Question 4

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly not

There is a far too much business space compared to space devoted to homes and recreation. This will lead to increased pressure on transport infrastructure.

Mostly not

No answer given

Not at all

So many new jobs (20,000?) could bring 35,000 people to the area. But you intend to build for 18,000 people. If this is right, then it will be inevitable that commuters will reach the site from elsewhere. Roads in Cambridge are at capacity, everyone knows it. The railway crossing at Fen Road cannot stay as it is. Also, this new development - a small town, in effect - will prove highly detrimental not only to Fen Road, but to all the rest of Chesterton whose village High Street simply cannot cope with traffic during the rush hours. Of course, new residents will create more traffic. The 'car barns' seem to have been abolished. Where will residents park? Unless it becomes a condition that residents know - at the point of sale - that they cannot have a vehicle outside their door (or, preferably) not at all, then the development will not succeed. (Which it ought not to in any case) How will Fen Road and Milton Road cope; how the A10/A14 junction? The whole area by the Science Park entrance will have to be rebuild - again. Milton Road will undergo enormous works in the coming few years. Show the new/ changed roads. It should be the very first requirement.

Not at all

Be home are too small for families to live in. This will only suit enough buy to let and singles/ couples which will not foster community cohesion. People will be isolated. This lay had little emphasis on children and schooling.

Mostly not

20,000 new jobs but only 8,000 new homes? The 8,000 homes may not have 18,000 residents living in them? Where will the other people working there live? It is impossible to ensure all people with jobs in the district will live there or that all people who live there will work there too. What are the consequences for housing and transport in the rest of Cambridge? Can we ensure the new homes will not just be sold to property investors and then rented out at high rents? This will just make the housing problems in Cambridge worse. We need more council homes not so-called ‘affordable’ ones.

Mostly not

Given the premise of the development is to ensure that this is a fully integrated development, with minimal commuting it is difficult to reconcile this with the provision of (at least) 8,000 new homes with 20,000 new jobs. There is a real concern that this will result in further commuting elsewhere, with the implication that the policy provision of no net increase on Milton Road will be impossible. Further, at a time of housing shortage, it is unclear where the remainder of the proposed new employees will be located. In any event, under the scenario provided, the 8000 homes on the infrastructure currently in place appears a huge new addition in the city, particularly at the prescribed densities. I note and support the comments that CPPF have made on this point. I also strongly support CPPF’s comment that clarity is needed on how the 8,000+ new homes and 20,000 new jobs fit within the envelope of the Local Plans (33,500 new homes and 44,100 new jobs between 2011 and 2031).

Mostly not

20,000 new jobs but only 8,000 new homes? The 8,000 homes may not have 18,000 residents living in them? Where will the other people working there live? It is impossible to ensure all people with jobs in the district will live there or that all people who live there will work there too. What are the consequences for housing and transport in the rest of Cambridge? Can we ensure the new homes will not just be sold to property investors and then rented out at high rents? This will just make the housing problems in Cambridge worse. We need more council homes not so-called ‘affordable’ ones.

Mostly not

20,000 new jobs but only 8,000 new homes? The 8,000 homes may not have 18,000 residents living in them? Where will the other people working there live? It is impossible to ensure all people with jobs in the district will live there or that all people who live there will work there too. What are the consequences for housing and transport in the rest of Cambridge? Can we ensure the new homes will not just be sold to property investors and then rented out at high rents? This will just make the housing problems in Cambridge worse. We need more council homes not so-called ‘affordable’ ones.

Not at all

A further 20000 jobs suggest a population greater than the planned 18,000 people when taking into account spouses and children. There seems to be an idea that all the new workers will be employed within walking/cycling distance. It's inevitable that a development this size will put greater strain on our roads and that the number of people who will probably work from home will prove inadequate for the housing suggested.

Mostly not

20,000 new jobs may well mean 40,000 more people, and yet the plan is to provide housing for 18,000 people. Where will the rest of the people live? This will accentuate rather ameliorate the Cambridge housing crisis. And what sort of jobs are these? Will people actually need to work in offices in a post-Covid world? In the future it seems that people will need to work from home, but how will they do this in homes barely large enough to accommodate one person, let alone people trying to live and work in the same space. I think these new homes are likely to be bought by investors, and then quickly sold on at a profit, rather than truly providing homes for people working locally. Will they commute to the site from elsewhere, placing more strain on Cambridge’s already stretched roads? The idea that, as per your PR brochure, there will be 'no extra vehicle journeys' on Milton Road, which is already at capacity at rush hours, is pure fantasy.

Mostly not

The science park is completely abandonned after office hours since noone lives there. Could some of the current parking spaces be redesigned to take less area and may be accommodate houses or flats so that there is still some life when offices are closed?

Mostly not

The increase in jobs is far in excess of the proposed increase in local population even in the unlikely event that most residents will work in the surrounding area. It is ludicrous to assume that the number and type of new jobs will be taken by people within easy commute without use of cars.

Not at all

Given that the development will plan to deliver 20,000 jobs in the area but only provide 18,500 places for people to live this development will actually exacerbate the housing shortage in Cambridge.

Not at all

The development promises 18,500 new residents, but 20,000 new jobs. That makes the problem of housing supply worse! I accept that the definition of affordable housing used here is consistent with that used in other places (80% of market rates), but as Cambridge already has very high costs of living and large amounts of inequality (See https://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/savills-greater-cambridge-report-june-2017.pdf and https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/18-01-12-Final-Full-Cities-Outlook-2018.pdf), the 40% of homes designated affordable is not going to help as much as they could if the price was lowered for existing residents of Cambridge, who are often forced to move to surrounding areas for cost of living reasons. I understand that there are already many vacant properties in Cambridge, and encouraging these to be brought back into use (e.g. with premiums for council tax) would help the housing supply in the shorter term.

Mostly not

8000 homes is too many for this area. It will mean high rise buildings, both for housing and employment. Are these going to be places where people want to live and work? I would question that. Urban planners seem to be thinking of going in a different direction (according to experts interviewed on radio 4 about the effects of Covid-19 on work places). We want attractive homes to live in not high rise flats (I have experienced both and 3 storey buildings are highly preferable). I know the cost / return is important to developers but do we need more accommodation bought for investment rather than for living in? Places where local people can't afford to live? The proposed proportion for affordable housing is great but we have seen from developments around Cambridge where the developers have not 'held their side' of the bargain. Do you have measures in place to ensure this doesn't happen? Indeed, what measures will you take for overall development over 20 years to fulfill your intentions and ideals?

Mostly yes

Need to encourage new businesses to area - could particularly encourage eco businesses.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

Your plans do not outline how you are going to create 20,000 new jobs. It

Mostly not

The current government imperative/campaign predicated upon fear is collapsing the economy and discouraging people from working/going into a workspace!

Mostly not

If the projection of 20,000 new jobs materialises, not everyone will choose to live on an overcrowded high-rise estate with little green space. Many will choose to live outside of Cambridge and commute in, putting a strain on the roads in the area, especially Milton Road and the surrounding villages.

Mostly not

The development of North East Cambridge should not create demand for more housing elsewhere as that will increase the likelihood that these journeys will be made by non-sustainable means. Given that many members of households won’t be in employment, 20,000 jobs seems too high when set against 8,000 homes. 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. 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. The build-out of employment and housing land parcels should be carefully phased to maintain balance in housing demand at every stage of the development (an issue because most housing cannot be delivered until the relocation of the water treatment works). I welcome the diverse range of jobs on the site and the mixed-use spaces: this means that more people will be able to access nearby employment on foot or by cycle and be able to use cycles to support their business e.g. for deliveries or carrying equipment.

Mostly not

Of the 20,000 new jobs how many will be taken by local people and how many by people who will drive into Cambridge and back out every day? Indeed the plan provides for only 8,000 new homes and so accepts that many of the people taking these new jobs will not live in the new development and will have to travel from outside Cambridge or from elsewhere in the city, thus exacerbating congestion and pollution. Will the new homes be snapped up by private landlords and then rented out at high rents?

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly not

I worry that without pause to fully understand how the impact of coronavirus will affect jobs, businesses, and how many people will want to live, this development could deliver the wrong balance of business spaces and the types of housing that will be in demand. It seems as though it has now been widely accepted that many people are seeking to live in places that at are less densely populated with easy access to outdoor spaces for relaxation, recreation and exercise. I think that the development should be reviewed in light of the changes the pandemic has brought. Are there businesses that have already been approached/have suggested that they, collectively, will bring 20,000 new jobs to the area? If not, I fear that the business space won't be fully used.

Not at all

Absolutely not. I note that, despite the stated aim of helping to address housing demand in Cambridge, that the proposed development will actually bring a net increase in demand. The development is intended to accommodate 18,500 people (not all of whom will be in employment) while creating 20,000 new jobs in the area. According to these figures, additional housing will be needed for more than 1,500 new workers in the area. The consultation states that around 40% of new homes will be genuinely affordable, with ‘affordable’ rents defined as 80% of market rates. I welcome these measures but would like to see more ambition. I agree with Cambridge Green Party who call for 50% of new homes built to be truly affordable, with a definition of ‘affordable’ for Cambridge at around 65% of market rents. I believe that council and social housing stock is a vital part of the housing market, and therefore welcome the goal for a minimum of 60% of the affordable homes to be social/affordable rent. These homes must remain as social housing in perpetuity and not be sold to private landlords, as has happened to too much of Cambridge’s social housing. It is worth noting that there are a large number of vacant properties in Cambridge (government figures for 2019 estimate 1,365 vacant properties in Cambridge plus 1,791 in South Cambridgeshire: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants). These should be brought back into use as a priority, through measures such as council tax premiums and Council purchase of empty homes.

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

The desity of new homes and business space is too high for the size of the area.

Not at all

Absolutely not. I note that, despite the stated aim of helping to address housing demand in Cambridge, that the proposed development will actually bring a net increase in demand. The development is intended to accommodate 18,500 people (not all of whom will be in employment) while creating 20,000 new jobs in the area. According to these figures, additional housing will be needed for more than 1,500 new workers in the area. The consultation states that around 40% of new homes will be genuinely affordable, with ‘affordable’ rents defined as 80% of market rates. I welcome these measures but would like to see more ambition. I agree with Cambridge Green Party who call for 50% of new homes built to be truly affordable, with a definition of ‘affordable’ for Cambridge at around 65% of market rents. I believe that council and social housing stock is a vital part of the housing market, and therefore welcome the goal for a minimum of 60% of the affordable homes to be social/affordable rent. These homes must remain as social housing in perpetuity and not be sold to private landlords, as has happened to too much of Cambridge’s social housing. It is worth noting that there are a large number of vacant properties in Cambridge (government figures for 2019 estimate 1,365 vacant properties in Cambridge plus 1,791 in South Cambridgeshire: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants). These should be brought back into use as a priority, through measures such as council tax premiums and Council purchase of empty homes.

Neutral

No answer given