Question 6

Not at all

Dreadful, just simply dreadful. This is poor site next to a major road. Have planners not learnt a thing about high rise buildings and high density development. There is no sense of community, people do not know their neighbours, the do not have gardens for their children, they are often riddled with drug dealing, noise pollution and crime. What are you intending to create here? This is a dystopian future

Neutral

Camcycle supports plans to ensure that development proposals create a well-articulated and varied skyline which is pleasant and attractive to travel through at street level on foot or by cycle, and contributes to making a place that is easy to find your way around. We also support the mixed-use nature of the area and individual buildings which will help ensure that people have the opportunity to make everyday journeys without driving and that the district’s walking and cycling routes have good levels of natural surveillance at all times of the day and night. We note 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. 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.

Mostly not

The vision and illustrations create the image of an open, green landscape. You have to read the detail to realise that this will be an extremely high-density development which will tower over the surrounding landscape.

Neutral

strongly support response from Camcycle

Mostly not

The approach to building heights and density should be determined by aspects such as liveability rather than external factors which could lead to over development. Individual homes (be they in houses or apartments) should be generous enough to provide high quality of live. The framework for the area should begin with walking and cycle routes and generous amounts of shared 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. The suggestion of 13 storey buildings is appalling. 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, surrounding villages and the surrounding natural landscape. I am aware of significant concerns among residents of Cambridge town and surrounding villages about the proposed heights of the buildings. I would propose a maximum of 6-8 stories (as per the height of Eddington development). I 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

The proposed heights are rather alarming and bring to mind the proportions of soviet boulevards with oppression, dark windy blocks on either side. A maximum height of 4 storeys would be closer to appropriate. Look at Orchard Park, where typical buildings are around 4 storeys. The height creates dark shadowy unwelcoming spaces which are not typical of other wards in Cambridge. For these to be on the lower end of the proposed scale for this development seems utterly incongruous. The addition of the hotel building at the Cambridge North station has already made a once pleasant, open plaza feel unpleasant and boxed in, similar to the much maligned CB1 development. This is an opportunity to learn the lessons of that area and not repeat or amplify many of the features that make CB1 an unwelcoming area.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

I don’t see that a visual focus around the district square by having a 13 storey high building is a good thing and would be interested to know what Historic England think. Public transport is essential with the densities you have in mind so is sufficient provision made for this?

Neutral

We support plans to ensure that development proposals create a well-articulated and varied skyline which is pleasant and attractive to travel through at street level on foot or by cycle, and contributes to making a place that is easy to find your way around. We also support the mixed-use nature of the area and individual buildings which will help ensure that people have the opportunity to make everyday journeys without driving and that the district’s walking and cycling routes have good levels of natural surveillance at all times of the day and night. We note 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. Density should be determined by factors such as livability and local typology rather than external pressures which could lead to over-development of the land. Plenty of street trees should be used in areas of tall buildings to avoid wind tunnel effects.

Not at all

How can you even ask this while you're replicating the dystopian hellholes of the 1960s? This is a hellish nightmare of a developent.

Not at all

Ridiculously high and dense - will ruin the local area and the city

Not at all

I OBJECT to your proposed approach to distributing building heights and densities in NE Cambridge. 13 storey buildings, even those with silly apex towers, are not appropriate for the site nor anywhere else in or bordering the Fens as you have identified (but then ignored) in the Visual Appraisal Low scenario. There are no homes or workspaces with these many storeys in Cambridge city, why should the height be suitable in north-east Cambridge? The existing outline design, in terms of height, density and weird collection of colours with no obvious link to the surrounding areas, is one where no one will want to live, that will fast turn into a grotty slum, and which is entirely inappropriate in our post-pandemic world.

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

Low level housing with gardens is missing and needs to be provided for all family housing. Whole area would be too dense. More public open space needed on the site especially near housing.

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

No. It should be much lower density, because at the proposed densities it will be a very unpleasant place to live, and out of keeping with the rest of Cambridge The building heights should be lower, say 6 storeys maximum to allow timber construction and hence contribute to reducing the embodied energy of the development by storing carbon. Plenty of green space must be available for the occupants in the immediate area. At an absolute minimum it should be in accordance with the ammount specified in the Local Plan,and its unacceptable to piggybank on Milton Country Park. Covid has made the need for pleasant open space even more important.

Not at all

Buildings of 13 stories – or more- are much too high for this area and will affect the ways in which it will relate to it’s neighbouring districts. Even 8 stories seem too tall although I understand the need to maximise the building density on the site. Can a maximum height be agreed that relates to other new developments across the City (8 stories maximum)? 13 storey buildings will create a precedent that it will then be difficult to argue against in all other parts of the City including the City Centre. Research into taller buildings shows that for these the quality of the build is even more important. There are increased safety and environmental issues and therefore increased costs. Are these issues being addressed? Are other means of providing the required housing density being considered?

Not at all

13 storeys, and anything higher than 8 storeys, should not be allowed. Anything higher than 6 storeys provides a reduced quality of living. Mansion type blocks of 4-6 storeys high are much more appropriate and pleasant for people to live in and enjoy the outside space. Anything higher than 7-8 storeys will provide an irreversible visual intrusion on the Cambridge landscape. It will be visible from mutliple directions and will ruin the current skyline of Cambridge.

Neutral

Building denser is a part of where we are as a country - it's a result of years of poor planning & spatial "growth" in thinking by succesive Governments. Not at the local planning authority level but those who wanted to develop anything not willing to push against the unspoken norms of British (Little England) "tradition". Am relieved Historic England is involved and the mistakes of Trumpington/ Clay Farm will be avoided. now the soft planting has grown to hide it but when I was new to Cambridge I was appalled by the WW2 architecture of gun emplacements, sea defenses and look-out towers that now fringe the city's southern fringe. We must do better if you truly want to create cohesive communities and not cement 2020's theme for isolation into brick outhouses to the north.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

It's already been overdone in the surrounding area.

Neutral

Note the densities and heights of buildings. The site is one of the last brownfield sites to be developed in Cambridge, and is very well connected. Therefore there is sufficient provision to allow for a high density, urban quarter of the city to be located at NEC.

Mostly not

No answer given

Not at all

Building such ultra high-density housing in an inaccessible area of the city is likely to lead to a modern slum-style atmosphere. With very little outside space provision it's would be very inappropriate for families to live in. Fortunately some of the 1980s/1990s was spent knocking down such developments that were built when they were last in fashion, as they led to the social problems that this style of accomodation will always cause.

Not at all

I think the building density is extreme and out of character with an historic city like Cambridge. Some buildings of 4 or 5 storeys is reasonable with 6 as a maximum. We do not want those approaching Cambridge to be met with a view of tower blocks. The resulting building density will adversely affect the well being of those who have to live in this environment.

Not at all

The high skyline will be imposing and is going to make a huge impact on Milton Road and many residents in North Cambridge will see the towering flats from their homes. It will also give a feeling of overcrowding and being overlooked by the people in the top of the flats. It will make a huge difference to the people living in the area who are used to seeing the sky and enjoy the feeling of space currently provided by the type of housing in the local area. The new flats in bright colours will dominate the sky and that style will soon become outdated. Buildings should reflect their surroundings, not stick out like a sore thumb. Orchard Park is an example of this with the painted buildings already looking dated ,tired and scruffy. Edward Leigh from Smarter Cambridge Transport has mentioned the very high density of the area and compared it to areas in London. The proposals for the new area have one of the highest densities in the UK, but the difference is that these proposals have far less green space close by. The area will be far too dense for its position. A lack of green space can lead to mental health problems and further strains upon the medical services. At a time when mental health issues are at an all time high it is very disappointing not to take this opportunity to build houses with gardens, areas of housing with allotments and give people space to live rather than cramming everyone in on top of each other to maximise profit. One of the main things to come out of the recent lockdown is that people needed space to exercise outdoors and access to functional green spaces for health and mental health. This should be a high priority on the plans for the redevelopment of the area.

Not at all

We are taking the easy option of cramming as many properties as possible into a limited space and thus reducing green space. Everybody well aware of the problems high rise cause regards being future slums. Should be building properties with gardens and open spaces for those in low height appartments. Allotments for those who will not have a garden. Know already that building this many properties will mean extra cars and we under this plan will not have sufficent space. It always amazes me that properties that were built in the 60s have room for 3 cars on the driveways and cars were still a new thing. Now we allow for 1 car when the min for most houses is 2 thus ensuring that cars will have to park oin the road and cause obstructions and friction with households, we have the chance to make a change. If this is allowed it will be used as the benchmark for all future developments in Cambridge and so cannot be allowed to happen. The designers of this scheme will not be living in high rise congested drives and no open space yet they believe other people want to live in these boxes.

Not at all

Where are the secondary schools age children going to go? You need a secondary school if this is to be a community of families.

Mostly not

There is absolutely no need for 13 storey visual features. Size doesn't necessarily create a pleasant sense of place. This smacks of the usual developer's statement ' this area needs a landmark building' that gets trotted out to justify over-dense and over-high buildings.