Question 1
After COVID, building such high density compact housing (in greater density than London or Paris) seems totally crazy! None of my colleagues or friends want to buy or rent a flat with no garden and limited access to outdoor space. There's no appetite to pay over the odds for close access to the city, when workers now have greater flexibility to work remotely; they are looking for housing in the villages outside of Cambridge, instead of living centrally. The world has changed in the last 6 months and your plans should be updated to reflect this.
No uploaded files for public display
Covers all aspects
No uploaded files for public display
Post-Civid unrealistic
No uploaded files for public display
Reassess need for this size or development; it is inappropriate post- Brexit and during pandemic with different working practices, e.g. home working, so no need for so much commercial and retail space James Palmer on Radio 4 Rethinking Cities said how important it is to keep green spaces; moving the WWTP to a Green belt site to make way for houses and commercial property negates this. The size and density is inappropriate on the edge of the beautiful city of Cambridge and the flat fenland landscape; denser than London , higher than Uni Library Phasing is 2030 – 2035 – when WWTP moves in two years its site will be derelict and open to crime and drug abuse You claim that Milton Road will not be affected but with 8K houses at 0.5 cars per house there will be 4000 cars for residents and more for commercial and retail
No uploaded files for public display
The plans as described sound good. Whilst there is no doubt that this development will greatly impact the village of Milton, the focus on biodiversity and on integration with the existing community is welcomed. If these objectives are kept at the forefront of plans and ultimate development then the plans will I believe be positive for Cambridge and for Milton and surroundings
No uploaded files for public display
Cycling and transport that doesn't involve cars is incredibly important. Cambridge is already overfull with cars and having safe spaces to walk and cycle is vital.
No uploaded files for public display
Having spent more than an hour completing the 10 questions only to find one (Q10) has been received, I will try once more. It is good to be considering 'green/quality of life' issues but overall the proposal is too ambitious in terms of planned housing and office accommodation. I find the proposal to have accommodation of up to 13 storeys high appalling. No other recent large scale development ( Eddington, Trumpington, Newmarket Road, Hauxton) has done this and it should not be considered for this location. It would be a blight on the landscape for surrounding villages.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
I am particularly keen on the vision of planning around walking, cycling and public transport.
No uploaded files for public display
The size and scope of the City as a whole is too small in relation to its geo-political, cultural, scientific and industrial importance and an expansion in the NE is a good step to toward addressing this. However the plan as presented in the presentations I have seen seems not to see this as important or either to concentrate on aspects of the plan that are designed to address areas that are of concern to opponents of expansion. As portrayed the the plan seems to envisage the development in relation to Cambridge or its own locality. The idea that the area may have contact with the rest of the East of England or London seems to be ignored. In particular the plan does not seem to envisage the idea that people working in area may not live in Cambridge or that people living in the area my work or study elsewhere that is not already connected to the area.
No uploaded files for public display
This development does not take into consideration the changes that have taken place due to COVID. This needs to be re-evaluated and re-planned in light of social and economic changes. There are many empty offices and factories in the area that could be utilised in new ways and incorporated into existing infrastructure of the city. Cambridge does not require a development of this density.
No uploaded files for public display
Needs more open space provided by developers. Not just relying on Cambridge's open spaces eg Parkers Piece, Lammas Land etc. Unless you are stacking residents in like sardines?
No uploaded files for public display
I think that a new development in North East Cambridge is an exciting and most importantly necessary step to help solve challenges related to housing which can help to combat the climate emergency and create a greener society. As a result, I would appreciate a commitment to social housing during the development, something that is especially important given Coronavirus where we need to help ensure that we can provide housing to those that need it. I appreciate the development's commitment to climate, and I think access to public transport is an important part of this, but so is access to green space. Green space is a much valued part of any community, especially where housing density means that households go without gardens of their own and are important to preventing the effects of climate change like the development proposes it is so committed to.
No uploaded files for public display
While it has been recognised that public open space is vital if a heavily populated residential area is to function properly as a community, it is clear that the amount of open spaces marked out in this framework falls significantly short of the council’s own policy requirement for a development of this size. This is despite that fact there is already a shortage of public open space in the surrounding urban area of North Cambridge.
No uploaded files for public display
The open green space is insufficient according to your own standards, let alone what we should be expecting in a modern development. This will result in a densely built-up area, although with a lot of private gardens. It is deeply inadequate to rely on green spaces "adjacent" to the development area - these spaces are providing much needed space for the wider area, and increased density of the area under consultation will increase the overall density of the whole area of NE Cambridge beyond the new development. I am sure that you will argue when it suits you that this consultation covers only the area of the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan, so you cannot be expected to consider the overall density of the whole of NE Cambridge. In which case, I then postulate a counter-argument that if this consultation covers only the area of the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan, then the open spaces requirement *must* be met from within the area of this action plan. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
No uploaded files for public display
The amount of open spaces marked out in the framework seems very low. Public open space at the heart of a densely populated residential site like this is vital to create a healthy new community, especially considering the notable shortage in the surrounding urban area of North Cambridge.
No uploaded files for public display
There are a lot of good things in the proposal but there isn't enough recreational space for the amount of housing. The amount of open spaces marked out in the framework falls significantly short of the council’s own policy requirement for a development of this size. Generous public open space at the heart of a densely populated residential site like this is vital to create a healthy new community, especially considering the notable shortage in the surrounding urban area of North Cambridge.
No uploaded files for public display
Covid has shown density of housing to be bad. This is 3-4 times denser housing than Eddington No health facilities no bus depot no sport or swimming facilities. Nowhere near enough green space. Milton road will be jammed with traffic leading to air pollution and illness.
No uploaded files for public display
The amount of outside space, particularly important in the post-Covid world, is grossly inadequate and in fact falls well below the Council's own modest standards. North west Cambridge is poorly served by open public spaces and this development, proposed to house 18,000, will exacerbate the situation.
No uploaded files for public display
There are insufficient open spaces and parks in this city and the ones that we have are being overcrowded, paths are downtrodden and widened and new ones made over grassy spaces from the sheer volume of people using them. Soon there will be few parks with open green spaces but lots of beaten earth. We should protect and preserve the lovely ones we have and create more new spaces for this massive increase in population in our city. The amount of open spaces marked out in the framework falls significantly short of the council’s own policy requirement for a development of this size. Generous public open space at the heart of a densely populated residential site like this is vital to create a healthy new community, especially considering the notable shortage in the surrounding urban area of North Cambridge in particular.
No uploaded files for public display
I think the vision is a good one, but it will require determination to see it through. There have been far too many developments recently where cars have been 'discouraged' only for this to be ignored by residents (even more likely in a post-COVID world where anxiety about mass public transport is likely to remain high). The result is cars cluttering spaces not designed for them, or pushing out from their immediate location and causing parking challenges in other neighbourhoods.
No uploaded files for public display
The amount of open spaces marked out in the framework falls significantly short of the council’s own policy requirement for a development of this size. Generous public open space at the heart of a densely populated residential site like this is vital to create a healthy new community, especially considering the notable shortage in the surrounding urban area of North Cambridge. Furthermore I am concerned that the area is already lacking sports facilites and structures and with population stedily growing the situation won't improve.
No uploaded files for public display
Little Abington Parish Council recognises the need to upgrade the area of NE Cambridge that is under consideration. It will offer an opportunity to increase the housing supply close to the city centre. Initiatives to discourage motor traffic, make excellent provision for non-motorised traffic, increase biodiversity and to provide plenty of open space are welcome. Although the proposals include opportunities for local employment it will be important to ensure there is adequate traffic management for routes into and out of Cambridge City. At present routing is not clear and there is rat running through residential areas. Several Abington residents work on or visit the nearby Science Park. They will probably continue to drive there unless there are efficient direct public transport routes across the city.
No uploaded files for public display
It's a meaningless blurb. Orchard Park had much the same blurb and look how badly that turned out.
No uploaded files for public display
This is a excellent idea
No uploaded files for public display
The vision is laudable, however, it is unclear whether this vision can actually be achieved. A coordinating body, with expertise in sustainability, will be essential to ensure that sustainability is integrated through all of the decisions - this was key in the success of the Olympics for example.
The vision and principles described sound good and support cycling and walking in the new district and surrounding areas. But how likely are they to be realised? Will this new district be another area that brings congestion and problems to nearby communities rather than benefits? Do the profits of landowners and developers have more influence than the needs of the local community?
No uploaded files for public display
The vision is sound, however, we have concerns that the current plans will not deliver the vision, specifically: - In terms of environmental impact: 1) the biodiversity impact is insufficient - doubling is the regional target, a 10% increase is paltry, 2) water usage per head at 110l ppd is far too high - compare to Eddington at 80l ppd, 3) there is no specific commitment to green energy / district heating, 4) lack of green space - 10ha for 8,000 dwellings vs 90ha in Trumpington developments for 3,500 dwellings - Insufficient provision of community facilities: 1) only passive provision for a secondary school, 2) no new sports pitches / swimming pool, 3) no cultural venue, 4) independent shops concept dropped - Transport issues will mean that it is not firmly integrated into the surrounding community. E.g. given the number of proposed jobs created vs number of residential developments created, simple maths says that many employees will have to commute, so discouraging cars within the development will be meaningless as no additional public transport provision or road congestion solutions are proposed.
No uploaded files for public display
Your vision for NE Cambridge does not get my support. The sewage works should stay where it is; the site at Cowley Road was chosen more than 125 years ago because of its ideal geography and geology. It occupies a brownfield site that is in use; the site is NOT redundant and should not, therefore, be available for a different use. The councils concluded at the end of the first misguided attempt to relocate the works in early 2008 to stay at the existing site and you will discover that there was far more support for the works staying where it is than the alternatives in the recent consultation carried out by Anglian Water. The communities in villages north-east of Cambridge, and citizens living in east Cambridge, know that relocating the works is unacceptable because of the resultant impact on their quality of life and their increasingly precious environments. You, our representatives on the councils, must recognise and accept this. Furthermore, relocation to a site on the Green Belt is completely unacceptable, and, most seriously of all, so is the carbon cost of relocating to another site rather than improving the existing one and reducing the area it is located on.
No uploaded files for public display
The words are largely fine motherhood stuff, ticking lots of boxes, but much of the detail is hugely flawed. A fundamental problem right at the beginning is that this tries to tick a lot of Green boxes, whilst dumping the Waste Treatment Plant onto Green Belt - something with is very un-green. The two cannot simply be divorced - you cannot simply say that the re-location is Anglian Water's problem and you have nothing to do with it - and unless a location can be found for the treatment plant which itself does not damage the environment, bio-diversity and all the other good things, then claiming that this development is Green is bogus and highly disingenuous. A second point concerns the restriction on cars, which I've said more about in that section. It seems fundamentally wrong to have a vision which so completely tries to change the social mobility of a community from outgoing, and able to participate in stuff around the county and around the country, to one which is constrained to living their almost their entire life outside of work in one (rather cramped) space, going only so far as they can safely cycle, or to places which fortuitously have a connected rail station. If a sensible provision of space for cars, to at least one per household, is not possible, then the number of households should be constrained to fit.
No uploaded files for public display