Question 1
The vision is lacking in many ways. It states that NECAAP will have ‘a real sense of place’. What does this mean? The density of dwellings is not going to deliver an environment that ‘fosters communities’. There is a lack of infrastructure that sufficiently supports the community. The ratio of dwellings versus open spaces is too heavily biased towards dwellings, thus not leaving enough space for community and wellbeing. Densely packed high rises with very little outdoor space for the residents means that more open space would be required. With the recent changes in the world (pandemic) it has become apparent that people need this space if they are to live happy lives with a high level of wellbeing. There is no proof in the plan that the community, wellbeing and community amenities will be prioritised over sheer quantity of dwellings and revenue for builders. Cambridge does not stand to gain anything as a city that has a reputation for ‘wellbeing, recreation and community safety’. On top of this NECAAP is going to push out the waste water treatment plant to green belt. Turning a brownfield site into residential space is going to negatively impact both the proposed development and the surrounding greenbelt. Seemingly all the development is happening to make sure that central government’s housing targets are met, without regard for a holistic view for the entire Cambridge and Cambridgeshire area. Other developments in the area have not fully sold and in some cases sold to foreign investment and are not actually occupied. What is the real housing requirement for the Cambridge and Cambridgeshire area and how has this changed in recent times? With the pandemic we have been shown that the situation can change rapidly. 10 hectares out of 182 hectares (1 ha = 100m x 100m) are designated to public parks and squares. This is a mere 5.5% of all the space. This is not enough. If 6,000 of the 8,000 dwellings are flats and high rises, this equates to 100,000 m2 divided by 6,000. Averaging to 16.7 m2 per dwelling for those dwellings that do not have gardens. On average this is the footprint of a 4m x 4m room. Even if 3,000 of the 8,000 dwelling come without a garden or outdoor space and therefore provide 33.3 m2, this cannot be enough. NECAAP claims 20,000 jobs will be created. Where are these jobs precisely? Given that the 8,000 dwellings will provide homes for 18,000 residents, at least 2,000 of these jobs will be outside the area. This means that people will travel to NECAAP from other areas in the region or country. It is of course unrealistic to believe that all 18,000 residents will even be employed. With children, retirees and stay-at-home residents making up part of the community it is more likely that no more than half the residents will be employed. Some will already be employed elsewhere and not all of them will be employed in the Cambridge area. This is why infrastructure is very important and discouraging car use is not going to be a sustainable solution. To suggest that discouraging car use is done to address climate change is also outdated. Advances in working from home, green electricity generation and the advent of the electric car will result in residents feeling justified in owning and driving a vehicle. This is going to be a revolutionary change in society in the next five to ten years, resulting in the same amount of cars per household on the road. The communities that are being built for the future need to be able to support this and having adequate infrastructure to allow for parking cars near homes is vitally important. This includes road infrastructure, charging infrastructure, electricity generation infrastructure (Solar PV etc.) and parking spaces (public and private). Creating a network of roads, cycle paths and footpaths that is able to support all road users safely is what should be aimed for. It can be done look at good examples abroad. The road infrastructure can contribute to the green spaces if sufficient buffer space is provided between roads, footpaths and cycle ways. The current vision to provide 4,400 parking spaces off-site is a bad plan. Why would residents feel safe to leave their second most prized possession a very long walk away from their homes? Is the car safe? Can I even make the walk when I am ageing? How will my elderly parents visit my house? What do I do when I am disabled? Can I park near my home? How do I reach my home to drop off my weekly shop? Can the delivery vans come to my house? We need a much more holistic approach to roads, parking, foot paths and cycleways. The number of dwellings on NECAAP needs to drastically come down to support a community that needs parks, open green spaces, road infrastructure, schools, shops and dwellings that will support a post-COVID way of life. Working from home will be more prevalent and therefore it is extremely important that residents have a work-life environment that provides the correct balance.
No uploaded files for public display
I agree but this has to be completed very carefully. You must ease the potential impact this will have on milton country park. Expansion of the park is necessary.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
inappropriate post- Brexit and during pandemic different working practices – too much commercial and retail space James Palmer quote – Rethinking Cities – keep green spaces moving WWTP to Green Belt to make way for development size and density – denser than London , higher than Uni Library phasing is 2030 – 2035 – when WWTP moves in two years its site will be derelict and open to crime and drug abuse every sections lacks detail – transport, water use, restrictions on building heights, health care, sport and nursery provision claim that Milton Road will not be affected but 4000 cars for residents and more for commercial and retail
No uploaded files for public display
A very coherent and well presented AAP. I support the concept of a moderately high density mixed us neighbourhood, but am concerned that (i) the quantum of housing and business development is too large (ii) building heights and densities are too high (iii) standards for on-site open space are too low (iv) the entire development only provides for apartment type housing. Buildings above 6 storeys on this site should not be pursued (v) specific account needs to be taken about evolving needs for live-work space (vi) while I support flexible mixed use buildings, if the demand for workspace doesn't materialise, we are looking at 12000 dwellings crammed mostly on the WWTW/CCC site (vii) if housing numbers are reduced, more on-site open space provided and community facilities scaled back this can be a successful development
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? Lessons must be learnt from other developments across Cambridge and I support Cambridge Past, Present and Future’s recommendation to establish a special purpose vehicle such as a locally-controlled Development Corporation to ensure that the vision for the area can be properly realised.
No uploaded files for public display
This seems like at attempt to turn a maximum profit from the land area. Why target such an aggressive growth in both jobs and homes here in Cambridge, when there are plenty of other places in the country in need of more employment opportunities and economic development? There is plenty of office space already being built in the area without encouraging more. We could use this opportunity to set aside much more land for recreational green space and nature reserves, with a mode a modest amount of additional environmentally friendly housing to alleviate the lack of housing in the area currently.
No uploaded files for public display
I like the references to local facilities, beautiful buildings, green spaces, and good walking and cycling links with surrounding areas. I support the idea of a special purpose vehicle such as a locally-controlled Development Corporation to deliver the vision for the area.
No uploaded files for public display
Overdeveloped. Lacks quality of life
No uploaded files for public display
– inappropriate post- Brexit and during pandemic different working practices – too much commercial and retail space James Palmer quote – Rethinking Cities – keep green spaces moving WWTP to Green Belt to make way for development size and density – denser than London , higher than Uni Library phasing is 2030 – 2035 – when WWTP moves in two years its site will be derelict and open to crime and drug abuse every sections lacks detail – transport, water use, restrictions on building heights, health care, sport and nursery provision claim that Milton Road will not be affected but 4000 cars for residents and more for commercial and retail
No uploaded files for public display
Agree with the need for a diverse, climate sensitive/carbon neutral area built around cycling and public transport and reduction of car use. Cannot quite see though that this model actually guarantees reduction in car use, given the number of car parking spots still planned (even if re-used from other areas around the science park etc). Also, the lack of leisure facilities within the proposed complex seems a missed opportunity for such a large number of people and their children. Seems like the consequences of increased traffic of all kinds will be detrimental to the surrounding area without an integrated plan dealing with proposed major re-structuring of Milton Road etc. This is a very densely populated project/development.
No uploaded files for public display
I think this is an appropriate site for development - but I do have concerns about the proposed density of housing
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Too high we will see from our house, 13 stories high... you can see the hotel from the river its too much. too many flats and not enough green space. Will have a major impact on the local area.
No uploaded files for public display
You have not considered impact for Horningsea: there is no transport plan for bike path, footpath or traffic reduction on East side of the river between Waterbeach and Fen Ditton. Horningsea is stranded and is left to be nothing but a rat run for cars. In addition the planned move of sewage works, on any of the three possible locations, will be a disaster for the environment and walkability and cyclability of this area. You need also to bear in mind effects on water table, including vulnerable aquifers and greensands, and in addition the rights of well owners who depend on the aquifer for water supply.
No uploaded files for public display
Please do not cut off Arbury Road to car use Having more shops is a good idea and can boost the economy Smaller houses/fats are fine but they must be strictly rent-controlled and not available to Landlord hoarding Please improve public transport, Stagecoach is chokeholding users, their routes are too long, expensive and not enough routes (5 for an entire city?)
No uploaded files for public display
The vision is meaningless and too high level to be useful to anyone trying to understand what is being proposed.
No uploaded files for public display
You should stop and reflect on the significant changes that will occur as a result of the Covid 19 Pandemic. Research should be done into the way people will wish to live their lives. There have already been fundamental changes since these plans were drawn up. Very few people wish to commute to London on the train. Many more people will work from home and require completely different types of property. No families will want to live in a 13 story block of flats with little or no space. These are very damaging to the mental health of the occupants. People will require more flexible living spaces. There are many empty shops and offices which can be used for housing. Research shows how important large green wilderness spaces have been to the mental health of the population during the lockdown. These plans are out of date and should be completely revisited.
No uploaded files for public display
The density of the housing is double that of inner city London without large green spaces.More people are now working from home and need good quality outside space.The height of the proposed buildings at 13 storeys is far too high compared with other buildings in the area.There are no plans for secondary schooling,limited leisure facilities and healthcare.The green space is far too small compared with the other new developments on the fringes of Cambridge.The traffic generated with impact on an already busy route into Cambridge. Deliveries and commuting and taking children to schools will have a huge, negative impact.
No uploaded files for public display
The development doesn’t meet the original objectives of a lively mix of homes, workplaces, social spaces and services which is supposed to foster community wellbeing and be carbon neutral. The reality seems to be small, high rise flats with only10 hectares of green space for recreation. Milton Country Park is already heavily used. The development isn’t carbon neutral, cars will be allowed. Instead of another Edington, this is a badly overdeveloped site which will not be a pleasant place to live. We are always being told that homes will be affordable but in Cambridge this is never the case. How do we know that these flats will not be bought by investors?
No uploaded files for public display
To achieve this vision there need to be a careful balance between space use for business, recreation and living. If the balance is not right then the area will become a ghost town or a shopping mall-like undesirable neighbourhood. It is critical that this vision is carried out in stages and the direction for around one third of the area is decided at a later time based on a feedback from people living in the area, e.g. if there too many flats or business properties and not enough social or entertainment spots, then further development should be adjusted after a vote on the most desired development by the area inhabitants. Also the existing green spaces should be preserved into a large green area as much as possible and adapted to harmonise with surrounding wildlife (plethora of birds, hedgehogs, squirrels, foxes) rather than being fragmented and spread making it unattractive for wildlife and people alike. Use of concrete or paving should be limited to the very minimum.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
The whole design is ludicrous. I want to feel proud of my city, when people come to Cambridge I want them to think what a lovely place to live. This is just awful. Do you think people really want to live in rabbit hutches all close together with no garden. It is very backward look at the way people used to live in tenements and high rise flats with no green space, rife with crime and disease. Should we not be looking at what is going on now with Covid-19. Please treat Cambridge with the respect it deserves. Do we really need all of these places, who is going to buy them, are they intended for the local community? What about all the places being built at Waterbeach? I can see all the surrounding villages being joined together in years to come with no clear definition and loosing there character. Please go back to the drawing board!
No uploaded files for public display
You claim it will be a sustainable development. For this to be true it must discourage driving by providing excellent high quality cycling infrastructure which conform to Dutch standards. Pedestrian and cycle priority should be given at side roads and the use of continuous crossings across side roads. Along busy A roads and at busy junctions where the development links to A roads segregated cycling facilities should be provided. I strongly advise you to use the recently installed CYCLOPS junction in Hulme in Manchester as a blueprint. This design represents the safest junction design currently allowed by British road rules. Pedestrian crossings at junction should also be straight across making it more convenient and faster for people to walk further discouraging car use.
No uploaded files for public display
We believe in the vision and principles which focus on a place for everyone with everything nearby. The focus on getting more people walking and cycling is particularly welcome to ensure a healthy, safe, and vibrant community that will lead to a zero-carbon future. However, the details given in the longer Area Action Plan and supporting documents do not give confidence that this vision will be implemented successfully. The number of houses and people seem unrealistic. Transport plans rely heavily on the delivery of schemes by other authorities (such as CAM metro) which may not be delivered in time, and the aim of creating a mixed-use site across the whole area has been lost due to the balance of power lying with landowners over the local community. We would strongly prefer, as local neighbors, to establish a locally-controlled Development Corporation to ensure that the vision for the area can be properly realized. We do not think this is possible if left to developers.
No uploaded files for public display
To achieve this vision there need to be a careful balance between space use for business, recreation and living. If the balance is not right then the area will become a ghost town or a shopping mall-like undesirable neighbourhood. It is critical that this vision is carried out in stages and the direction for around one third of the area is decided at a later time based on a feedback from people living in the area, e.g. if there too many flats or business properties and not enough social or entertainment spots, then further development should be adjusted after a vote on the most desired development by the area inhabitants. Also the existing green spaces should be preserved into a large green area as much as possible and adapted to harmonise with surrounding wildlife (plethora of birds, hedgehogs, squirrels, foxes) rather than being fragmented and spread making it unattractive for wildlife and people alike. Use of concrete or paving should be limited to the very minimum. It is critical that the vision also specify that the area should have enough activity areas to support such a densely populated area!
No uploaded files for public display
It is hard to disagree with the Vision itself, but these statements are very general. It is not clear that the proposed plan for dense housing, with little green space and limited community facilities will achieve this. I understand that the initial plan did meet many of these criteria, but that the more attractive features have been dropped, leaving an area of dense building.
No uploaded files for public display
The vision of less car use is good but you cannot enforce it. 0.5 car parking spaces per household is not enough. Our household mostly cycles but we still have a car. High rise buildings are not in keeping with the area. Please reconsider high rise buildings. The traffic into and out of Cambridge at the moment is terrible. The huge number proposed to live here with the same few main roads can only cause problems.
No uploaded files for public display
Too tall building. Too much housing. Too bigger loss of brownfield space.
No uploaded files for public display