Question 6

Not at all

Absolutely not. Cambridge is not New York or London. The height of these planned buildings is far too high. The skyline of this beautiful and historic city will be completely ruined and dominated by excessively high and ugly buildings. When you say that a 13-story block of flats will ‘create a visual focus around the district square’ I am appalled that anyone can think this is going to anything but ugly and imposing. I have heard the height of King’s College Chapel used by comparison, but that it the height of the delicate pinnacles, not the building itself. The only people to benefit from this excessive height will be the developers, cramming people into small flats in a high-rise building.

Mostly not

I feel that the high densities in the eastern part of the site seem to have been made necessary by the restrictions made on land-use in the western part of the site. This puts pressure on the public realm; for example cycleways are unlikely to be built wider than the 2.5m minimum, even where volumes of cycle traffic would require it, and green space is more limited than it should be. Choices should never be made between pavements, cycleways and green space: these should be the aspects the site is built around and the whole area should be as mixed-use as possible to make cycling and walking the natural choice for all short journeys. I'm not against high-density or high buidlings per se, but I feel that the site would work better as a more balanced scheme with mixed-use buildings spread across the whole Area Action Plan site. I also think that density should be determined by factors such as liveability and local typology rather than external pressures which could lead to overdevelopment of the land. I would strongly disagree with an approach to development similar to that around Cambridge station which does not respect the character or design history of Cambridge and has delivered a place that is actively hostile to walking and cycling and doesn't create a strong, social community for residents or welcoming place for visitors.

Not at all

The density is far too great - both for the area and the people

Mostly not

13-storey buildings will be seen from miles away and will totally change the character of the city's skyline. The density of the development is far too high and accepting this in this particular development will set a precedent for future developments in the city.

Not at all

No. The proposed building heights will be a major intrusion on the landscape as their extreme height in relation to surrounding buildings and in such a flat landscape will make them visible for miles around, to the detriment of local neighbourhoods and surrounding natural landscape. We are aware of significant concerns among residents about the proposed heights of the buildings. We would propose a maximum of 6-8 stories (as per the height of Eddington development). We would also encourage that individual dwellings with private outdoor space (i.e. houses not flats) are increased in number, as the coronavirus pandemic has shown us that having access to private outdoor space is beneficial to wellbeing and safe social interaction.

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

The buildings are too high and dense. Even with all the plans for biodiversity and energy efficiency this will end up a Tower Block Estate with all the well recognised social problems that come with it. This is not in keeping with the rural, historic city Cambridge is.

Not at all

Given that the site of the current waste water treatment plant, on which this development will be located, will need to be decontaminated before it can be redeveloped, it seems to me that a lot of resource is going to be spent on this, and that greenbelt is planned to be used for the new waste water treatment plant, therefore I am not in agreement with the statement that this is a 'sustainable place to build'. I am also worried about the heights of these proposed buildings. Buildings of these heights are going to have an impact on existing communities such as Fen Ditton, which faces squarely in the direction of the development, albeit it is on the other side of the river. Not only will buildings of up to 13 storeys be visible during the day, the light pollution from the North East Cambridge development at night will also be seen here in Fen Ditton, hindering and changing the character of the village and surrounding area. It is not only the central historic setting of Cambridge that should be considered when it comes to views, but also those in other directions, which I feel have not been focused on as much or been given as much weight in considering these plans. Buildings of these proposed heights are not in keeping with Cambridge's existing architecture.

Not at all

No. The proposed building heights will be a major intrusion on the landscape as their extreme height in relation to surrounding buildings and in such a flat landscape will make them visible for miles around, to the detriment of local neighbourhoods and surrounding natural landscape. We are aware of significant concerns among residents about the proposed heights of the buildings. We would propose a maximum of 6-8 stories (as per the height of Eddington development). We would also encourage that individual dwellings with private outdoor space (i.e. houses not flats) are increased in number, as the coronavirus pandemic has shown us that having access to private outdoor space is beneficial to wellbeing and safe social interaction.

Not at all

This will disfigure the area and does not blend with the current beautiful city. 5 storey seams plenty enough. We object to more than 8 We already see the hotel from our street which isn't our vision of the area.

Not at all

See my responses to Q1. - The buildings are too tall, the Eddington development 6-8 storeys maximum should apply. - The approach to building heights and density should be determined by aspects such as liveability rather than external factors which could lead to overdevelopment. The framework for the area should begin with walking and cycle routes and generous amounts of green space. Individual buildings and areas should be designed to provide a pleasant and attractive experience for people to move through the area on foot or by cycle. Plenty of street trees should be used in areas of tall buildings to avoid wind tunnel effects. Wayfinding should be clear and simple.

Not at all

The building heights and densities are FAR TOO HIGH. The building heights and densities should be comparable with elsewhere in Cambridge, e.g. Eddington, and limited to 5 or 6 storeys maximum.

Not at all

Such high-rise development is completely inappropriate for Cambridge.

Mostly yes

The approach to building heights and density should be determined by aspects such as liveability rather than external factors which could lead to overdevelopment. The framework for the area should begin with walking and cycle routes and generous amounts of green space. Individual buildings and areas should be designed to provide a pleasant and attractive experience for people to move through the area on foot or by cycle. Plenty of street trees should be used in areas of tall buildings to avoid wind tunnel effects. Wayfinding should be clear and simple.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly yes

Housing density needs to increase in Cambridge in order to reduce carbon use. Taller buildings will be a necessary part of this.

Not at all

The first statement “North East Cambridge is a very sustainable place to build – it is brownfield land” is misleading and without any data to back-up such a generalised claim and as it requires considerable development on greenfield greenbelt land to make room for it! The type and amount of development should be reassessed following the massive cultural shift of Covid-19. There is a shift away from office working and high-density residential development without outdoor space. This development could lead to empty leasable development undertaken at huge expense to the green belt surrounding and protecting Cambridge. The proposed building heights are inappropriate and no assessment of the heritage impact of the heights can have been undertaken. The new hotel at Cambridge Station at 8 storeys has had a massive impact on the fen landscape and the previously unspoilt vista from Ditton Meadows and the river walk to the east of the city and from Fen Ditton conservation area. Also, you compare to heights of buildings such as Kings College or Ely Cathedral - but these are architecturally beautiful buildings which people enjoy looking at unlike the hotel already mentioned and the buildings you are planning. This mistake should not be compounded by further detracting development in a similar areas further impacting on the landscape and views of Cambridge. No massing information is given within the readily available imagery on the consultation website, purely 2D information. All the housing in the development would be categorised as high density apart from a very small area to the south of the guided busway. High density can have a negative impact on the spaces in which the residents can live and put pressure on shared outdoor spaces. The sound transfer from the adjacent A14 and rail line are not assessed. These will also have an impact on indoor air quality. High density has an impact on ecology, there will be serious impacts on existing ecology as a result of this development including impact on the proposed green belt sites. For example Honey Hill known as site 3 provides a very special habitat for some nationally rare species.

Mostly not

Surrounding areas are mostly 2 stories so going to 4-5 is jarring. Anything higher than that feels to high and not like Cambridge.

Mostly yes

We would like to better understand the aesthetic impact of the views from Milton Country Park towards North East Cambridge.

Mostly not

13 storeys is too high. The density overall is too high.

Neutral

High densities in the eastern part of the development seem to have been made necessary by the restrictions made on land-use in the western part of the site. This puts pressure on the public realm; for example cycleways are unlikely to be built wider than the 2.5m minimum, even where volumes of cycle traffic would require it and green space is more limited than it should be. Choices should never be made between footways, cycleways and green space: these should be the aspects the site is built around. Density should be determined by factors such as liveability and local typology rather than external pressures which could lead to overdevelopment of the land. Plenty of street trees should be used in areas of tall buildings to avoid wind tunnel effects

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

No. The proposed building heights are entirely inappropriate to this city, and will be a major blow to the character of the townscape and the surrounding landscape. Up to ten or even thirteen stories means an extreme height in relation to surrounding buildings, and ought to firmly rejected from this point. A maximum of six storeys should be the target, and a greater emphasis on creating street communities. Even these buildings must be of very high architectural and design standards. More individual dwellings with gardens should be planned – these could be private or part-shared (Mulberry Close has a good balance of small private gardens and a popular shared public space at its centre). Nor is there any provision for allotments – increasingly popular with Cambridge families. The coronavirus pandemic has proved just how essential having access to outdoor space is beneficial to both mental wellbeing and safe social interaction.

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

Completely and utterly wrong. This is not a sustainable place or way to build at all. The bland assumption that there are 'good public transport links' is nonsense and does not bear analysis. All that is on offer is more of the same. The railway station is at the edge not the centre. Likewise the busway, which in any case does not go expeditiously to anywhere useful in this context. I could not disagree more with the assertion made about building heights. 13 storeys is totally wrong for Cambridge, intrusive and alien. In any case, the 6 - 8 storey maxima at Eddington should apply. Density is too great, and this must be reduced. Cambridge does not deserve, need or want this density or height of buildings. Shame on those who have promoted these heights and densities. They clearly have no judgement or sense of place. Full disclosure and publication of all photomontages is required to allow residents to decide what is acceptable.

Not at all

Height kills quality. If I remember correctly the architect Christopher Alexander set a limit at 6 storeys. Above 4 storeys the facade should be set back to allow more light into the street and make space for roof gardens. NEC is a sustainable place to build so don't blow it by giving in to developer pressure to boost profits. This must be space for people, space that feeds the soul and grows a healthy mind.

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly yes

The concept of have lower densities around the edge of the site and higher densities towards the centre is sound. Lower densities at the edges protect existing residents along the north edge of Cambridge and in Milton. One of the overall aims of the planning system should be to allow a wide diversity of low, medium and high-density developments to accommodate the variety of lifestyles that people want to follow. As one of the high-density developments, we should not be afraid to have tall buildings in North East Cambridge. Provided that it can be shown that the taller buildings would not be visible from within the heritage areas in and around the Colleges and city centre, there is no reason not to allow some buildings up to 60m or 20 stories in height. There is also scope to have higher density, say 350-400 dph, along the railway line and approaching Cambridge North station. This should be balanced by developing at lower densities with larger gardens in the countryside and in villages.

Not at all

The proposed buildings will be up to 13 storeys high, higher than anywhere else in Cambridge and denser than much of inner London. This is completely unacceptable for an historic city in an area of very low topographic relief. Buildings will dominate the skyline from Milton Road, Fen Ditton, the towpath etc. The documents cite buildings such as King’s College Chapel and Ely Cathedral as examples of tall buildings in the area, yet these are of enormous architectural and historical merit, rather than drab and ugly office buildings or blocks of flats. To even make the comparison is, frankly, ridiculous. The proposed density is 3 to 4 times greater than that at Eddington, Mill Road Depot, Trumpington Meadows, etc. These are all high density developments, and should be used as the basis for housing density in north east Cambridge. Another good example would be Goldsmith Street, Norwich, widely viewed as the best current exemplar of progressive, environmentally sound social housing. Density must be limited to 80 dwellings per hectare, rather than the 330 to 385 proposed at present, which is outrageously high and will blight the lives of the people forced to live there. This is even more important now in the era of Covid 19 where more and more people will be expected work from home. 80 dwellings per ha could easily be achieved by replacing two thirds of the proposed office space with housing, and reducing the total number of dwellings to around 4000.

Neutral

I appreciate that high-density living has benefits; however the density of the buildings in the east will necessitate adapted access in the area and this doesn't seem to have been considered. Will the east have wider pavement / cycleway space for the massive numbers of inhabitants to move around safely and pleasantly?