Question 4

Mostly not

Too many jobs in comparison to homes which will accentuate housing ctridis and also 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.

Not at all

There should not be any new homes built on the SW side of the Busway. The allotments and Brambelfields are vital open spaces and any further development on this side of the busway will impact very badly on Bramblefields - which is already being used as a cycle rat run and getting more hazaradous by the day

Neutral

No comment

Not at all

A balanced community should match population to employment. 8000 new homes would indicate a similar number of new jobs as individul households now tend to support one or two jobs at most, if any. 20,000 indicates an excess number of 12,000 to be met by inward commuting that makes no sense given that the city struggles under commuter pressure already. It is unlikely that anything near this number would exclusively travel in through Cambridge North and alternative public transport still looks a distant dream even if anyone could identify the funds to build some of the schemes

Mostly not

Far too many jobs in comparison to homes. This will increase the number of people travelling into the area from outside and therefore unable to walk or cycle to work.

Mostly not

Adding 20,000 jobs to the area, which more than doubles the existing 15,000, seems far too many and will result in more cars from outside the area being used for commuting, with consequent negative effect on the environment and congestion.

Neutral

In the area where the Water Treatment plant is currently located there looks to be too much office space. The overall density here looks very high -- good quality housing should be prioritised here.

Not at all

If 20,000 new jobs are being created, where will those people live? At present (before the pandemic) a huge number of people drive to the Science Park and this will increase as not everyone will be able to live in the accommodation proposed. If these people are coming from elsewhere, it is vital that they don't come by car - that they use park and rides or pick up bicycles. Milton Road will be gridlocked. Transport systems and jobs must be integrated.

Not at all

This development should ease the housing shortage in Cambridge, but these proposals include far too many jobs, further driving demand for homes. Cambridge is already awash with high paying tech and research jobs - recruitment is already extremely difficult and normally requires us to bring people in from abroad to fill these roles. The mix here should slant towards more normal jobs - things you can do without an advanced degree.

Neutral

20,000 new jobs means that roughly 15,000 cars will drive there every day, acerbating the already imbearable traffic and pollution on Milton Road. Car restrictions are essential!

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

Residential density far too high for the location and 20,000 new jobs for 8,000 homes suggests it will do nothing to alleviate the current housing pressures in Cambridge – it will simply cancel each other out at best. What jobs will they be? Be better off creating more homes and jobs in an area that needs both. The events of 2020 are affecting economic growth, working practices and living arrangements. Lower economic growth will reduce the minimum housing provision in the LDP as required by Government. Increased working from home will reduce the requirement for office space and daily commuting but may result in a desire for more space in homes, to avoid living in dense urban areas or to live further away. The Government is proposing to allow change of use for redundant commercial buildings and other measures to rapidly increase residential space. This will affect NECAAP.

Mostly not

You are not taking into consideration the need for large open areas. For instance milton country park.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

There seem to be 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 so that many people can live close to their employment, but a better balance of homes and jobs is needed. Construction should be phased so that this balance remains stable at every stage of development.

Not at all

Best Case: 20,000 new jobs - (8,000 new homes * 2 adults per home) = 4000 people that still need somewhere to live, and there is already a shortage of housing in the city. The density of the development seems hugely out of character with the rest of the city. Is the area going to end up looking like the awful CB1 develoment?

Mostly not

The use of the term balance is misleading, since the main consideration should be the extent to which people are likely to live and work on the site. Recognising that this is difficult to quantify and could change substantially over time, my considered view is that the extent of employment provision is too high, and should start from an analysis of (i) residents likely to work on site (ii) a sensible view about how much science based research provision should be made (iii) protecting those elements of business space existing on site that are valuable to the Cambridge economy as whole, but under the AAP are likely to be driven out by high value development opportunities. The last of these is a real challenge in all densely built up urban areas and the policy response to this in the AAP is not sufficient.

Not at all

A variety of jobs in an area of mixed-use buildings is a good idea but there are 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. This will create more traffic around the whole of North Cambridge and the A14. To maximise the number of trips which can be made within the area by walking, cycling or public transport, data from the Transport Evidence Base (page 109) shows that the level of housing must be increased or the number of jobs decreased. In addition, not all jobs will require office, retail or industrial space and this, plus changing work patterns (such as home working or hot-desking), should be taken into account.

Not at all

Far too many planned new jobs for the planned accommodation.

Not at all

Is so much commercial space necessary? More people are working from home. Employers-allocated employee designated housing contrary to Cambridge LP policy 45. If small start-up trade units, e.g. for repairs, woodworking etc, users will need vans – increasing need for parking spaces. Is it appropriate to make all the build to rent homes Houses of Multi-occupancy (HMOs)?

Neutral

It's a large project, and the balance between jobs and homes seems appropriate, but the wider connections to the surrounding environment through which access will be required (i.e., Milton/Histon Roads) seems less obviously joined-up.

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly yes

It is pleasing to hear of more shops and community places in areas such as Orchard Park.Orchard Park's failings must be acknowledged; no post office or bank availability, extremely high cost to buy or rent considering the square meter availability of each accommodation is poor. When council houses/apartments are built, there must be social support to help the most vulnerable and most not be relegated to within Cambs city centre - it must be accessible here.

Not at all

The density of the proposed housing is far too high. Even prior to the pandemic it was too high, now it is simply ridiculous. You should be planning for 2000 homes max and then planning business space accordingly. 8000 homes is a betrayal of current and future residents. Everyone deserves a basic quality of life. This looks like you've decided to ignore all the problems in CB1. We dont need tower blocks, we need low density housing that meets the needs of whole communities.

Not at all

The number of homes is far too concentrated on too small an area - more dense than inner city London without adequate green spaces. The height of the buildings is too high given the surrounding areas are much lower.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

Building 8,000 new homes in the area will make it too dense. Even before the pandemic the public transport has been over-crowded especially in the morning rush hour (often I had to skip 2 busses on busway A as there was not enough space on the bus to welcome new passengers). Similarly, the roads don't have the bandwidth to support that many people (potentially with the cars).

Mostly not

There seem to be 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. It seems useful to have a variety of jobs so that many people can live close to their employment, but a better balance of homes and jobs is needed. Construction should be phased so that this balance remains stable at every stage of development.