Question 43. What do you think about densification?

Cambridge is characterised by inequality, its historic environment and green spaces are a testament to that inequality. Densification that is not distributed across the city will further inequality in the city. Wealthier wards must be undergo densification. Land assembly is not that challenging, densification for the purposes of housing or commercial development does not require significant land assembly along the lines of providing new transport infrastructure.

Seems like the best option, but shouldn't be at the expense of green areas in the city (including private gardens) or building tall multistorey buildings, which would not be in keeping with the character of the area. But good that it would preserve the green belt.

We support that in appropriate locations namely those well served by public transport, as per NPPF. The local plan needs to develop that into a more detailed policy approach for both residential and employment uses.

We support that in appropriate locations namely those well served by public transport, as per NPPF. The local plan needs to develop that into a more detailed policy approach.

It is a good approach but, within this, there are choices. Tall buildings in particular will not be appropriate close to historic, conservation and existing low level residential areas.

It presents the most sustainable option with respect to carbon emissions and preserving the countryside.

There can be no general answer without first identifying the location affected.

We support higher densities in appropriate locations namely those well-served by public transport, as per paragraph 102 of the NPPF. This is particularly the case in close proximity to railway stations. In the Local Plan, any general policy or policy for a specific allocation, should provide a view on an appropriate level of density at such locations, although should not be prescriptive on this matter.

We support higher densities in appropriate locations namely those well-served by public transport, as per paragraph 102 of the NPPF. In the Local Plan, any general policy or policy for a specific allocation, should provide a view on an appropriate level of density at such locations, although should not be prescriptive on this matter.

Densification is a good idea. Multi story buildings such as have been developed in the Accordia development provide a high-quality dense urban environment and reduce the need for private motor vehicle use.

We support higher densities in appropriate locations namely those well-served by public transport, as per paragraph 102 of the NPPF. This is particularly the case in close proximity to railway stations. In the Local Plan, any general policy or policy for a specific allocation, should provide a view on an appropriate level of density at such locations, although should not be prescriptive on this matter.

We support higher densities in appropriate locations namely those well-served by public transport, as per paragraph 102 of the NPPF. In the Local Plan, any general policy or policy for a specific allocation, should provide a view on an appropriate level of density at such locations, although should not be prescriptive on this matter.

We support higher densities in appropriate locations namely those well-served by public transport, as per paragraph 102 of the NPPF. In the Local Plan, any general policy or policy for a specific allocation, should provide a view on an appropriate level of density at such locations, although should not be prescriptive on this matter.

strongly agree

We support that in appropriate locations namely those well served by public transport, as per paragraph 122 of the NPPF. The local plan needs to develop that into a more detailed policy approach for both residential and employment uses.

We support that in appropriate locations namely those well served by public transport, as per paragraph 122 of the NPPF. The local plan needs to develop that into a more detailed policy approach for both residential and employment uses.

This would be a sustainable proposition but given the heritage and historic nature of much of the city centre and infrastructure constraints at some of the fringe sites, the College considers that densification alone will be unable to deliver the quantum of development that is needed for new homes and jobs over the plan period.

I support it!

We support that in appropriate locations namely those well served by public transport (e.g. Great Abington), as per NPPF.

This is a sensible option providing development respects and is in keeping with the historic environment.

We support that in appropriate locations namely those well served by public transport, as per paragraph 122 of the NPPF. The local plan needs to develop that into a more detailed policy approach for both residential and employment uses.

Densification should be an important part of the toolkit for meeting housing need. However, this should not be driven at the expense of the character of Greater Cambridgeshire’s settlements. As noted above, there are few opportunities remaining for brownfield development within villages; any sites that do come forward within villages or within Cambridge are likely to face numerous constraints, particularly heritage and impact on the amenity of surrounding properties, which may limit their potential for densification. Whilst densification should therefore be supported on a site-by-site basis, this would not be sufficient to accommodate the significant growth requirements of Greater Cambridge.

We support that in appropriate locations namely those well served by public transport, as per paragraph 122 of the NPPF. The local plan needs to develop that into a more detailed policy approach for both residential and employment uses.

We support higher densities in appropriate locations namely those well-served by public transport, as per paragraph 102 of the NPPF. This is particularly the case in close proximity to railway stations. In the Local Plan, any general policy or policy for a specific allocation, should provide a view on an appropriate level of density at such locations, although should not be prescriptive on this matter.

Quality building at increased density of well designed homes and businesses on land within the current Cambridge envelope will reduce the distances that need to be travelled and increase the attractiveness of sustainable transport options like cycling and walking for a greater proportion of journeys.

It is agreed that increasing densities at development in all locations (urban area, urban extensions, and new settlements etc.) is a valid policy approach. It is noted that Paragraph 117 of the NPPF encourages effective use of land and to make as much use as possible of previously developed land. Paragraph 122 supports the efficient use of land, and Paragraph 123 encourages higher densities particularly in areas where there is a shortage of land to meet identified development needs. However, there are a number of potential constraints to increasing densities and reusing previously developed land within Cambridge for the following reasons: • higher density development including taller buildings might not be appropriate in some part of the urban area affected by heritage assets; • the housing trajectory already assumes that a substantial number of previously developed sites would be redeveloped for housing, on sites where planning permission has been granted or are allocated in the Cambridge Local 2018. As such, there are few opportunities for additional development in the urban area that have not already been assessed and have some planning status in terms of an allocation or permission etc.; and • previously developed sites in the urban area are typically occupied by an existing use, but redevelopment for housing cannot start until an alternative site for the existing use is found, which can often be difficult where land values are high. Therefore, it is considered that higher densities within the urban area of Cambridge are not straightforward to achieve and are not always appropriate. In any event we do not consider that this approach would meet future development needs in full given the level of new housing we consider is required. It is considered that higher density development would be appropriate for development on the edge of Cambridge, subject to an assessment of impacts on landscape setting and heritage assets; the Eddington development at North West Cambridge provides an example where higher densities are being provided, as part of a high quality development that provides a mix of house types and supports a range of services and facilities. It is considered that higher density development on the edge of Cambridge is consistent with the concept of maintaining a compact city and supports the use of sustainable modes of transport.

Not keen on anything major but could be acceptable on brownfield sites, for example.

If the growth in the local economy is centred on Cambridge and its University and life sciences establishments, it makes sense to have as much commercial and residential development there as is reasonably possible. Particularly as development can be tied into existing infrastructure, including transport links.

NO high rise, max 4 stories flats, 2 stories semi-detached- Large green spaces with play grounds.

I do not like it and it can easily result in overcrowding.