Question 1
Far too dense, with far too little green spaces. This looks like another effort for a developer to extract as much money as possible at the expense of our city. There are lessons to be learned from the CB1 project. We have an opportunity here to make something beautiful - the proposals as they are at the moment fall far short of this.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
It’s a ‘vision’ with no tangible approaches or content.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
I agree with the vision but have concerns that there aren't commitments to ensure that the vision is realised eg regarding green space and biodiversity. I would like to see a commitment to green energy , district heating and the highest residential building standards. Words like 'proposing' and 'encouraging' do not represent a firm commitment that developers will have to stick to. North Cambridge is the area in Cambridge with the lowest amount of green space and I am concerned that this development is too dense and overdeveloped. The development in Trumpington had 90 hectares of green space for 3000 homes, whereas this plan for 8,000 homes has only 10 hectares.
No uploaded files for public display
Strongly agree with the principles stated, especially around the climate emergency, community services/centres and walking
No uploaded files for public display
Strongly agree with the principles stated, especially around the climate emergency, community services/centres and walking
No uploaded files for public display
I strongly feel this proposal is way too big for the site, too big for the context the site is in and for the new conditions we find ourselves in since Covid 19. The aims are good in that they aim to create a sustainable area to live and work in, and there is obviously a lack of affordable housing in Cambridge, both for sale and rent, and too many people on the housing list. However this is not the right way to go about it. It is much much too big at 18, 000. a) A development of this size in this area will completely stifle the current amenity space for current and new residents as everyone living there, will of course, head to the river and Stourbridge Common for their exercise and leisure, and why shouldn't they? The towpath is basically a footpath shared with cycles and is already near capacity on sunny weekends and early mornings and evenings in the summer; once the new cycle bridge is open, the crowding and risk of accident can only get worse. b) The transport strategy is overoptimistic. Restricting car ownership by providing very little parking just makes people park on pavements/ causes tension/ aggression with neighbours. Most people with a family will have a car, almost certainly an electric car, but it still needs to be parked in reach of charging facilities. In a major instance the strategy is wild: the Cambridge Metro does not exist and will not be likely to exist given the current economic climate plus the increased risk of flooding and future sea incursion in this low lying area as global heating begins to bite. We have to think ahead beyond 20 years to 200 years for any huge investment of this sort. c) The proposed height of some of the buildings: 11 storeys will be like an inner city on the edge of a Fenland town. We do not need any more offices - there are many unlet offices just down the A10. Now Covid19 has enabled so many to work from home, we do not need nearly so much accommodation for workers at the science park either, why move to live near work when you already work where you live? WFH cuts down travel impacts and need for massive infrastructure too.
No uploaded files for public display
I actually do agree with your vision but unfortunately I think it is not grounded in reality and the plans you have simply won't achieve it. The population density is far too high and doesn't deliver the type of housing that people are now looking for in a post-pandemic world which prioritises indoor and outdoor space, and ability to distance away from people. High rise flats with shared indoor communal communication spaces does not deliver this. There also is simply not enough greenspace in this plan - "pocket parks" and the linear park are not enough for the volume of people and milton country park is already as capacity in the "dry-land" space available without twenty thousand people expecting to use it as their back garden. This was evidenced during the pandemic when just 4000 people from milton were using it for one hour a day. Milton has more green space than your plan with a quarter of the population and even that has felt crowded at times during the peak lockdown. Pocket parks do not give the space people need for exercise. Furthermore, whilst I think the ambition of a low car neighbourhood is very worthy and again an ideal, I simply do not think it can be achieved in one step. People who will move here will likely already have at least one car and even if one person in a household works in the new local jobs, another in the same household likely will not and will need a car. with only 0.5 carparking spaces per house hold - presumably many of which will be reserved for disabled/accessible parking - will not be sufficient and as a result the local streets in surrounding areas and neighbourhoods will become a parking lot
No uploaded files for public display
Good scheme
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
I see that less than 10% of the area is proposed to be open space; this is far too little especially if many residences are flats without private gardens. These people need open space near them; have we learnt nothing from the events of the previous six months. Please note that as far as I know, apart from the riverbank itself, all of Chesterton Fen is private land with no public access so it does not contribute to open space for public recreation. I visited Milton Country Park about a week ago and left again as it was so uncomfortably crowded. As a resident of Milton, I no longer feel I have a public green space I can use as it is so overcrowded but have to travel further afield to find somewhere that doesn't feel like the city centre but on grass. I don't think the sewage works should be relocated; if all the fine documents that Anglian Water have produced are not a pack of lies, it will be much smaller and can remain where it is using less land. This is a far better option than more building over the green belt in what are totally inappropriate suggested locations. Regarding transport: 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
I see that less than 10% of the area is proposed to be open space; this is far too little especially if many residences are flats without private gardens. Please note that as far as I know, apart from the riverbank itself, all of Chesterton Fen is private land with no public access. I visited Milton Country Park about a week ago and left again as it was so uncomfortably crowded. As a resident of Milton, I no longer feel I have a public green space I can use as it is so overcrowded but have to travel further afield to find somewhere that doesn't feel like the city centre but on grass. I don't think the sewage works should be relocated; if all the fine documents that Anglian Water have produced are not a pack of lies, it will be much smaller and can remain where it is using less land. The proposed locations are inappropriate use of the green belt and inefficient. Regarding transport: 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
People need affordable housing, I just want it to bring benefits to everyone in the city, not cause new issues.
No uploaded files for public display
I have no problem with the development of a huge brown field site but it must be done with great consideration. Orchard Park was meant to be a 'vibrant, dynamic community' and it is anything but. There are no where near enough shops or places for communities to form. The quality of housing also has to be high in order for people to maintain a sense of ownership of their environment. Most important however is that Cambridge will struggle to accommodate more people coming to the city centre. Car use will soon not be viable due to congestion and realistic alternatives MUST be found. For a family to pay £12 to take the bus to the city centre is not realistic.
No uploaded files for public display
This site should be used for industry, scientific, creative or other companies. It is an ideal site for employment due to its existing commuter connections with the guided bus and rail station. The additional cycleways suggested would also help commuters. Half of the indicated area is already used for the science park and business parks, so it makes sense to continue with these. Another large part of the area is used by the sewage works, which you completely neglect to mention. This could be re-built to a more modern standard, on a smaller footprint than at present, but on the same site, instead of moving it to green belt land. If you want to create a vibrant community start with a new site completely, like Camborne.
No uploaded files for public display
We don't think the vision can be met by high rise flats in high rise buildings. Cambridge has recognised the climate crisis and yet this plan is NOT carbon neutral NOR car free. Community well being CANNOT be met by 10 hectares of public space. If Covid19 has taught us anything it is that space is a requirement for mental health and well being. Will the homes be truly affordable? Nothing in Cambridge is truly affordable in the current climate.
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? The original vision articulated for the North East Cambridge development had much to commend it, including a green bridge designed to integrate the two halves of the development combined it with aspirations to be carbon-neutral and car-free. However, the good aspects of the development are being relentlessly diluted. Many of the mitigations are just aspirational with little legal force. There is lack of control regarding the North Station (Brookgate) and Cowley Road parts of the development
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
I agree with these aspirations. I have reservations about the proposals to implement them.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Misguided and money-grabbing Government money, by moving the sewage works to damage forever our wonderful Green Belt! In these times when so many high streets in our city are becoming ghost shells of shops that have closed in these COVID times and yet you want to build a fanciful development, which will blot the skyline of Cambridge.
No uploaded files for public display
Although the rather vague ideas are in themselves irreproachable and desirable, it is by no means clear from the plans shown how they could possibly be realised, which is my point of disagreement. It is a high-density development, on/next to a busy, noisy, polluting road and a flood plain, in an area already congested by labyrinthine traffic routes.
No uploaded files for public display
The development as proposed is far too big and out of scale. It will overwhelm the area and the resulting traffic (despite all your efforts to get people on bikes) will impact hugely on the roads from the development into Cambridge. It is fine to have a vision for the environment and energy-saving and housing and green spaces, but not at this huge scale and not concentrated in one area of Cambridge. The green spaces proposed are inadequate for the size of the development. What you are proposing would have a population the size of a small town like March or Ely or Dereham which would require an equivalent provision in terms of roads, parking, pavements, local shopping etc. It is unsustainable, unless of course you want to create the next urban slum area. In pursuit of your vision of your imagined wonderful quality of life for the residents of this development, you are unfortunately in danger of destroying the quality of life of the surrounding area of Cambridge. I urge you to cut the development to a third of its size.
No uploaded files for public display
Although the ideas are in themselves irreproachable and desirable, it is by no means clear from the plans shown how they could possibly be realised, which is my point of disagreement. It is a high-density development, on/next to a busy, noisy, polluting road and a flood plain, in an area already congested by labyrinthine traffic routes.
No uploaded files for public display
I just don't think your plans meet your vision. The initial plans included lower blocks of flats, a concert hall, a green way over Milton Road to the Science Park, housing at the Science Park among other ideas. These have been slowly eroded and what is now proposed is: ~ a very dense area of homes which are flats not the proposed mix of housing ~ very little green space with the expectation residents will use Milton Country Park which is currently at capacity ~ brightly coloured flats which will soon be outdated ~ no mention of whether the homes are to rent or for sale and if any of them will be affordable and whether any affordable homes will be placed in the same area ~ no explanation of how the area will respond to climate change by renewing water, sustainable building materials The consultation process so far has taken no notice of residents' views There is no mention of what businesses will be in the area. I assume the aggregate plant will still be there which is known to cause respiratory problems and will now be very close to a large population. Will the bus depot also stay meaning there will be a continuous flow of unavailable buses chugging past creating noise and fumes? You state there will be 'no additional vehicle movements on Milton Road and Kings Hedges'. I don't think anyone believes that ridiculous statement. By your admission the development will add an extra 4,000 cars and what about the tradesmen living there, where will their vans be parked and they will need to come onto Milton Road to get to work.
No uploaded files for public display
As written out the vision sounds laudable, but there's a lot missing from the original, and the plan for 8,000 new homes in what is a relatively small area is contradictory. There are a number of issues: Why are so many new homes being planned? The number of homes being planned here and in South Cambs is 16,000 more than the central govt target. Cambridge can't sustain that number. The 8,000 will be very small flats, not good for the new working from home/being in offices balance. People will be looking for more living space as well as gardens and green space. Where has the original aim to be carbon neutral and truly car free gone? 'Discouraging' car use is far too weak. There is nowhere near enough public green space provision - and Milton Country Park is already at capacity, without the new influx of people. How truly affordable will the new homes be? Is there any provision to stop any 'affordable' homes from being bought up by investors - who invariably either charge high rents or sell on at hefty profit? Why is there no ban on cars? Why has the green bridge gone?
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Overall the plan looks appropriate, but with some concerns - the most pressing of which is that the approach to delivering the development and the history of the parties involved in the site makes it highly likely that delivery will be excruciatingly slow, behind schedule and the quality of the resulting built environment will be disappointing. There needs to be a publicly accountable development corporation to speed up the development and ensure it delivers the quality and environmental standards promised. Specific concerns: There is no justification for affordable housing being 40% of the new residential homes. Almost all the new jobs in the area will be high value knowledge based jobs - if these jobs can't support market price housing then we don't have a housing crisis we have a housing catastrophe. As such, with 40% affordable, there is a real risk that large parts of the housing stock will be allocated to people not working in the local area, increasing the amount of commuting both in and out. Furthermore, 'genuinely affordable' is a meaningless concept and makes it harder to deliver more market price housing on this site and elsewhere that is the only way to really solve the housing crisis. Attempting to reach 40% affordable will suck the development gain from the area into rent and purchase subsidies for those who meet the rationing criteria for the below market cost housing, making it much harder than necessary to deliver the needed transport improvements and high quality buildings. Affordable housing should be much less of the scheme (10-20%) - with more affordable homes delivered by developing many more homes around Cambridge on other sites, and correspondingly higher developer contributions to transport infrastructure improvements. In any case, the developers will cherry pick the most profitable elements to deliver first, then will complain that the affordable housing is unviable and won't deliver 40% anyway. Affordable housing and high rise tower blocks have a very unhappy history - its hard to avoid the conclusion they are fundamentally a bad combination. There is far too little emphasis on quality of development: 'Policy 6a: Development in North East Cambridge will be expected to provide distinctive, high-quality and contemporary design and architecture that responds to and positively contributes to Cambridge's heritage and townscape qualities.' Pretty much the only commitment to quality, but there needs to be much more emphasis on building beautiful and safeguards to ensure this happens - the quality of design and the legacy of this site to the built environment in Cambridge are almost completely missing from the 10 questions in this consultation - they clearly are being given the same lack of priority they seem to have in every other development outside the Colleges and Cambridge University. The CB1 station area redevelopment is hideous - it will not pass any test of time - how is this going to be any different - the same parties are involved here. The new hotel by Cambridge North is deeply uninspiring. A key reason why new development is so unpopular is the design values of modern architects are awful (does anyone really like 'contemporary design and architecture') - that has real political consequences when it comes to public acceptance of the new homes we desperately need. See: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2017/jun/13/an-embarrassment-to-the-city-what-went-wrong-with-the-725m-gateway-to-cambridge https://twitter.com/createstreets/status/1097591717392510977 (You should be using Createstreets to help with the neighbourhood design.) The Colleges build to last 500 years - I'd be surprised if CB1 lasts 50 years - its tragic that whilst the Cambridge area is at a peak of its economic power, the legacy built environment that has been delivered recently is so poor. Addressing this problem needs to be at the heart of the area action plan.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display