Question 4

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). We 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

As I implied previously, the balance is unrealistic. Does the plan involve demolishing some of the existing businesses to make way for housing and new businesses e.g.triangle south of guided bus route and west of Milton road earmarked for 100 new homes has new Vindis car buildings?

Mostly not

Homes are needed in far higher numbers than places of employment in this part of the city - you're trying to pitch this as some kind of need for developing more jobs as well as homes. That means we're not going to solve any of the cities problems with your approach.

Mostly not

I OBJECT to your proposed balance of homes and jobs in NE Cambridge. High value/high income jobs will probably make more use of good and improving transport links. Less job creation in NECAAP and more elsewhere in Cambridge might allow more area for lower cost housing and for it to be more attractive to live in accepting that the sewage works should not be moved. Cambridge and our near neighbours have experienced high rates of economic growth above the national average for decades. The supporting physical and social infrastructure that is essential to ensure a decent quality of life has not kept pace. High house prices and rents, many times beyond median incomes, have driven both middle-income and poor households out of the city to surrounding villages. Many of these commuters are ‘key workers’- nurses, teachers, care workers, public transport workers, delivery drivers, cleaners, academic staff and public servants. These adverse effects of growth significantly outweigh the benefits of high value economic prosperity, accompanied as it is by more intense inequality between high earners and other citizens. I feel very strongly that the majority of new homes should be for key workers in middle-income and poor households and am concerned that the profit motive of the developers will mean that this does not happen (and that the 40% affordable criterion will not be met). I am also concerned by the lack of discussion about out migration , especially to London, or to dwellings being bought as investments and then held empty. Comparisons with CB1 and others parts of Cambridge is needed.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

I have to make a negative response because too many homes are planned. All the family housing should have their own gardens and not assumed to be in high rise flats. This means allocatin more land for homes and, to retain a reasonable balance with jobs, those too should be scaled back. More public open space should also be planned on the site. I accept access to fields and the river area over the railway and under the A14 will benefit residents in the deveelopment area, but there still needs to be more space on the site itself.

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

There is not enough of a mix of different types of housing with the option being mostly flats which are not appealing to families with children. This means that residents may not stay in the area long as the housing will not suit their needs and the community will be transient and not looking to invest in making the area a successful thriving community.

Not at all

The projected density of homes and employment in an area, intriscally unattractive because it is so close to A14/Milton Rd, is detrimental to the wider area around.

Neutral

Are there any plans to review this balance in the light of the COVID -19 pandemic and the fact that many more people will continue to work from home. Businesses may have different requirements going forward to accommodate different work patterns. Housing also may require work spaces as part of living accommodation. Has there been any consideration of how these changes may impact development in this area?

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

The number of jobs, and therefore commercial office space, in the development is disproportionately high. Given that there is already a housing shortage in Cambridge, why allow for more commercial space that will lead to more jobs, leading to more demand for housing? In addition, after the COVID pandemic dies down, there will clearly be reduced demand for office space, so providing so much commercial space in this development is foolish.

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.

Mostly not

This area of Cambridge already suffers from congestion as people commute in for jobs in Cambridge. This development creates more jobs than homes and will therefore result in additional commuters. Too much is being crammed in to the area.

Not at all

Forecasting to many jobs when its homes that are needed.

Mostly not

Creating new jobs in the science park is silly when such industries (e.g. IT) are undergoing a massive transition to working from home. These changes are a permanent trend, so having sufficient provision from home working (which the proposed housing is unlikely to provide, as it's a modern 'rabbit-hutch' development of mainly tiny flats unsuitable for home working, particularly for those with families). The proposed science park jobs are UNLIKELY to appear anyway not matter what property developers would like to believe. Demand for housing in Cambridge is very high amongst people who do lower-paid jobs, with a high concentration of these in the city centre and the Biomedical campus, rather than in the area of the science park, so transport options towards the city are more important than IT jobs in the science park, which would be taken mainly by people commuting there if they do attend the offices at all.

Mostly yes

In recognising the ambition to provide a mixed development and allow a more sustainable development reducing the need to travel, the mix provides the ability to live and work in North East Cambridge. The spatial framework and table in Policy 13a shows the distribution of 8.000 homes across the NEC area that is broadly supported. It is noted Policy 13a states proposals for residential development will need to have regard to the councils’ latest evidence on housing need as set out in the Joint Housing Strategy (or any future update)’. Measures to ensure an appropriate mix of development is delivered, in particular to not promote journeys into the area are included in the AAP. Policy 13d includes the need for developers to demonstrate how affordable private rent properties, expected as part of their developments, will be targeted to meet local worker need. Policy 15, covering shops and services seeks retail to beat a level to serve the local community.

Not at all

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

NO! Too many flats. Too focussed on the transient single person. It's as if you are trying to tick the box to see how many homes you can cram onto this site! If you are trying to build a community, you need mixed housing - eg family homes - 2 or 3 up and 2 down with their own garden.

Not at all

No. There are far too many homes planned for the site - which would bring the density of habitation way above even London averages. Any new plan in Cambridge should provide twice the typical area of green space per person than residents already have access to, increasing and not decreasing the accessible proportion to existing residents in the locality. This must include a plan to rewild a at least as much land as being built on again and make it accessible to those new residents. Alongside any home building plan, this re-wilding should be by acquisition of industrialised chemically farmed agricultural land - a high proportion of which is used as animal feed for the meat industry - to truly improve the green credentials of the local economy, rather than pretending building projects are green on their own. I also 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. We welcome these measures but would like to see more ambition. The Cambridge Green Party set out its strategy for ‘housing for all’ in our 2016 Manifesto for Cambridge (https://cambridge.greenparty.org.uk/policies/). In this, the party calls for 50% of new homes built to be truly affordable. I believe a suitable definition of ‘affordable’ for Cambridge would be 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.

Mostly yes

I am OK with the balance on the basis that many of the new jobs will be created on existing industrial/commercial areas (science park, innovation park). The new industrial areas near the railway line will allow growth in mid-skill jobs (assembly, distribution) that Cambridge currently lacks. To the extent that it is possible to anticipate the changes to working practices brought about by the pandemic, it appears that the ability to work near where we live and doing away with the need to travel into a city centre will become more prominent in the planning of employees and employers alike.

Mostly not

I believe the plan has already changed, so that homes will not be built on the Science Park at all, and I feel deeply cynical about how much more of the plan might change between now and when it might be built, to the detriment of all. How can we realistically ensure that developers act responsibly and we end up with a balance of jobs, homes and amenities which make life comfortable and happy for residents?

Not at all

The number of houses is too high. They should be reduced. The area around Nuffield Road and the busway should take the priority as this is the most straightforward. This should be 1 - 4 bed houses similar to Green Park etc. The rest of the site should be a mix of flats and houses but we are building too many flats at present and there is a dire need for housing within the city limits. There should be no student accommodation as the city is awash with this and it is far away from the centers of study.

Mostly not

• The overall problem is one of trying to include a comprehensive mix of businesses and services and 8,000 new homes, accommodating 18,000+ people into the limited size of the proposed site. • Diagram 1.4 shows 100 homes to the south-west of the guided busway/Milton Road junction, 550 homes to the south-east of the guided busway/Milton Road junction, and 7,350 homes in the area bordered by the railway line and the A14. • The remainder of the proposed development area is given over to businesses and services. • It’s hard to see how those businesses and services will meet the needs of the residents of this proposed area.

Neutral

Important to provide sufficient affordable housing

Not at all

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.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

No comments

Not at all

Clearly all driven by greedy Developers wanting to ‘degrade’ all green lung areas in Cambridge with horrid, dense, high-rise & poor quality housing. (N.B. including aspects surrounding proposed move of Anglian Water’s Water Treatment - not required as it has a recent upgrade: see Opposition to that Planning Application. Clear that benefits will be to Developers, not Residents or any preservation of local Green Space/Green lung/Green Belt preservation: views, environmental aspects etc.). Planners clearly have not learnt the clear lessons of the C19 pandemic & lockdowns etc. on the critical health of the nation - especially for significant push-back on ANY dense Housing/Development areas. No consideration to long-term massive changes to working/living practices shown during C19 lockdown. 20,000 new jobs means 40,000 more people. Housing for 18,000 noted. Maths just doesn’t add up. Clearly illustrates total lack to detailed thought of this Planning’s Proposal from beginning to end.