Question 4

Mostly not

See my response to Q1: Covid-19 impacts on the Vision: - In the current Covid-19 pandemic, more people are working from home instead of working in offices where they can. Will someone living in the new accommodation have space to work from home, possibly with family members living with them? How much space will there be to be able to work from home, or for children to be able to study from home etc. in the proposed accommodation? Also trying to concentrate in an online work meeting or in an online school lesson is not easy if sound is bleeding into rooms from the next door neighbours. Will there be sound insulation between residents in the proposed high rise buildings to prevent this? - There is a lack of green spaces in the Vision, indeed the science park green spaces are being infilled, how will someone working from home manage to get to a green space for their peace of mind and sanity? (Articles in the Times newspaper indicate that people in London are looking to move away from the city to suburbia to have more space to work from home and to have more green space/countryside within easy access). - In a post Covid-19 world indication are that more people will have more flexibility to work from home entirely, or partially, and not work in the office 5 days a week. Is the current Vision to include more office based job in the development still valid? Would it not make more sense to reconsider the Vision and the strategic implementation of this once it has become clearer what the post Covid-19 ‘new world’ will look like than to implement a Vision that Covid-19 impacted? If the Vision is still appropriate in the post Covid-19 world, 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

The proposed number of jobs and home is FAR TOO HIGH for BOTH JOBS and HOMES for the area, resulting in inner city levels of urban density, with an appalling lack of green space. This corrupts, distorts and prevents the achievement of any of the 'quality of life' objectives for the development.

Not at all

This question doesn't even make sense. A large proportion of the area is already occupied by industrial areas (Science Park, St John's, etc) and you want to build more space for business?

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. I would like to see less priority to office space which is more likely to draw in commuters and more priority for jobs that provide local services that people can live nearby. At the moment north Cambridge has little in the way of larger shops, restaurants or venues, so I would like to see more of these here as there would be demand for them.

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.

Mostly not

"Around 40% of new homes will be genuinely affordable (rented and shared ownership) homes.".... Large developments in Cambridge have a track record of side-stepping requirements for affordable housing. For example, Wing- promised 50% affordable housing at early consultation with the actual amount of affordable housing being built on the site of only 30% despite the planning submission at 40% How will the affordable housing quotient be ring-fenced? Otherwise this is simply a moneymaking exercise for developers to with no social benefits for the local people in Cambridge struggling to find appropriate housing. Has the true cost of decontaminating ang remediating the site been fully considered? Where will the existing 15000 jobs go? Either they are on existing retained land therefore not relevant to this consultation or the industry and associated business and employment will be lost? Or is there only a net increase of 5000? Where will the existing businesses be housed in the short and medium term to ensure retention of industries.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

I fear you have got the jobs/homes balance wrong. I appreciate the idea of creating many new homes and some new jobs. But having 12000 new commuters come to the area seems too high.

Mostly not

Mixed development is excellent, if it can be made to work. Its not just a matter of balance but scale too. The number of dwellings proposed simply sounds like the factory farming of humanity. It is a proposal to satisfy bureaucratic quotas at the expense of any quality of life. Cambridge has the reputation of being the most unequal city in the UK and town cramming is not the way to resolve the issue. Instead of thinking about the employment "market" and housing "demand" in an impersonal and frankly inhuman way, think instead of real keyworkers, those who have carried us through the Covid crisis. Make homes, open space, work space, family space, educational space fit for heroes.

Mostly not

The development should not create demand for more housing elsewhere. 20,000 jobs seems too many for the planned 8,000 homes; the Transport Evidence Base shows that the amount of housing must be increased or the number of jobs decreased. The build-out of employment and housing land parcels should be phased to maintain balance in housing demand.

Not at all

8000 homes equates to roughly 10,500 people in employment but you are creating 20,000 new jobs. Where are the other 9,500 people going to live? Covid-19 is changing the employment landscape, perhaps permanently. Surely the provision of commercial space should be re-evaluated in this light. Will homes have enough space for people to be able to work from home? Orchard Park never got its commercial space which was also supposed to act as noise attenutation. What legal guarantees are in place to ensure that the development is actually delivered to plan this time?

Mostly not

No. My impression is that that the proposed development will actually bring a net increase in demand. I am concerned that this development does not seem to be planned with other related new developments, such as Waterbeach New Town development, and how those homes and jobs and transport impact on this end of Cambridge.

Mostly not

No answer given

Not at all

This is one of the principal reasons why this whole concept is now woefully wrong. The original figures being proposed had far fewer jobs - one quarter of the present number. Consequently the density of housing and excessive multiple use is being forced into every part of the area. This is both very disappointing and a recipe for disaster. The target number of 'new' jobs needs to be reduced by 75% back to the original figures, and more space given over to housing with much more allocated green space. 20,000 new jobs will result in demand for twice the amount of housing being proposed here and cause huge pressure on wholly inadequate transport infrastructure. It is simply too much, and is the most egregious and fundamental errors of the many such of this proposal in its current form. The need for this huge number of 'new jobs' is neither demonstrated nor justifiable. Meanwhile no answer is given to two obvious questions: where will the bus depot go, and what will happen to the aggregates terminal ?

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

This plan is fundamentally flawed. We need homes not jobs in Cambridge. There is huge mismatch in both the current and emerging local plan. 20,000 jobs probably most from inward migration of highly qualified graduates will create demand for lots more housing. This site is supposed to meet existing needs not create new demand I suspect that the inclusion and expansion of the existing science park is at the behest of Trinity College and their new Chinese backers. It is to the detriment of current local people particularly the young local people and particularly the unskilled. As for the claim there will be affordable housing this is myth. If it funded by the govt to registered social landlords this means it is 80% of the average rental cost in the local market, which is still a lot.

Yes, completely

Yes, although it is wise to allow some flexibility as the balance between the need for commercial and residential space often changes over time.

Not at all

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 than ameliorate the Cambridge housing crisis. They would have to commute to the site from elsewhere, 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. The number of planned new jobs should be drastically reduced - by at least half. More new jobs are needed elsewhere in the region, but not in Cambridge city itself. 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.

Mostly not

It seems that the balance between residential and work spaces is already changing and this should be taken into account. 20,000 jobs for 8,000 homes assumes that the vast majority of inhabitants will work in the area but many will be children.

Not at all

The Institute of Directors released a survey today which suggests that 74% of the companies surveyed are planning on maintaining the increase in remote working that they have seen over the coronavirus pandemic. Over 50% of them intend to reduce their long term use of workplaces. There is already disused space on the business park and empty spaces on the science park that are not being used due to lack of demand, with commercial real estate supply exceeding demand. It is unwise press ahead with plan to build significantly more commercial space, at the expense of cramming affordable housing in higher-rise buildings, if there is no immediate need and when the long term impact of the pandemic on commercial retail space is not yet understood.

Not at all

Far too many jobs comapred to homes.

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). Camcycle welcomes 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.

Not at all

It is highly misleading to imply that the development will address the housing shortage in Cambridge, when in fact the development will bring more new jobs than new beds. 'Affordable' housing must be genuinely affordable (e.g. around 65% of market rents). Social housing must be protected as such in perpetuity.

Mostly not

Too many new homes resulting in only building high rise buildings to meet the need. Where will the majority of the workforce for the 20,000 new jobs come from? As cars are very much discouraged they cannot come from anywhere public transport doesn't serve or near enough they can cycle. Currently trains from Ely are (or were before COVID) packed during rush hour with no extra capacity (arguably considerably over capacity already). If those working in the area are required to drive say from north Cambridge to Ely so they can get the train in to work won't that defeat the environmental benefits of discouraging cars from the area. Cambridge busses are currently diesel, regularly late or don't turn up at all and quite expensive so most people wouldn't want to or be able to commute by bus. If more of the space was given over to homes to allow for reduced height buildings and some town house style properties (maybe as large flats) then the area could attract a wider range of groups of residents. A mix of jobs and homes is important but currently seems a very large number of new jobs for a relatively small area.

Not at all

The UK has roughly 35 million jobs and 23 million houses, or 1.5 jobs for each house on average. This development is proposed to have 20,000 jobs and 8,000 houses, or 2.5 jobs for each house on average. Simple maths suggests this means lots of people commuting in to the area.

Mostly not

strongly support response from Camcycle

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

The number of new homes is alarming. There are a significant number of other new developments in the immediate area (67-97A Campkin Road - 78 households, site of the former Jenny Wren pub - 9 households, Buchan St/The Meadows - 106 households) which will already be putting pressure onto local services and amenities. The additional eight thousand households seems to be utterly excessive for such a small area. There is clearly scope for a number of new properties to be built, but surely at a lower number.

Not at all

Not at all. I have noted that, despite the stated aim of helping to address housing demand in Cambridge, 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. These measures should have more ambition. At east 50% of new homes built should be truly affordable, for which a suitable definition of ‘affordable’ for Cambridge would be around 65% of market rents. Council and social housing stock is a vital part of the housing market, and therefore the goal for a minimum of 60% of the affordable homes to be social/affordable rent is a good start. 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

I have real issues with bringing an additional 20,000 jobs to the area. I believe we are at a real crunch point environmentally in Cambridge and really don't need to be bringing additional people to the city. Housing is tricky - we are having difficulty providing housing for those on low incomes as it is but if you bring in an additional 20K jobs, then that is an additional 20K people who are now going to compete with all of those who are already in need of housing. You might as well not build the housing because those with the new jobs will take it and then those that are needing housing now will still be without housing.