Question 3

Mostly yes

Include large supermarket

Neutral

It is good that leisure and recreational facilities are being planned within this development in order to keep access times down for residents. Better provision should be made towards the western end of the site where provision could also be accessed by residents of the Kings Hedges area. Provision around the railway station is good. There is an underinvestment in sports facilities - this area is in need of a public swimming pool facility like the Abbey Pool and Sports Centre.

Neutral

Wherever these areas are will take the emphasis away from our beautiful city centre which already has closing retail and restaurants. We have enough and dont need any more.

Mostly yes

I would like to see more sporting facilities

Neutral

Probably not if the housing does not appeal to the people the centres have been planned for.

Neutral

We would prefer to see more emphasis given to encouraging sport and physical activity within the centres. We would also like to see Sport England's 'Active Design' document referenced in the plan: https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can-help/facilities-and-planning/design-and-cost-guidance/active-design

Mostly yes

Park, library and arts hub sound good, as do local shops. Important that the areas are pedestrianised, so they feel like accessible places to just be, and not just places to shop. Can we request a dentist as one of the local services.

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

Reference to 'sports' facilities is very limited. Swimming was mentioned but I can't see where any facility has been included.

Neutral

I support the new centres being located at the junctions of strategic cycling and walking routes which will help the district’s residents access facilities safely and easily. I also support the main district centre being located on a key route from Milton to East Chesterton and close to the Busway cycleway. This will mean that the library, health centre and arts hub are easily accessible and therefore of great benefit to surrounding communities. I support the recommendation that no single proposal for retail or services should be permitted if it is large enough to generate need for a car park, but generous amounts of secure cycle parking should be provided at centres along with shuttle bus stops and space for disabled car parking. There is a lack of sports and leisure facilities such as a swimming pool – an ideal place for these would be close to the station and bus terminus to allow easy car-free access for people travelling from outside the new district. The Science Park local centre should be located further away from King’s Hedges Road and the main western access road into the site to improve safety for people walking and cycling and avoid attracting drive-past visitors. There is a noticeable lack of facilities within the west of the site which will remain a business-led Science Park with no housing or even a concert venue (which could double as a conference venue).This will mean it will remain quiet at night and may feel unsafe for people walking and cycling. I also support Cambridge Past, Present and Future’s recommendation to relocate industrial units and the aggregates railhead to the north-east corner of the site with a separate industrial access road added alongside the A14, which would remove large amounts of heavy traffic from the main route through the district.

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly not

The central planning of community has historically failed. The need to cycle or walk again limits access, it cuts off access from the outside and makes the whole development visitor free, further socially isolating it. Visiting Eddington and Orchard Park is a nightmare. You need lots of play areas, where children can actually play, not like the shut off greenery at the Cambridge main station development.

Mostly yes

There appear to be no plans for sport facilities (unless I missed it). It seems to make sense to have sports facilities close to work so workers can go here before or after work (in an attempt to reduce congestion in rush hours). Locals can use the facilities in evening and weekends, so a nice "spread" could be achieved. Will there be sufficient bicycle parking near the various facilities? In the town centre we seem to be short of cycle parking/facilities, by about a factor of 4. (Even mid day on weekdays I struggle finding a place to park my bike, and there are ALWAYS spaces for my car in the Grafton car park, even in the weekend.)

Not at all

No. The details are too vague and there do not appear to be adequate leisure or cultural facilities, or any plan for how these would integrate with the surrounding communities.

Not at all

The whole proposed development is in the wrong place. Cambridge is already overcrowded and consequently overpriced. Location of new business parks should be elsewhere in the region, spreading the prosperity and providing local jobs and avoiding the expansion of Cambridge itself.

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly yes

Centres are in the right place. Issue is in the detail of what is provided in each centre and how it is incorporated into the design. Supporting documentation speaks of using innovative design. There is much to be learnt from Hong Kong where there are examples of really poor public realm design - usually where the ground floor of multi-storey buildings comprise blank walls or the premises are closed outside the working day. But there are also some exceptionally good design examples. The use of "podiums" providing public space (for shops and entertainment) typically occupying the two lower floors of a multi-storey building works well. Especially where (as in the UK) at times the weather is poor. There doesn't appear to be sufficient provision - or maybe it is not clear - for onsite leisure activity. A cinema, for example. Where is the provision for young adults to hang out, whether skateboarding or doing something quieter?

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

The Cowley Road and District centres are well-located on key cycling and walking routes with good access from neighbouring communities. Having a centre around the station also makes sense. However, the Science Park centre needs to be positioned away from the busy road junction. There should also be more sports and leisure facilities within the area and a broader mix of land-use within the west of the site.

Mostly yes

I'm interested to know how this will affect the Cowley Road industrial estate, where I work. From the diagram above it looks like the District Centre will be directly adjacent. It would be good for them to be well-integrated with one another and for the council to consider the impact on businesses in the industrial estate during construction. It's good that the four hubs seem well spaced and that they are easily accessible by bike and on foot.

Neutral

The Science Park centre needs to be positioned away from the busy road junction. There should also be more sports and leisure facilities within the area and a broader mix of land-use within the west of the site.

Mostly not

Too many jobs in comparison to homes which will increase the number of people travelling into the area from outside and therefore unable to walk or cycle to work, creating more traffic around the whole of North Cambridge and the A14. A variety of jobs in an area of mixed-use buildings is welcomed.

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly yes

The recognition of the need to provide a health centre as part of the district centre is welcomed. The details of which need to be discussed with the NHS Cambridge and Peterborough CCG as part of the Plan forming process to ensure that the right provision is made at the right time to support the growth location.

Neutral

The Science Park centre needs to be positioned away from the busy road junction. There should also be more sports and leisure facilities within the area and a broader mix of land-use within the west of the site.

Neutral

Sports and leisure facilities are needed, appropriate for the 20,000 capacity. Centres should be positioned away away from busy road junctions.

Neutral

The positioning of the centres seems less critical than the actual development that is carried out there and how effectively it is planned and managed to meet the evolving needs of the community. Maintaining high architectural standards and aiming for centres that are primarily driven by community need rather than commercial opportunity is key. Being overly prescriptive about the the make-up of these centres, given the likely changes we will see to patterns of living and working over the next 20 years, would be inadvisable.

Mostly not

How will the Science Park integrate as there is little housing. Hopefully the new developments will not look like the Brookgate development around the station which is soulless. There is nothing to connect arrival at Cambridge North to a beautiful city like Cambridge. Hopefully some of the local shops will be independents that people can easily walk and cycle to. More sports and leisure facilities needed.

Mostly not

The locations seem mostly sensible, although the Science Park centre is too close to a busy road. The mix of activities does not include enough sport and leisure.

Mostly not

Centres are only pursuing mass consumption. We need market stalls for local produce to be sold, and communal workshops, self-repair places (i.e. to fix bikes) and reuse/recycle centrrs were unwanted materials can be donated and picked for a circular economy.