Question 4

Mostly not

Slightly concerned that there would be 20,000 additional jobs but only 8,000 homes - this means a large proportion of workers would commute from outside the area. Very important to limit car parking spaces for any new businesses, otherwise the level of long distance, unsustainable car trips is likely to be high. Given that one of the guiding principles is to be low-carbon, the proportion of houses/jobs should be reconsidered or strict anti-car measures put in place.

Neutral

I am really interested to see the balance between the new homes and the new schools and new doctor surgeries, etc.

Mostly yes

It seems rather unfortunate to have the whole west side of the development business with not even a small area of residential space!

Mostly not

Include a care home so that there is a greater chance of having low paid workers who will not need to commute. Insufficient evidence that awareness of the type of jobs that are low paid have been catered for in the planning of the area. The target of 60% affordable homes depends on this. The risk is that you will increase commuting which we do not want, even in the possibly unlikely case that all will use public transport/cycle/walk into town.

Not at all

These aren't homes, they're high rise flats. No families will want to live in them long term.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Yes, completely

No answer given

Mostly not

My office is here and yet I've heard nothing about the plan. Are you planning to bulldoze it without telling me?

Neutral

All homes should be genuinely affordable

Mostly yes

Good plan to provide a good mix of jobs and homes. I am not entirely convinced that the plan will work in that the established/ current large concentration of jobs on the Science Park and Business parks is supported by a large number of staff who commute in from a wide rage of villages and outlying towns. Providing new homes in the area is unlikely to change the balance of staff commuting into work in the short term, especially as many have become used to home working in recent months. The strategy would be more viable if new business/ commercial buildings and companies were being established at the same time as the new homes

Mostly yes

I'm interested in how the new dwellings being built will act to serve the wider community, as the new 8,000 homes will best serve the large number of jobs held by those in the surrounding area, mainly the science and business park etc. The balance between jobs and new homes seems fair, however I feel it would be good if areas were built in such a way that they

Neutral

New business space I would assume will be more towards high-tech. and less "industrial" (compared to what is on the sites today, e.g. the car garages on Milton Road, and the Trinity Hall Farm industrial estate (sites E, F, G, and I on the map). If this is the case, I would have concerns that the _types_ of jobs on offer will be radically different, which will mean fewer jobs for more manual/lower-paid workers.

Mostly yes

It is vital that as many people take the train as possible. Having homes close to Cambridge North station is very important. As the number of users increases it should lead to an even better train service there. I am very concerned that this is all being done without any joined-up enhancements to the railway. The station has minimal facilities e.g. inadequate toilets, insufficient ticket machines etc. This situation will only be exacerbated if the number of passengers increases to three million, at the development would imply. The station must be improved. I note that the target was 800,000 per year in the third year. This was exceeded before the station had been open for 2.5 years.

Not at all

The people working skilled jobs won't want to live in the flats being proposed. Less office space and larger houses would be a more 21st century approach

Mostly not

Concerned with plans for 8000 homes as the only way I can see this is achievable is via blocks of flats. Lockdown (especially in cities) has highlighted the importance of garden spaces and the ability for people to get outside. Also need to make priority that housing works for women (who are often at home more), e.g. open spaces so can cook and watch children at same time. If you come in with a car load of shopping you can get it through the front door relatively easily rather than feeling like a climb up Ben Nevis. Good to mix industrial, housing and schools in same areas as allows dropping of children at school and onto work, however this is only applicable if the people who live in NEC do work in the area and don't commute somewhere down the road in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor as not all businesses will be close to the railway line

Mostly yes

Good to encourage new jobs and new homes but not at the expense of green fields required to re-site the existing Anglian Water treatment plant currently occupying the site.

Mostly yes

Social housing please...!

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

Just too difficult to respond. See for example "the accelerating pace of change" and its impact upon computing power & applied technology. So please set the scene - make the critical assumptions & then ask for comment. reference: https://www.singularity2050.com/

Not at all

There should be no new jobs in Cambridge whatsoever. This is because there is already a shortage of housing in Cambridge, so that creating more jobs will lead to a need for more houses or more commuting, both of which are very undesirable. Cambridge thrives only because it is small - the bigger it is allowed to get, the less it will thrive.

Mostly yes

It is the right balance as long as you retain the 40% affordable and do not water it down, which is what usually happens when it comes to granting planning consents, the local councils are frequently bought off with other facilities!

Mostly not

What does "genuinely affordable" even mean? Why haven't you defined it? Am I just supposed to assume what ever I want about this statement?

Not at all

Are the houses of decent size or small boxes? Please look up the definition of affordable housing. Rented isnt the same as affordable housing, and shared ownership, it depends on the %. Why not just build homes people can afford to buy, or is the aim to push out your idea of undesirables

Mostly not

Too many homes for the space and not enough affordable housing

Yes, completely

Maximise density, Cambridge needs all the homes it can get at all tenures. Business uses on ground floor - variety of spaces, not just for 'hipster uses' but also light industrial less glamorous uses. Also good mechanisms need to be in place to ensure developers don't hijack viability statements to drive down affordable / social housing. Need provision for new council - developed social housing.

Mostly not

Rented is okay for very new workers, but shared ownership is a poor way to bridge the gap into owning a home. It ties you fully to a developers view of their value and opens you to a lot of risk of equity loss. As such, many people are not interested in this market, and would not be willing to engage in these homes, leaving a large gap in the population

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly yes

I'm concerned about what "genuinely affordable" means - I hope there will be proper social housing. I also generally think high-density housing is the most environmentally friendly and "future-proofed" option, so I hope this is being incorporated. This would allow for more free space for public parks, sitting areas etc.