridge. ****************** Key points- 1. GCP should confirm that ‘shared use’ is as defined in all the Greenway consultation documents – available to all three vulnerable road users – pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians and ensure that the routes are designed and delivered accordingly. 2. The GCP had committed to British Horse Society, the principle of inclusion of all NMU’s on the Greenways but the North East area action plan contains no provision or reference to equestrians. 3. The GCP Assembly have said that the creation of cycle routes would not impact on the amenity of equestrians yet this NE area action plan has omitted any mention of equestrians or NMU routes. 4. Equestrians should not be excluded from any sections unless a genuine secure and safe alternative route is available to them (defaulting to the legally available option of the busy highway, already identified as unsafe for cyclists, does not count as ‘safe’)? 5. Safety audits should assess the impact of the safety of equestrians created by the NE area action plan scheme. If such audits are being performed for pedestrian/cyclist routes the same consideration must be given to equestrians so that ALL NMUs (non motorised users) are appropriately considered and their safety risk assessed. 6. The above should be applied to ALL greenway type projects. 7. There needs to be greater inclusion and less exclusion. Every time including cyclists and pedestrians are mentioned, equestrians should be too. 8. There needs to be greater consideration of joining-up existing by-ways and bridleways and planned green routes (e.g. opening the Chisholm Trail for equestrian use, would connect Ditton Meadows to the NE development and also connect onto Milton Park and onwards towards Waterbeach). 9. More specifically: Mere Way is labelled as a "off road cycle route". It is in fact a Public Byway and is longtime well-used by equestrians as it is the ONLY off-road route out of the N/NE part of the city (eg from Chesterton Fen or across Stourbridge Common from Fen Ditton or Fulbourn, all areas where many horses live) towards Landbeach/Milton. Horses do not have access to the Cam towpath which is the other offroad link or the Jane Coston bridge over the A14, thus Mere Way is an important route for equestrians. N.B It should not be assumed that the bridge on High Ditch road in Fen Ditton will provide equestrian access in the N/NE because that is under threat of massive HGV traffic if the Anglian Water treatment relocated to Honey Hill in Horningsea. 10. Specifically in relation to the area plan ambition to create sustainable travel routes and links to the wider network, it should be noted that the GCP Waterbeach greenways route enters the NE area plan along the river and then the Cambridge North railway line. The area plan recognises that solutions to provide river,A14 and railway crossings are required to enable NMUs access to the ‘wider network’. This provision/consideration/crossing designs therefore should include equestrians as well as cyclists and walkers to ensure routes truly are NMU routes. Where pedestrian/cycle bridges are mentioned in the draft plan, this must be amended to full NMU bridges to avoid exclusion of other NMU groups including equestrians. 11. Specifically, there is potentially a good natural circular route option for equestrians within the NE area plan, that also links to wider off road routes. The route runs from Waterbeach along the Waterbeach greenway, through the NE development area, across the A14 to Milton Country Park and/or Mereway and north on to Landbeach and back to Waterbeach, or various Fen Edge villages and off road routes. This would also make an excellent NMU leisure and commuter circular route linking the NE with nearby communities and beyond. 12. There are many Horse riders in the local area of NE Cambridge and the surrounding villages. There are 3 thriving riding schools within a few miles of the NE area development as well. Horse riders also include people with disabilities, for whom horse riding provides essential ability to access the countryside, overcome their physical and/or mental health challenges. Horse riding is adopted by many because of yes the enjoyment of it, but also because it provides a emotional well-being lifeline and a vast array of physiological health benefits (the British Horse Society has conclusive and interesting research on this subject).
No uploaded files for public display
The complete omission of equestrians from the non-motorised user transport and travel sections needs to be corrected. The Peterborough and Cambridgeshire Local Transport/Travel Policy and government Active Transport/Travel Plan both formally state that non-motorised users are walkers, cyclists and equestrians, not just walkers and cyclists. The Greater Cambridge Partnership Greenways initiative is to deliver high quality non-motorised user routes for walkers, cyclists and equestrians. There are many equestrians in and around Cambridge city and its rural surrounds on all sides. Horses live within the city confines and are regularly ridden across, through and around it. Wherever your documents and consultations reference "walker and cyclists", that needs to be amended to "walkers, cyclists and equestrians". Your map 2.1.3 shows Mere Way as a "non-surfaced off road cycle route". This is incorrect. It is a Public Byway and therefore open to walkers, cyclists, equestrians (ridden and driven) and unless there is a wet season closure gate on it, it is also open to motorised traffic too. The Chisholm Trail project underway should be usable by equestrians as well as cyclists and walkers. All three groups are vulnerable and need safe routes across the city. The Genome Trail path from Shelford to Addenbrookes should be open to equestrians.
No uploaded files for public display
Sounds good in principle but the Milton road area is already highly congested and facilities at capacity so I question the wisdom of adding another 8000 homes, 20,000 people!! Planned population Density is far too high in my opinion.
No uploaded files for public display
Ambitions are good. But density of development outlined suggests the environmental goals will be difficult to achieve.
No uploaded files for public display
The description doesn't match the reality. One half is the Science Park and the other half is very densely populated housing. How will that be 'socially cohesive' and integrate with surrounding neighbourhoods? Why build so many homes in such a small space with very few green areas? If people continue to work from home and aren't using cars to travel to their workspace, they need more space and more places to walk and exercise. The plan relies on the new residents using existing green areas such as the riverside and Milton Country Park which are already very busy.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Cambridge currently has too few homes for the number of jobs in the local economy. This has driven up house prices, and priced many out of the city. This in turn increases amount of cars driving in to the city, with a direct environmental impact. The objective should be provide homes, to cater to the people already working in the city. The other objectives are good, but how likely are they to be realised? Against these objectives, recent developments in and around the city, there is little reason to believe that this development will deliver on the stated objectives. CB1, Eddington and Trumpington Meadow are of a poor aesthetic standard, with no sense of place. Homes are crammed in to maximise profit, with no regard to the people who will end up living there. CB1 in particular shows how a cynical developer can game the planning system to avoid delivering on their obligations. Planning the district around active travel and public transport is a nobel aim, but it will be impossible to deliver on this objective unless there is a strong transport network connecting the new district to where people need to go. Is local government committed and able to deliver this?
No uploaded files for public display
Car use should be restricted. Only physically disabled people must be permitted to use cars, otherwise the area will degenerate into a soulless car park like every other new housing development.
No uploaded files for public display
The planning of this important new suburban addition to Cambridge looks good at this fairly generalised stage. I hope that planners will be able to have an input to the final look of the building whether residential or research or commercial structures even though of course
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display