Question 3

Mostly not

The Science park consists mainly of office blocks and some facilities but no housing is planned so there is little 'mix' on this part of the site. It looks positive to have more restaurants and shops on this part of the site, since there's almost nothing there at present, but it won't be used by people who live elsewhere in Cambridge or even on the east side of Milton Road unless there's something particularly attractive to get them there. It seems pointless to comment on the Brookgate development around the station, since planning permission has already been granted, but it looks as if this will set the tone for the whole development. The hotel next to the station is utterly hideous and this part of the development has little else to recommend it other than the station. It is difficult to comment without more detail on what is planned for these areas. It is extraordinary to me that there is no definite plan for a secondary school in a development that will house around 18,000 people, only some land that is earmarked should the need arise. What will happen to young people who need to go to schools nearby in the meantime? I realise that there is a plan for a community centre, but what will that involve? You say there's a plan for an 'arts hub', but exactly what IS this? As someone who's worked in the arts for 30 years, I know that for the arts to flourish requires appropriate spaces, leadership, funding etc - who knows if what you have in mind will be fit for purpose. And designating 100m/2 for 'cultural and community' activity in the science park seems derisory, at best.

Neutral

It's difficult to integrate the Science Park with a residential area since the former will shut down at night and not be used. The new development will largely be squeezed between the Science Park and the Brookgate site around the station which, again, is not residential.

Mostly yes

It will be good to have a library and restaurants within walking / cycling distance. Most of the needs of the North Cambridge community look as though they will be met.There's a health centre but no sports centre or pool. Will the community facilities be built first or will the existing local doctors and schools be expected to accommodate the new residents? They may be underused at first, but surely that is better than trying to access already over subscribed services.

Mostly yes

This seems alright.

Mostly yes

Bring in communal workspace projects/ something like the University's 'Makespace' with tools and share equipment and workshop space A swimming pool would be good artists studios Food hub and local food businesses (not just tescos etc. (the big names).

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly not

I think there should also be provision of outdoor spaces for recreation and exercise in the plan. The shops, restaurants and cafes should include local, independent ones to give a sense of community, not only be chains. There should be a mix of shops, not just supermarkets but also for clothing and other shopping to allow those local to shop there rather than battling to get into the city centre, especially by car as it is always incredibly congested on the roads into town, especially on weekends and at rush hour. Is one health centre and one school going to be enough for the number of households proposed as part of this development? There should be more than one park planned as part of this development.

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 which are underserved at the moment. 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 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

Is this the time to be building more offices? Many companies and employees are seeing the advantages of working from home for at least part of the week. Is there not the danger that new office blocks might stand half empty?

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly yes

Please can you work to avoid this becoming a concrete jungle of chain-shops and prets and ensure we prioritize local independent shops and business. Please provide green spaces as a part of this and ensure the walking and cycling infastructure is safe and joined up with surrounding areas.

Neutral

The four new centres proposed must be very carefully planned to avoid repeating problems seen in Cambridge. Cambridge City has been dubbed a ‘clone town’, reflecting the low diversity of its shopping facilities, dominated by large chain stores (https://neweconomics.org/2010/09/reimagining-high-street). I believe that the vision for North East Cambridge should be to create a circular economy, where everyone can afford to buy essential goods locally, where money and goods circulate within the local economy rather than flowing outwards to large corporations, and where minimal waste is generated. We welcome the focus on ‘creative local businesses’ and the provision of space for market stalls. It will be important to provide good facilities with suitable access that meet the needs of traders, learning from experiences in established markets (such Cambridge Market Square)

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly yes

Looks fine, hard to predict impact and use at the moment.

Mostly not

The four new centres proposed must be very carefully planned to avoid repeating problems seen in Cambridge. Cambridge City has been dubbed a ‘clone town’, reflecting the low diversity of its shopping facilities, dominated by large chain stores (https://neweconomics.org/2010/09/reimagining-high-street). I believe that the vision for North East Cambridge should be to create a circular economy, where everyone can afford to buy essential goods locally, where money and goods circulate within the local economy rather than flowing outwards to large corporations, and where minimal waste is generated. We welcome the focus on ‘creative local businesses’ and the provision of space for market stalls. It will be important to provide good facilities with suitable access that meet the needs of traders, learning from experiences in established markets (such Cambridge Market Square)

Mostly not

lack of leisure facilities and open space for the predicted number of residents

Not at all

The science park is office block monoculture and there is a lack of facilities to the overall mix. There appears to be a lack of control over Brookgate developments. 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 not

Such facilities are always promised but very rarely delivered.

Mostly yes

I would like to see more concrete proposals for sport and leisure facilities.

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 not

“Due to the built-up nature of the centres, surface water flooding should be mitigated in the design of the development and public realm” One of the centres is located on the First Public Drain area that has long had issues with surface water flooding. This needs to be taken more seriously.

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

The most important factor to me is that you create places of character. If you're going for density, you have to create urban chic. That means a much higher quality of architecture, and avoiding the disastrously bad "station square" problems in Cambridge's main station. You need to ask yourselves, is this going to be the coolest looking square in Cambridge, somewhere busy that will attract the best hipster coffee shop in town? If not, you haven't set the bar high enough - plans often disappoint, so you should aim high.

Neutral

The Cowley Road and District centres are well-located. 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 in the west side of the site.

Not at all

Waste water treatment is a key activity. The best place for the sewage works is in its existing location. Under the proximity principle the City should deal with its own waste and not dump it on the villages. Otherwise you should properly finance a relocation well away from residential areas and strategic sites.

Not at all

No. There should be a greater sense of a planned street-scape and open and integrated community. Cambridge is fast gaining a reputation as a city of ‘cloned’ modern development lacking in distinctiveness and diversity, and I would argue, a lack of the linked and open, green and planted spaces which define the local Cambridge urban (and to some extent semi-rural) ‘grain’.

Mostly not

No answer given

Neutral

I'd like to see the arts hub by CRC connecting young people and provising opportunities for them

Not at all

It is now entirely unclear that the Science Park will in any way feel physically united with the new residential area. Loss of an extensive green bridge, ideally in effect a road tunnel, means that Milton Road will remain a serious mental and physical barrier. Who is it intended that the Science Park 'local centre' will serve? Brookgate have already been allowed to set the tone immediately around Cambridge South with a huge bland hotel and a monolithic office block., This was a major error already made, and difficult now to rectify or re-balance. Of course their Phase 2 will include some shops as well as commercial space, but this will not soften the area immediately around the station which has been allowed to be spoiled. The intention was to enforce some assurance that independent providers of retail and hospitality would be prioritised. Failure to do this proactively will make the eventual mix bland and lacking in character.