Question 11 - General comments

So the proposal is to create 8000 new dwellings and 20,000 new jobs over the next 20 years in NE Cambridge. But there will be blocks of flats of up to 13 storeys and woefully inadequate green and recreational space. Why? I understand the reason is that Central Government have agreed to provide £227m so that the development can be built on the land currently occupied by the sewage works. Cambridge should refuse this handout for three reasons: Firstly, the sewage works were upgraded in 2017, they function well and have capacity to continue serving the City for many years. Demolition will be wasteful and environmentally harmful Secondly, three sites in the Cambridge Greenbelt are being considered for the replacement sewage works. We are told the new sewage works will have tanks that will be the height of eight storey buildings. Such construction should not happen in Greenbelt. Local people are understandably vehemently hostile. Thirdly, following the pandemic the Government will have to reassess spending priorities. The growth of Cambridge should be reined-in and the £227m should be re-allocated to regions in need of growth stimulus. If the Action Plan is allowed to proceed it will cause great harm to Cambridge and the surrounding area. It should be aborted!

I think the interaction of the new development with Milton Road is very important. There was talk at one stage of a 'green bridge' over Milton Road and I thought this was a very good idea. In general, that part of Milton Road is not pedestrian friendly, and a plan that separates pedestrians and bikes from motor vehicles would be great. Additionally, this would allow for a redesign of the junctions around the Science Park and Cowley Road - my personal preference would be for a roundabout or series of roundabouts. My biggest worry with the whole development is that you will have all the grand ideas but no way to force the people actually building the houses to comply with them. Look at Orchard Park - it looked lovely on paper, but in the flesh it looks tired already with most of the planting feeling unloved. How will this be avoided in NEC??

The amount of green space does not seem adequate for a community of 18,000 people many of whom will not have private gardens. There is no provision for a large green area found in most Cambridge neighbourhoods. The green space does not include any land for allotments safari asI could tell. The community and green spaces do not seem to link well to the river. The plans refer to 13 storey blocks of housing. While the need to densify is understandable, this seems much higher than is typical of Cambridge. King’s College chapel spires may reach that height, but they are not solid structures. Further, while it is very much to be hoped that Covid 19 will soon be history, tall accommodation blocks that rely on elevators are deeply problematic for social distancing. At the best of times, entering and exiting multi-storey blocks with young families are challenges at busy times of the day.

As a local parish councillor I understand the need for low cost and social housing close to the City centre. The redevelopment should have restrictions to ensure the low cost housing does not become Air BNB housing stock and actual addresses the social housing needs of local people with a relationship to North Cambridge villages and the City. The housing numbers proposed when considering the current City population are excessive and relies on key City infrastructure to be moved such as the waste plant. I agree with the local parish councils that the Waste Plant foot print is reduced and the waste plant kept within the existing area. The Waste plants residential housing buffer should be kept at 400m ; The 400m buffer could be used for recreational use. I have a major concern on the mental health aspects of living in such a high density development. Unfortunately RLW Waterbeach is already high density and a second North Cambridge high density living space will potentially lead to major strains on the local CPFT. With working from home becoming more of a norm minimum sq footage for healthy living is extremely important. The proposals use of Milton Country Park is not acceptable. The park is already heavily used and not well funded. I strongly believe that an area of the Cambridge Green Belt is utilised for recreational use; walks etc. The impact of Waterbeach U&C, Waterbeach RLW, and this proposal will put much strain on local resources including the riverbank. The Milton Interchange in particular is a concern regarding transport; this is already a bottleneck prior to the Waterbeach development. The transport study for the new area is inadequate and more work needs to be undertaken. The ideas lead to further Mental Health and Crime concerns.

Please do not do this to Cambridge! Cambridge is a beautiful city and distinguished by its lack of high rise buildings and plenty of green spaces and should be cherished and not saturated with vast new builds and offices. In view of COVID19 you should be re-evaluating this plan, many of the cities that have been hit the hardest have a considerable amount of high rise/flats/apartments and are densely populated and should be looking to maintain our precious green spaces and low level buildings and investing in what we already have, not building more houses that most ordinary people cannot afford to buy or rent or offices that remain empty as businesses have already been hit hard and with more people likely to continue to work from home (if they are lucky enough to still have a job) as not only safer, but cost efficient, perhaps this now gives you the opportunity to reassess this and hopefully common sense will prevail. It would be good to know that the local Council cares about the community and the impact all this will have on not only Cambridge, but the surrounding area, which is currently losing its' soul as it being sold to the devil! I am sure Sir David Attenborough would also not be very happy to learn of the proposals that would potentially turn beautiful areas abundant in wildlife and history into the cesspit for Cambridge just so that more houses can be built on the existing Sewage works site. Are 8000 plus houses being built at Waterbeach not enough? Have you tried to get to Cambridge when it is raining or on a cold winters' day from Waterbeach? You may very well offer lovely cycle paths and pave over more countryside, but when it rains the traffic stacks back already to beyond Clayhithe - times this by a further 8000 homes and none of us will be going anywhere. Railway and public transport - fine, but how many people will feel confident about cleanliness after what is currently happening with COVID19? Please at least look into/revise the following: • Keep the sewage works where it is, it has capacity to cope with the Construction taking place at Waterbeach and has recently been upgraded to be more efficient not make a 'Brown' site out of greenbelt areas (think it also may be illegal despite the rather large government grant?) • Not to build on the current sewage works, but further invest in it (there is plenty of capacity there), not build on it! • Keep the train station where it is in Waterbeach and if necessary use the new planned train station area at the barracks to provide further sewage treatment for the homes being built and not move the problem elsewhere. Do the current Councillors want to be remembered as the ones that ruined Cambridge and the surrounding area or be remembered for being innovative and exploring/investing in the people and buildings of Cambridge in a more sustainable way by adding perhaps a small amount of houses in villages throughout Cambridgeshire, the amount depending on their size, using local builders/developers supporting local businesses and providing work opportunities within their communities putting less demand on infrastructure and done in a more sensitive way, rather than huge unsustainable developments.

The romanticism of your presentation makes me quite angry. Although the conversion of a ‘brownfield’ site into a sustainable suburban utopia sounds very environment-friendly and attractive, no mention is made that this is at the expense of moving the current Cambridge sewage works (well sited next to railway, river, and the A14 ringroad; and only 3 complaints in the last few years about smell) to a different greenfield – and Green Belt- site out in the countryside, ‘out of sight and out of mind’. None of the three sites being considered for the new sewage works is marked, and one, across the river north-east of Fen Ditton, is not even included on the map. As long-term residents of Fen Ditton, we can see that building a large treatment site near Snout’s Corner would result in spoiling the walking, cycling and riding path through the fields (with access to the fens) from Honey Hill/High Ditch Road to Horningsea Road, and bring heavy lorries not directly off an A14 interchange but up High Ditch Road, a narrow scenic rural road that runs along the top of historic Fleam Dyke into Fen Ditton village. The detriment to the character and quality of life in Fen Ditton is worth considering as a counterweight to the new supposedly ‘environmentally-friendly’ development, well-thought-out though it is in other respects. (IF the development happens and the sewage works IS moved, it should clearly go just north of its present site, still next to an A14 interchange for the lorries, and cyclists on Mere Way will know it is there but not be unduly bothered by it). This is all the comment I am making.

I have to confess that I haven't had time to go through all of the literature related to this consultation but I did want to raise a significant concern I have about planning in Cambridge in general. It is a concern I have also raised in the consultation about the CWWTPR and in the consultation about East Barnwell developments. It is this: Cambridge carrying capacity - I am concerned that no one is looking at the carrying capacity of Cambridge. By this I mean the land itself, what it can sustain. Earlier this year and last year was the first time in living memory that the spring at Nine Wells dried up. This is a really significant and scary event! This means that the demands on the aquifer are exceeding what it can supply. The river is carefully managed otherwise it is likely that it would be significantly drier than it is currently. What will it take before we finally acknowledge that we can't just continue to build houses and hope that we will have enough natural resources to continue to make Cambridge a safe and happy place to live?? And, in case it's not obvious, my assumption is that the well has run dry because too much water is being taken from the aquifer to service the increasing numbers of houses in Cambridge. Our land is not elastic, it can't sustain an ever-increasing number of people.

Dear Councillors North East Cambridge Ara Action Plan I am very concerned about your vision for North East Cambridge on the following grounds: Need for the development: Is this the right time to be planning such a large development of very high density housing? We are in an economic crisis when Covid-19 has meant a change to working practices. Is that amount of commercial necessary with home working? It would be better to build in existing villages all around Cambridge, not just in the north east. Is there really a need for so many homes in this area? Office blocks are standing empty and could be converted to residential accommodation. Connected and integrated: This relies on people being able to walk or cycle to work. It is preposterous that everyone living there will be young and active and remain that way. Communities are a mixture of all ages and abilities but this development will not cater for them. Building heights and density: Such high density (more than London or Paris} is not appropriate for this area. One and two bedroom dwellings in 13 storey blocks could lead to social isolation and lack of community feeling. It doesn't cater for growing families. Are they expected to move out when children reach secondary school age? Open places: Whatever open spaces are planned they cannot compensate for the loss of wide open green belt where the new WWTP is sited. Milton Park is not sufficiently big or open to accommodate so many people. Biodiversity: The toll on flora and fauna caused by the construction process cannot be undone. The site chosen for relocation of the WWTP for this development will suffer. Discouraging car use: Not everyone will be able to walk or cycle to work. As people age or their families grow they will be reliant on cars. I understand that to register for this consultation my name will be published with my comment, but that in line with your privacy statement, my contact details and other personal details will not.

I am very concerned about your vision for North East Cambridge on the following grounds: Need for the development: Is this the right time to be planning such a large development of very high-density housing? We are in an economic crisis when Covid-19 has meant a change to working practices. It would be better to build in existing villages all around Cambridge, not just in the north east. Is there really a need for so many homes in this area? I question the need for over 275,000 square metres of new business space when office blocks up and down the country are standing empty and could be converted to residential accommodation. Connected and integrated: This relies on people being able to walk or cycle to work. It presupposes that everyone living there will be young and active and remain that way. Communities are a mixture of all ages and abilities, but this development does not appear to cater for all of them. Building heights and density: Such high density (more than London or Paris) is not appropriate for this area. One and two bedroom dwellings in 13 storey blocks could lead to social isolation and lack of community feeling. It doesn't cater for growing families. Are they expected to move out when the children reach secondary school age? Open places: Whatever open spaces are planned they cannot compensate for the loss of wide open Green Belt where the new WWTP is expected to be sited. Milton Country Park is not sufficiently big or open to accommodate so many people and it is already very well used. Biodiversity: The negative impact on flora and fauna caused by the construction process cannot be undone. The site chosen for the relocation of WWTP to enable this development will suffer immeasurably and catastrophically. Discouraging car use: Not everyone is able to walk or cycle to work. As people age or their families grow they will become reliant on cars. The development does not take this into consideration. Additional points to consider: Where are the secondary schools? Surely there won't be just primary school age children living there. I understand that to register for this consultation my name will be published with my comment but that in line with your privacy statement, my contact details and other personal information will not.

I am very concerned about your vision for North East Cambridge on the following grounds: Need for the development: Is this the right time to be planning such a large development of very high density housing? We are in an economic crisis when Covid-19 has meant a change to working practices. It would be better to build in existing villages all around Cambridge, not just in the north east. Is there really a need for so many homes in this area? Office blocks are standing empty and could be converted to residential accommodation. Connected and integrated: This relies on people being able to walk or cycle to work. It presupposes that everyone living there will be young and active and remain that way. Communities are a mixture of all ages and abilities but this development will not cater for them. Building heights and density: Such high density (more than London or Paris) is not appropriate for this area. One or two bedroom dwellings in 13 storey blocks could lead to social isolation and lack of community feeling. It doesn't cater for growing families. Are they expected to move out when children reach secondary school age? Open places: Whatever open spaces are planned they cannot compensate for the loss of wide open green belt where the new WWTP is sited. Milton Park is not sufficiently big or open to accommodate so many people. Biodiversity: The toll on flora and fauna caused by the construction process cannot be undone. The site chosen for relocation of WWTP for this development will suffer. Discouraging car use. Not everyone will be able to walk or cycle to work. As people age or their families grow they will be reliant on cars. I understand that to register for this consultation my name will be published with my comment, but that in line with your privacy statement, my contact details and other personal information will not.

I am concerned about your vision for North East Cambridge on the following grounds: Need for the development: Is the right time to be planning such a large development of very high density housing? We are in an economic crisis when Covid-19 has meant a change in working practices. It would be better to build in existing villages all around Cambridge, not just in the north east. Is there really a need for so many homes in this area? I question the need for over 275,000 square metres of new business space when office blocks up and down the country are standing empty and could be converted to residential accommodation. Connected and integrated: This relies on people being able to walk or cycle to work. It presupposes that everyone living there will be young and active and remain that way. Communities are a mixture of all ages and abilities but this development does not appear to cater for all of them. Building heights and density: Such high density (more than London or Paris) is not appropriate for this area. One and two bedroom dwellings in 13 storey blocks could lead to social isolation and lack of community feeling. It doesn't cater for growing families. Are they expected to move out when children reach secondary school age? Open places: Whatever open spaces are planned they cannot compensate for the loss of of wide open Green Belt where the new WWTP is expected to be sited. Milton Country Park is not sufficiently big or open to accommodate so many people and it is already very well used. Biodiversity: The negative impact on flora and fauna caused by the construction process cannot be undone. The site chosen for the relocation of WWTP to enable this development will suffer immeasurably and catastrophically. Discouraging car use: Not everyone is able to walk or cycle to work. As people age or their families grow they will become reliant on cars. The development does not take this into consideration. Additional points to consider: Where are the secondary schools? Surely there won't be just primary age children living there. I understand that to register for this consultation my name will be published with my comment but that , in line with your privacy statement, my contact details and other personal information will not.

Dear Councillors, North East Cambridge Area Action Plan I am very concerned about your vision for North East Cambridge on the following grounds: Need for the development Is this the right time to be planning such a large development of very high density housing? We are in an economic crisis when Covid-19 has meant a change to working practices. It would be better to build in exisitng villages all around Cambridge, not just in the north east. Is there really a need for so many homes in this area? Office blocks are standing empty and could be converted to residential accommodation Connected and integrated This relies on people being able to walk or cycle to work. It presupposes that everyone living there will be young and active and remain that way. Communities are a mixture of all ages and abilities but this development will not cater for them. Building heights and density Such high density (more than London or Paris) is not appropriate for this area. One and two bedroom dwellings in 13 storey blocks could lead to social isolation and lack of community feeling. It doesn't cater for growing families. Are they expected to move out when children reach secondary school age? Open places Whatever open spaces are planned they cannot compensate for the loss of wide open green belt where the new WWTP is sited. Milton Park is not sufficiently big or open to accommodate so many people. Biodiversity The toll on flora and fauna caused by the construction process cannot be undone. The site chosen for relocation of WWTP for this development will suffer. Discouraging car use Not everyone will be able to walk or cycle to work. As people age or their families grow they will be reliant on cars.

Dear Councillors North East Cambridge Area Action Plan I am very concerned about your vision for North East Cambridge on the following grounds: Need for Development: Is this the right times to be planning such a large development of very high density housing? We are in times of economic crisis when Covid-19 has meant a change to working practices. It would be better to bulld in existing villages all around Cambridge, not just in the north east. Is there really a need for so many homes in this area? I question the need for over 2715,000 square metres of new business space when office blocks up and down the country are standing empty and could be converted to residential accommodation. Connected and Integrated: This relies on people being able to walk or cycle to work. It presupposes that everyone living there will be young and active and remain that way. Communities are a mixture of all ages and abilities, but this development does not appear to cater for all of them. Building heights and density: Such high density (more than London or Paris) is not appropriate for this area. One- and two-bedroom dwellings in 13 storey blocks could lead to social Isolation and lack of community feeling. It doesn't cater for growing families. Are they expected to move out when children reach secondary school age? Open places: Whatever open spaces are planned they cannot compensate for the loss of wide open Green Belt where the new WWTP Is expected to be sited. MIiton Country Park is not sufficiently big or open to accommodate .so many people and It Is already very well used. Biodiversity: The negative Impact on flora and fauna caused by the construction process cannot be undone. The site chosen for the relocation of WWTP to enable this development will suffer immeasurably and catastrophically. Discouraging car use: Not everyone is able to walk or cycle to work. As people age or their families grow they will become reliant on cars. The development does not take this into consideration. Additional points to consider: Where are the secondary schools? Surely there won't Just be primary school age children living there. I understand that to register for this consultation my name will be published with my comment. but that, In line with your privacy statement, my contact details and other personal Information will not.

Dear Councillors, North East Cambridge Area Action Plan I am very concerned about your vision for North East Cambridge on the following grounds: Need for the development: Is this the right time to be planning such a large scale development of very high density housing? We are in times of economic crisis when Covis-19 has meant a change to working practices. It would be better to build in existing villages all around Cambridge, not just in the north east. Is there really a need for so many homes in this area? I question the need for over 275,000 square metres of new business space when office blocks up and down the country are standing empty and could be converted to residential accommodation. Connected and Integrated: This relies on people being able to walk or cycle to work. It presupposes that everyone living there will be young and active and remain that way. Communities are a mixture of all ages and abilities, but this development does not appear to cater for all of them. Building Height and density: Such high density dwellings (more than London or Paris) is not acceptable for this area. One and two bedroom dwellings in 13 storey blocks could lead to social isolation and lack of community feeling. It doesn't cater for growing families. Are they expected to move out when children reach secondary school age? Open Places: Whatever open spaces are planned they cannot compensate for the loss of wide open Green Belt where the new WWTP is expected to be sited. Milton Country Park is not sufficiently big or open to accommodate so many people and it is already vey well used. Biodiversity: The negative impact on flora and fauna caused by the construction process cannot be undone. The site chosen for the relocation of WWTP to enable this development will suffer immeasurably and catastrophically. Discouraging car use: Not everyone is able to walk or cycle to work. As people age or their families grow they will become reliant on cars. The development does not take this into consideration. Additional points to consider: Where are the secondary schools? Surely there won't just be primary school age children living there. I understand that to register for this consultation my name will be published with my comment, but that, in line with your privacy statement, my contact details and other personal information will not. I feel very strongly about all the above comments and objections. Yours sincerely,

Dear Councillors, North East Cambridge Area Action Plan I am very concerned about your vision for North East Cambridge on the following grounds: Need for the development: Is this the right time to be planning such a large scale development of very high density housing? We are in times of economic crisis when Covis-19 has meant a change to working practices. It would be better to build in existing villages all around Cambridge, not just in the north east. Is there really a need for so many homes in this area? I question the need for over 275,000 square metres of new business space when office blocks up and down the country are standing empty and could be converted to residential accommodation. Connected and Integrated: This relies on people being able to walk or cycle to work. It presupposes that everyone living there will be young and active and remain that way. Communities are a mixture of all ages and abilities, but this development does not appear to cater for all of them. Building Height and density: Such high density dwellings (more than London or Paris) is not acceptable for this area. One and two bedroom dwellings in 13 storey blocks could lead to social isolation and lack of community feeling. It doesn't cater for growing families. Are they expected to move out when children reach secondary school age? Open Places: Whatever open spaces are planned they cannot compensate for the loss of wide open Green Belt where the new WWTP is expected to be sited. Milton Country Park is not sufficiently big or open to accommodate so many people and it is already vey well used. Biodiversity: The negative impact on flora and fauna caused by the construction process cannot be undone. The site chosen for the relocation of WWTP to enable this development will suffer immeasurably and catastrophically. Discouraging car use: Not everyone is able to walk or cycle to work. As people age or their families grow they will become reliant on cars. The development does not take this into consideration. Additional points to consider: Where are the secondary schools? Surely there won't just be primary school age children living there. I understand that to register for this consultation my name will be published with my comment, but that, in line with your privacy statement, my contact details and other personal information will not. Yours sincerely,

Dear Councillors, North East Cambridge Area Action Plan I am very concerned about your vision for North East Cambridge on the following grounds: Need for the development: Is this the right time to be planning such a large scale development of very high density housing? We are in times of economic crisis when Covis-19 has meant a change to working practices. It would be better to build in existing villages all around Cambridge, not just in the north east. Is there really a need for so many homes in this area? I question the need for over 275,000 square metres of new business space when office blocks up and down the country are standing empty and could be converted to residential accommodation. Connected and Integrated: This relies on people being able to walk or cycle to work. It presupposes that everyone living there will be young and active and remain that way. Communities are a mixture of all ages and abilities, but this development does not appear to cater for all of them. Building Height and density: Such high density dwellings (more than London or Paris) is not acceptable for this area. One and two bedroom dwellings in 13 storey blocks could lead to social isolation and lack of community feeling. It doesn't cater for growing families. Are they expected to move out when children reach secondary school age? Open Places: Whatever open spaces are planned they cannot compensate for the loss of wide open Green Belt where the new WWTP is expected to be sited. Milton Country Park is not sufficiently big or open to accommodate so many people and it is already vey well used. Biodiversity: The negative impact on flora and fauna caused by the construction process cannot be undone. The site chosen for the relocation of WWTP to enable this development will suffer immeasurably and catastrophically. Discouraging car use: Not everyone is able to walk or cycle to work. As people age or their families grow they will become reliant on cars. The development does not take this into consideration. Additional points to consider: Where are the secondary schools? Surely there won't just be primary school age children living there. I understand that to register for this consultation my name will be published with my comment, but that, in line with your privacy statement, my contact details and other personal information will not. Yours sincerely,

Dear Councillors, North East Cambridge Area Action Plan I am very concerned about your vision for North East Cambridge on the following grounds: Need for the development: Is this the right time to be planning such a large scale development of very high density housing? We are in an economic crisis when Covis-19 has meant a change to working practices. It would be better to build in existing villages all around Cambridge, not just in the north east. Is there really a need for so many homes in this area? Office blocks are standing empty and could be converted to residential accommodation. Connected and Integrated: This relies on people being able to walk or cycle to work. It presupposes that everyone living there will be young and active and remain that way. Communities are a mixture of all ages and abilities, but this development will not cater for them. Building Height and density: Such high density dwellings (more than London or Paris) is not acceptable for this area. One and two bedroom dwellings in 13 storey blocks could lead to social isolation and lack of community feeling. It doesn't cater for growing families. Are they expected to move out when children reach secondary school age? Open Places: Whatever open spaces are planned they cannot compensate for the loss of wide open green belt where the new WWTP is sited. Milton Park is not sufficiently big or open to accommodate so many people. Biodiversity: The toll on flora and fauna caused by the construction process cannot be undone. The site chosen for the relocation of WWTP for this development will suffer. Discouraging car use: Not everyone will be able to walk or cycle to work. As people age or their families grow they will be reliant on cars. I understand that to register for this consultation my name will be published with my comment, but that, in line with your privacy statement, my contact details and other personal information will not. Yours sincerely,

Hello, Thank you for your reply. I am reassured by the explanation and no longer see the plans as wishful. I understand the planning process is supported by the nascent Area Action Plan and this has significant weight. I would like to see even more beyond that to ensure key principles are upheld and cannot be overridden by a developer appealing a rejected application. Key principles such as not requiring or enabling most residents to have a car for example. I am wondering what can be done through legislation to give the local planning process more ability to achieve it’s overt aims than it has currently. Yes, my comments can be published and yes I would like to be kept up to date by email. Many thanks for the work you are doing. Kind regards, Martin Willitts On 10 Aug 2020, at 09:25, North East Cambridge AAP <nec@greatercambridgeplanning.org> wrote: Dear Martin Willitts, Thank you for your comments and we can certainly add more to the FAQs to explain how the Area Action Plan will be enforced. The Area Action Plan, once adopted, will be a development plan document with substantial weight in the planning process. After that point, all planning applications in the area will have to show that they have fully addressed  the Area Action Plan policies.  Until the Area Action Plan is in place, it has more limited weight, although the further through the plan development process it goes, the more weight can be ascribed to it. Applications that are coming forward right now, have to be decided with reference to existing development plan documents such as the two adopted Local Plans for Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire but we also wish them to be aligned with the emerging Area Action Plan. We have provided guidance about how developers should achieve this in our Development Management guidance online. Please do let us know if you wish your comments to be registered as part of the consultation on the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan which is currently open at www.greatercambridgeplanning.org/nec? If so, please be aware that your name will be published alongside your comments, but your contact details and other personal information will not. For this reason we require you to confirm that you are happy with this, in accordance with our Privacy Statement. Please do respond to this email to confirm you wish your comments to be registered. It would also be helpful to know if you would like to be kept up to date via email, with this and other planning consultations in the future. Kind regards Greater Cambridge Planning Policy, Strategy & Economy Team <image001.jpg> https://www.scambs.gov.uk/planning/ https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/planning Greater Cambridge Shared Planning: a strategic partnership between Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils Want to work in one of the most exciting and dynamic areas in the Country? Join us here at the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service From: Sent: 09 August 2020 13:15 To: North East Cambridge AAP <nec@greatercambridgeplanning.org> Subject: Enforcement Hello, I’ve been reading the FAQs on https://www.greatercambridgeplanning.org/emerging-plans-and-guidance/north-east-cambridge-area-action-plan/frequently-asked-questions/. Given the way things have gone with the development work around Cambridge Station I am concerned the Area Action Plan will remain a dream and developers will ride rough-shod over it. I’d like to see something in the FAQs or elsewhere that shows how the plan will be enforced and some sense that the relevant authority has the ‘teeth’ to ensure the plan’s aims are achieved. Martin Willitts Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived

Sent: 09 September 2020 14:35 To: North East Cambridge AAP <nec@greatercambridgeplanning.org> Subject: Re: Comments on Draft NE Cambridge Action Plan Yes, please do Happy for name to be published Richard On 9 Sep 2020, at 14:30, North East Cambridge AAP <nec@greatercambridgeplanning.org> wrote: Dear Richard, Can you confirm if you wish your comments to be registered as part of the consultation on the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan which is currently open at www.greatercambridgeplanning.org/nec? If so, please be aware that your name will be published alongside your comments, but your contact details and other personal information will not. For this reason we require you to confirm that you are happy with this, in accordance with our Privacy Statement. Please do respond to this email to confirm you wish your comments to be registered. It would also be helpful to know if you would like to be kept up to date via email, with this and other planning consultations in the future. Greater Cambridge Planning Policy, Strategy & Economy Team <image001.jpg> https://www.scambs.gov.uk/planning/ https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/planning Greater Cambridge Shared Planning: a strategic partnership between Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils Want to work in one of the most exciting and dynamic areas in the Country? Join us here at the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service From: Sent: 08 September 2020 09:36 To: North East Cambridge AAP <nec@greatercambridgeplanning.org> Subject: Comments on Draft NE Cambridge Action Plan Dear Planners Forgive me, but although I have read the online documentation, I don’t want to comment on all your consultation questions, but just to make a few observations. 1. The balance of homes:jobs is most unsatisfactory and quite inadequate. Cambridge is short of housing: so where are the other jobholders expected to live? Please change the balance more in favour of homes. 2. The notion of ‘outsourcing’ green spaces to other existing ones is preposterous. They are busy enough already and this just seems like ‘fiddling the books’ to show that you are compliant with national regulations.The new area needs its own! 3. I want to congratulate you on the cycling and walking connections. Approve++ ! 4. Also want to support the 0.5 cars per new home. However, how to implement this and enforce rogue parking needs be be thought through in advance. (I live on an estate where illicit parking is becoming a problem because of a) lack of forethought as to implementation/enforcement and b) council dilatory in adopting the area, allowing abuse to flourish and, probably, entrench.) regards Richard Richard Wakeford

2.1.6 Planning context p32 para 3 - Object The Minerals and Waste plan 2011 currently safeguards the existing water treatment works site. As noted on page 32 the Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire Adopted 2018 Local Plans both state that: ‘a new treatment works facility either elsewhere or on the current site would be assessed’. This approach and review options were also reflected in the 2014 and 2019 Issues and Options consultations. However, para 32 advises that the feasibility studies are now complete and relocation off-site is the option moving forward, yet no evaluation, or the basis for this decision, appears to have been published, addressing the options for a smaller more cost effective, expedient development, retaining the Water Treatment Works in its current location. The draft plan acknowledges that the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant, is an essential piece of infrastructure that serves Cambridge and surrounding areas, but the draft plan is currently in contravention of the adopted Local Plans and Minerals and Waste Plan.

Open your eyes to what a lovely place we live in and let's keep it beautiful.

Dear Councillors North East Cambridge Area Action Plan I am very concerned about your vision for North East Cambridge on the following grounds: Need for the development: Is this the right time to be planning such a large development of very high-density housing? We are in times of economic crisis when Covid-19 has meant a change to working practices. I also question the need for over 275,000 square metres of new business space when office blocks up and down the country are standing empty and could be converted to residential accommodation. The project needs to be totally rethought given the realities of the post COVID social and economic situation. Connected and integrated: This relies on people being able to walk or cycle to work. It presupposes that everyone living there will be young and active and remain that way. Communities are a mixture of all ages and abilities, but this development does not appear to cater for all of them. The demographic seems to be unnaturally narrow. Building heights and density: Such high density is not appropriate for this area. One- and two-bedroom dwellings in 13 storey blocks could lead to social isolation and lack of community feeling. Such buildings have already been tried and failed both in terms of residents’ physical and mental wellbeing and in terms of community relations. Furthermore, your planning doesn’t sufficiently cater for growing families. Again, the importance of access to safe spaces has been highlighted by the pandemic and should act as a lesson for future planning. High rise blocks of flats are not acceptable. Open places: Whatever open spaces are planned they cannot compensate for the loss of the wide open spaces of the Green Belt where the new WWTP is expected to be sited. Milton Country Park is not sufficiently big or open to accommodate so many people and it is already used to capacity. Other green spaces are few and far between and often already overly full. Biodiversity: The negative impact on flora and fauna caused by the construction process cannot be undone. The site chosen for the relocation of WWTP to enable this development will suffer immeasurably and catastrophically. You are using a brown field site but destroying other sites of irreplaceable value. This goes against all current wisdom and urgently needs to be reconsidered. Discouraging car use: Not everyone is able to walk or cycle to work. As people age or their families grow, they will become reliant on cars. The development does not take this into consideration. Nor does it give a realistic estimate of car use during autumn and winter months. Additional points to consider: The community has been planned with a secondary school possibly being built later. This is unacceptable and again suggests a narrow and exclusive demographic, if families with teenage children are not being catered for. The planning of this development already had significant shortcomings but given the massive shifts in society resulting from Covid 19, this project now needs to be totally rethought, as it is no longer appropriate or fit for purpose. Yours sincerely, Jennifer Krombacher I understand that to register for this consultation my name will be published with my comment, but that, in line with your privacy statement, my contact details and other personal information will not.

From: Sent: 01 September 2020 08:43 To: LocalPlan (GC) <localplan@greatercambridgeplanning.org> Subject: Cambridge needs better skate parks! Hello, I have looked at the plan for north east Cambridge and feel it's imperative that your team considers the build of a better skatepark. Cambridge is behind the curve, skateboarding and urban sports are at the begining of a boom. Especially with England's Sky Brown competing in the Olympics. I started a group specifically for girls called girlskatecambridgeshire, many girls have to travel outside of Cambridge to go to a skatepark. We are an amazing hub for science, engineering and technology, business is booming and yet we are leaving our young people behind and letting them down! We have some of the worst skate parks in the UK, awful designs such as huge ramps stuck in parks that no one can use. We need open, flat ground with smaller ramps and seating areas. This needs to change! Please consider building a new park or putting some money into existing parks with you plans. Many thanks Taya Field From: Thea Field Sent: 01 September 2020 14:20 To: LocalPlan (GC) <localplan@greatercambridgeplanning.org> Subject: Re: FW: Cambridge needs better skate parks! Hello, Thank you for your email and yes please, I would like to be involved in any plans to build a new skatepark and am happy to voice this need to the council. I think it's very important that skaters have a say in any builds happening in the future so that parks can be made accessible! Many thanks, Thea

South Cambridgeshire District Council Cambourne Business Park Our ref: PL00545646 Cambourne Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB23 6EA Our ref: 29 September 2020 Dear Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Team North East Cambridge Area Action Plan – Reg 18 Draft Consultation 2020 Thank you for your consultation in respect of the above document. As the Government’s adviser on the historic environment Historic England is keen to ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully taken into account at all stages and levels of the local planning process. Our detailed comments are listed in the attached document, Appendix A. Our two key areas of concern relate to firstly the density and heights of development within the site and the potential impact of that upon the historic environment, and secondly the lack of a policy for the historic environment in the Plan. a) Building heights, densities and setting in relation to the historic environment We welcome the on-going work you are undertaking in relation to building heights, densities and setting in relation to the historic environment. As you know, we are very concerned about the current building heights and densities being proposed within this area as part of the Area Action Plan and the potential impact upon heritage assets and the wider historic setting of the City. We are also concerned that decisions regarding height and density are evidence-based and informed by the evidence, not simply justified by retrospective evidence. We look forward to continuing to work with you on this aspect of the Plan. b) Lack of policy for the historic environment Whilst we appreciate that the historic environment is addressed to some degree in the design and heights policies, it is our view that the Plan would benefit from a specific policy for the historic environment. Fuller discussion of this is provided in Appendix A but in essence, we consider that there is also a case for a specific historic environment policy to address this particular strategic site. The policy should cover nearby heritage assets and the need to conserve and where appropriate enhance these, discuss the wider setting of the historic city and should make clear 3004 p Historic England NIA Historic England, Brooklands, 24 Brooklands Avenue, Cambridge CB2 8BU Telephone 01223 58 2749 HistoricEngland.org.uk Please note that Historic England operates an access to information policy. Correspondence or information which you send us may therefore become publicly available. the approach to archaeology within the site (we suggest further discussion with the County Council in this regard). Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment. If you have any questions with regards to the comments made then please do get back to me. In the meantime we look forward to continuing to work with you and your colleagues. Debbie Mack Historic Environment Planning Adviser

36 Strategic Objectives: Object There is still nothing within the strategic objectives about the importance of the historic environment and in particular that development of this area protects and enhances the wider setting of the city of Cambridge as well as responding to individual heritage assets such as the conservation areas etc. Please include reference to this in your objectives Suggested Change: Include reference to the historic environment in the objectives, in particular, the need to protect and enhance the wider setting of the city of Cambridge as well as responding to individual heritage assets such as the nearby conservation areas etc.

39 Figure 10: Support We welcome the landscape buffer shown on figure 10 along the edge of Chesterton Fen. We consider this important in softening the edge of the built development and protecting the setting of the City more generally.

48 Figure 13: Object A small point but increased floor to ceiling heights will inevitably increase overall building height. We need to be careful about how building heights are expressed in terms of storeys or metres as clearly floor to ceiling heights will have a bearing on this. This will need to be factored into any work on taller buildings and heritage currently being undertaken. Suggested Change: Factor in ceiling heights in work on taller buildings and heritage impact

79 Design Codes: Object Design Codes We welcome reference to a design code for the area which will help to create a well-designed place that sits well within the landscape and responds to local heritage. These paragraphs could be further improved by specifically referencing the historic environment and local building materials etc. Suggested Change: Include reference to historic environment, building materials and local vernacular

107 Figure 23 Residential Densities We continue to have significant concerns that the densities shown on this Plan are simply too high for the Cambridge context. We also note that there seem to be some discrepancies between the densities in figure 2 and the building heights in figure 21. E.g. an area shown as 5-6 storeys also having a density of 350dph. It might be useful to have some comparative examples of densities in much the same way as you have done for heights and green spaces. Suggested Change: Include examples of comparative densities in Cambridge and elsewhere. Verify the mapping of figures 21 and 23 which would appear to show some discrepancies.

135 6.1 Jobs: Comment Employment Land Clearly Covid 19 is having a major impact upon employment patterns and places of work. It seems likely that some of the changes experienced during this time may lead to lasting impacts. It will be important that plans are flexible enough to cope with this changing circumstance and the changing nature of employment workspace requirements including within the home. Suggested Change: Ensure that plans are flexible enough to cope with the changing circumstance in relation to employment patterns and the changing nature of employment workspace requirements including within the home.