Question 5

Mostly not

Sports and leisure facilities are lacking in this part of the city - sports pitches and a swimming pool should be provided. Also it would be good to recognise the move towards self-sufficiency and offer community gardens or allotment space for growing food. Great opportunity seems to have been missed to have a large-scale cultural centre/concert hall as a community focus located on the Science Park site which would be a huge asset for the area and help to remove the east-wide divide. Schools, health facilities and other community buildings should be in place as residents move into the first homes to promote active travel without the need for car use from the outset.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

18,000 residents. A town. No secondary school, no sports grounds, no swimming pool or leisure centre, no library, no pub. But why provide those if you can build tower blocks? However, without those facilities people will be less enticed to move there. If they do nevertheless, then car traffic will of course increase.

Mostly not

There is a lack of flexible out door recreation space along the lines of Parkers Piece, Midsummer Common and Coldhams Common. Milton Country Park will lose its 'country park' character under the extra pressure. There is no secondary school provision identified to serve over 8000 new homes.

Mostly not

The obvious question is why 3 primary schools but no secondary school? What about hospital care? And leisure facilities like sports pitches and a swimming pool? What about gardens and allotments? The recent pandemic has shown an increased demand for outdoor space.

Not at all

I strongly feel that the right community facilities are not yet suitably accommodated in the scheme. The proposal wholly lacks vision and dynamism in relation to this respect, particularly if such densities will be realised. The mistakes, which have been nationally criticised, of the accommodation around the city centre station cannot afford to be replicated here. In summary: - In terms of cultural facilities, given the proposed density, that only a library and community rooms are provided, rather than a large scale community centre, similar to that provided at Eddington, or indeed larger. - Given the promotion of low carbon living, and lack of gardens, there is no reference to allotments, community gardens or allotments. This is a failing. - The lack of health facilites, no GP surgery which could incorporate other well being access, is missing from the proposal. - Detail is needed about the outdoor sports and play facilities that will be provided. With such high densities proposed, it is a major failing that the demand for open space, sporting and other public amenities will be provided off-site. Real amendment is needed to on the on-site that will also address deficiencies elsewhere in the city (e.g. swimming pools). This policy has significant implications for the quality of life of current and future residents of the city. There will be transport implications too, as more people will be inclined to drive to amenities that are beyond a comfortable walking distance. Both implications need to be examined fully.

Mostly not

The obvious question is why 3 primary schools but no secondary school? What about hospital care? And leisure facilities like sports pitches and a swimming pool? What about gardens and allotments? The recent pandemic has shown an increased demand for outdoor space.

Mostly not

The obvious question is why 3 primary schools but no secondary school? What about hospital care? And leisure facilities like sports pitches and a swimming pool? What about gardens and allotments? The recent pandemic has shown an increased demand for outdoor space.

Mostly yes

The community centre is currently quite far east and not at the centre of the whole area, which means that people working in the science park or St johns innovation centre would not really use it. It'd be good if access could be improved by having it closer to a bus line or Milton road

Mostly not

The proposal makes no commitment to build a secondary school, only to allocate space ‘in case it is needed in future’ so the development is not self-sufficient as advertised. Only GP level healthcare facilities are planned, despite 18,000 residents (the population of Ely). There are no sports pitches, no swimming pool, no leisure centre, and I think no places of worship, although it's good that there is a plan for a community centre. However 18,000 people may well live on the site, which is the population of Ely. Amenities and facilities should be similar to that town. The plan does not include provision for a large-scale cultural centre, only a library and community centre. Exactly what is meant by 'cultural hub' remains unclear. There has been a resurgence in people wanting – and often needing – to grow their own food. The dwellings planned have no gardens and there are no allotments. Public green space, so vital for communities, is inadequate and the lowest per head anywhere in Cambridge.

Mostly not

The description of the community facilities to be provided is tentative and uncertain. I note in prarticular that there is no mention of the religious or spiritual needs of the community, A town of 18,500 people would, for example, typically have one or more churches.

Mostly not

Lots of wriggle room here - 'if needed' or 'pending further engagment' is used when discussing secondary schools, indoor sports centres. I'd expect a development for 18,500 would absolutely need a new secondary school - the plan already provides for primary schools, so at least one guaranteed secondary school would be a good step - can the plans be modified for this? There is little outdoor space such as allotments planned (which are needed when new-build gardens tend to be very small); these are very beneficial, and already exist in other urban parts of Cambridge (e.g. West Arbury, just south of Newmarket Road), so should be included here. Without ensuring that enough facilities are created with the development, the new residents will put a very large strain on nearby facilities.

Mostly yes

Thank you for the provision to support already existing local services before the planned ones are built. Unfortunately our experience in the UK has been that too many homes are built before those local services are put in place within the local community. The strain this puts on neighbouring communities is immense and unacceptable, both to those moving in and those who already live in neighbouring communities.

Mostly yes

Concerned not enough school places being made available A swimming pool and gym would be good a park would be good (make sure there are green spaces)

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly not

Great that community facilities are included in the plan. There appears to be a lack of green space around these facilities. The provision of community orchards and allotment space appears to be missing.

Mostly not

If there is the need for 3 primary schools it seems ludicrous that no secondary school is being going to be built in the early stages. Is the assumption that there will be no families with children beyond primary school age? The distance from the far end of the development to the nearest secondary school (presumably North Cambridge Academy) must be around 3 miles. This will not be a reasonable distance for children to walk or cycle – which will mean parents will choose to drive them there. The pressure on the existing secondary schools will be huge if as you suggest the development will consist of 8,000 homes. Too much emphasis is on cramming housing into the available space. The fact that the leisure facilities don’t include sports fields , a swimming pool and a leisure centre shows a total disregard for the health and well-being of the residents. It is a shame that there isn’t provision for a decent sized venue for cultural events.

Mostly not

I support schools being located on key walking and cycling routes and away from main roads. This will help children travel to school safely and begin to travel there independently when they are old enough to do so. I think it’s likely that a secondary school will be needed – this should be planned well in advance of need, alongside other services such as health centres and leisure facilities. All services should feel safe to walk or cycle to in all seasons and at all times of day. Lessons should be learnt from other developments in Cambridge: if services (including transport links, cycle hire and car clubs) are not in place before residents move in, car-dependency will become locked in. On-site healthcare facilities are also important to be established as soon as possible. Care should be taken to maintain high-quality walking and cycling access throughout the different periods of construction, including to any ‘meanwhile projects’ on the site or in surrounding communities. The three primary schools and space for a secondary school seem closely located together, there are also two primary schools close together in the East Chesterton catchment area. I think it would be much more preferable if the western side of the site was mixed-use in a similar way to the east side so that some of the school capacity could be located over here, along with residential units.

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly not

The development will put even more strain on Addenbrookes and local secondary schools so why are only GP-level healthcare facilities being provided and why no secondary school?

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

Appropriate and adequate community facilities are vital to the successful delivery of the vision for NE Cambridge. I am concerned about the vagueness of some proposals that we see as vital, for example a secondary school “if needed”, a nursery “pending further engagement with Cambridgeshire County Council”, health provision “pending further engagement with health providers” and indoor sports and swimming provision “pending further engagement with Sports England and through the updating of the Sport Strategies for both Councils”. Community facilities must be in place as the first new residents move in, to avoid locking residents into car ownership. In the absence of adequate provision on site, huge stresses will be placed on already over-subscribed schools, health centres and exercise facilities in the surrounding areas. There are also no sites set aside for the religious needs of the area, which should involve churches, mosques and other sites of religious activity in consultation with religious leaders in the city.

Not at all

Development MUST provide health facilities, a library, cultural facilities and a community centre, not just expected. Especially GP facilities will be needed to cope with the increase in people, because existing ones are already stretched to the limit. With the provison of three new Primary Schools a Secondary School MUST be provided from the start as catchment areas of existing local schools are already quite big. In general I feel the area has been overdeveloped.

Mostly not

Appropriate and adequate community facilities are vital to the successful delivery of the vision for NE Cambridge. I am concerned about the vagueness of some proposals that we see as vital, for example a secondary school “if needed”, a nursery “pending further engagement with Cambridgeshire County Council”, health provision “pending further engagement with health providers” and indoor sports and swimming provision “pending further engagement with Sports England and through the updating of the Sport Strategies for both Councils”. Community facilities must be in place as the first new residents move in, to avoid locking residents into car ownership. In the absence of adequate provision on site, huge stresses will be placed on already over-subscribed schools, health centres and exercise facilities in the surrounding areas. There are also no sites set aside for the religious needs of the area, which should involve churches, mosques and other sites of religious activity in consultation with religious leaders in the city.

Mostly not

lack of leisure facilities and open space for the predicted number of residents lack of retail too the open drain will most likely smell unpleasently.

Not at all

There is insufficient schooling and primary healthcare facilities for the population numbers proposed, and confirms the impression that you are planning a deprived urban ghetto for the future. BETTER TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF HOMES TO A LEVEL OF POPULATION CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED PROVISION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES.

Mostly not

I would be absolutely astonished if the promised facilities ever became reality. There is a very reliable track record of such promises being reneged on.

Neutral

It is very important to me that the sites for primary schools are carefully planned, allowing the children easy access to outdoor areas from their classrooms, and cleverly incorporating in their designs structures and landscapes that encourage movement and imaginative play. Principles of good playground design should also be applied to other amenities in the development generally.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly not

A secondary school is very likely to be needed, along with more leisure and sports facilities as these are lacking in this part of the city. We support schools and leisure facilities being located on key walking and cycling routes so that children can travel safely and independently to their destinations from a young age. Schools, health facilities and other community buildings should be in place as residents move into the first homes to promote low levels of car use and ownership.