Question 4

Not at all

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given

Yes, completely

It would be great if the new homes really are "genuinely affordable" and if you actually get a good amount of floorspace and quality for the price. Recent new developments (e.g. the one at the end of Lovell Road) are not what most people would class as "genuinely affordable"

Not at all

This is GROSS over expectation for workplaces and homes. This was put together before Covid 19 which professionals is going to change how and where people live and work. With so much development for businesses already approved in and around Cambridge this has a high chance of being a White Elephant. Cambourne has not developed into the business area the council expected and is unlikely to even with improved transport between Cambridge and Cambourne.

Neutral

Not sure.. Have you done your demographics? I really think because of the Covid 19 thing we have to rethink how we live and provide sustainable houses with green roofs whuch also are built to allow access to natural light to heat and cool the properties with biodiverse areas and trees to cut carbon emissions.. This will ensure healthier places and homes that have enough space for people to work from home

Neutral

Not sure.. Have you done your demographics? I really think because of the Covid 19 thing we have to rethink how we live and provide sustainable houses with green roofs whuch also are built to allow access to natural light to heat and cool the properties with biodiverse areas and trees to cut carbon emissions.. This will ensure healthier places and homes that have enough space for people to work from home

Not at all

No. What new quality jobs are being proposed?

Not at all

People are now working from home. You are creating work spaces that will be derelict from the moment they are built. Creating office or industrial space does not create jobs. Piling thousands of people in high rise flats does not create a community it creates a ghetto of impoverished miserable people who are constantly disturbed by or disturbing their neighbours. People need houses with gardens so they have space to create a community. Children who live in flats do not invite their friends over for play dates. Adults who live in flats do not invite friends over for a dinner party. Community occurs when people are proud of their home and environment and welcome others in. This design is no different from socially deprived estates around the country which encourage criminality and low self-esteem.

Not at all

People do not want to live right next door to industrial areas. They do not even want to live next door to office blocks. Lots of research shows that people function best when they can demarcate work form personal living space.

Neutral

I would recalculate the office space required for high skilled jobs considering that most people are working from home since the pandemic.

Not at all

Far to many dwellings in too small a space. Given the experience of lockdown people want gardens and green space, areas away from the city centre not crammed in like this. Similarly, at a time when office spaces are empty in city centres should we be creating this space now?

Mostly not

It's naive to assume that the new homes will be used by the staff of the planned retail and hotel spaces, and it's disingenuous to attempt to draw a link between the new jobs and new homes being in some way makes the new development self-sustaining. Creating retail spaces within the development is simply a method to make the property more attractive and valuable to investors and home-buyers; workers will be drawn into the new development from areas outside Cambridge as they will not be able to afford to live on the development. Furthermore, drawing a comparison with Eddington, Darwin, Aura, Trumpington and other new developments of the city, the North East development appears to confuse the 'co-existence' of workspace, industrial space and homes with creating an uncomfortable juxtaposition of shopping/public 'centres' and homes. This means in reality that the 'affordable' homes (which are not affordable when one compares current average wages and the sale prices of the homes in Darwin and Eddington) are simply 'undesirable'. This risks the 'affordable' housing being purchased by investors, and given over to profit-making rental rather than creating a homely and inviting feel to the area.

Neutral

I would say that even more homes are needed, especially homes for smaller families (i.e. 1 or 2 bedroom). Also more social housing should be included (i.e. not just affordable, but council houses). Given that it seems likely that many more people than previously will now be working from home some or all of the time, I would want to see the business space as space for small customer facing businesses, such as shops, food, drink and entertainment, rather than large office floors. This would also help to bring life into the area.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

This area is suited for commercial. You should not be trying to put homes into it. It hosts the sewage works which should stay there. The homes you are planning to place on the site will not be far from the new sewage works site if you put it on Honey Hill and they will get the benefit of the smell when the wind blows from the East, which it frequently does around Cambridge. We have to have a reliable sewage works, it has to go somewhere and it's already in this zone. Avoid the huge cost of moving it and just work with it - keep this area commercial.

Not at all

The water treatment works Should be updated in the current position and homes built around it. At least those people would have the knowledge ahead of time of what they are buying into. Residents in surrounding villages are not being allowed that luxury .

Mostly yes

40% of affordable homes would be a wonderful thing

Not at all

This is not really the right question. The development is unbalanced as it is overdeveloped. The comments about covid from another section are still pertinent. Even if some changes due to covid are temporary there is a now a definite desire from people to avoid flats. Some of the people with the worst experiences in Cambridge lived in flats in Orchard Park. In the current climate no one is going to be happy to be living in a 13 storey flat. Many are looking to WFH further from the office with more dwelling space and green space, not getting crammed into an expensive flat near an office they will hardly ever go to. The whole rational behind the development of providing high density accommodation for the Science Park has just disappeared. It also looks like the demand for office space will be drastically reduced due to WFH, particularly in the high tech firms on the Science Park. WSP are expecting a reduction in demand for office space of 25% to 40%. https://www.wsp.com/en-GL/insights/how-will-covid-19-change-demand-for-office-space The whole rational for all this extra office space has just disappeared as well. There are 3 references in the plan to covid, mostly about economic impact. There is no consideration of its impact on living and working practices. Unfortunately, this makes the whole plan obsolete before it was published. As there will be 20,000 jobs this will be likely to accentuate the housing crisis as a proportion of the homes will go to London commuters and buy to leave landlords.

Mostly not

No answer given

Not at all

The Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Local Plans set aside land for 33,500 new homes to be built between 2011 and 2031 to support a forecast growth in employment of 44,100 jobs over the same two decades. 15,400 jobs have already been added since 2011 (based on ONS data, but not taking into account recent, hopefully temporary, job losses due to COVID-19). A back-of-the-envelope calculation of the employment space currently under development or planned at Cambridge Biomedical Campus, North West Cambridge, West Cambridge, Wellcome Genome Campus, Babraham Institute, Granta Park, Peterhouse Technology Park, 104–112 Hills Rd, Northstowe and Waterbeach New Town implies a further growth in jobs of 34,000. Add another 20,000 at North East Cambridge, and the total comes close to 70,000 jobs. The housing requirement for that number of jobs is approximately 20,000 more than the 33,500 homes current Local Plans provide.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Neutral

The balance between jobs and homes is fine. My concern is with the quantity of new jobs an homes, which will put more traffic onto Milton Road and at the A14 junction.

Neutral

The balance between jobs and homes is fine. My concern is with the quantity of new jobs an homes, which will put more traffic onto Milton Road and at the A14 junction.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

There is no balance between jobs and housing - the number of new occupants vastly outweighs the number of jobs that will be created. Removing the 7500 houses on the sewerage works site would restore the balance.

Neutral

My main concern is the amount of traffic that businesses/industry create and how that will coexist with residential areas and the concept of traffic-free and pedestrian spaces. Residents will face traffic noise/pollution from the A14 in particular. Measures should be undertaken to reduce noise to acceptable and minimal levels, for example a noise-reducing fence and/or tree planting alongside the A14. The effectiveness of these should be evaluated in advance by detailed study and modelling Detailed study and modelling should also be undertaken into air quality levels under a suite of varying and realistic scenarios, taking into account the detailed topography of the landscape and built environment. For example, with the NE Cambridge development lying below the A14, could pollution collect in a ‘bowl’ under certain meteorological conditions, or flow through the development, to the detriment of public health? The short animation ‘A Vision for the North East Area Action Plan’ shows a truck driving through, what appears to be, a pedestrian/cycle residential area with open plan gardens, ping-pong tables and playground. Whilst businesses will need some level of access for deliveries and outward transport of goods, it seems perverse to mingle heavy traffic and residential districts in this manner. Perhaps a better solution would be for a common distribution centre on the edge of the development, with easy access from main roads, with goods transported in a smaller-scale manner (e.g manually, or via small electric vehicles) within the development.

Neutral

My main concern is the amount of traffic that businesses/industry create and how that will coexist with residential areas and the concept of traffic-free and pedestrian spaces. Residents will face traffic noise/pollution from the A14 in particular. Measures should be undertaken to reduce noise to acceptable and minimal levels, for example a noise-reducing fence and/or tree planting alongside the A14. The effectiveness of these should be evaluated in advance by detailed study and modelling Detailed study and modelling should also be undertaken into air quality levels under a suite of varying and realistic scenarios, taking into account the detailed topography of the landscape and built environment. For example, with the NE Cambridge development lying below the A14, could pollution collect in a ‘bowl’ under certain meteorological conditions, or flow through the development, to the detriment of public health? The short animation ‘A Vision for the North East Area Action Plan’ shows a truck driving through, what appears to be, a pedestrian/cycle residential area with open plan gardens, ping-pong tables and playground. Whilst businesses will need some level of access for deliveries and outward transport of goods, it seems perverse to mingle heavy traffic and residential districts in this manner. Perhaps a better solution would be for a common distribution centre on the edge of the development, with easy access from main roads, with goods transported in a smaller-scale manner (e.g manually, or via small electric vehicles) within the development. Provision for artists/craftpersons' studios should be considered. These small-scale industries can contribute to the vibrancy of a neighbourhood and can enrich the lives of residents through open studio events/sales/exhibitions etc.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

I appreciate the need for affordable and social housing, however, great care must be taken to build the community to prevent anti-social living, as well as encouragement for discounted home owners to take part in community maintenance projects to care for this new area. Otherwise, it will quickly start to look like Orchard Park - run down and a mess.

Not at all

I dont think we need any more office space, Covid is going to seriously impact the way we work, and office spaces will become less useful in time