Question 6

Mostly not

It seems that it is going to be a lot of appartments with little access to gardens and green space. I don't really believe that this is a good model for families with children. Fine for older people who no longer want the hassle of a garden but if covid has shown us nothing it is that people need green space and easy access to it too. I also feel that this is going to make this area very high density in terms of people. What about the wildlife that used to live in and around the current waste treatment plant? Its seems that little account has been taken of the sustainability of Cambridge as a whole in this plan. Personally I believe that Cambridge has already reached carrying capacity. I worry about our ground water systems and bringing more people in is only going to make things worse. A healthy city needs space for wildlife, for people to have green space and for a water system that is healthy. At the moment the water supplies in cambridge are struggling - Nine Wells ran dry this summer for the first time in living memory. It seems that the water companies are over extracting from the aquifer - this is serious stuff! I wish people at the top would pay more attention to it.

Mostly yes

Yes. But greater variety and distinctiveness must be achieved than in much of Cambridge’s commercial development of the past 20+ years.

Not at all

No. The proposed building heights will be a major intrusion on the landscape as their extreme height in relation to surrounding buildings and in such a flat landscape will make them visible for miles around, to the detriment of local neighbourhoods and surrounding natural landscape. We are aware of significant concerns among residents about the proposed heights of the buildings. I would propose a maximum of 2 stories - residential homes where people do not have to live on top of each other, with some private garden space in addition to communal garden space shared between 10-20 houses and with zero vehicles in that space. Further to this there should be access to communal land for growing. As the coronavirus pandemic has shown us that having access to private outdoor space is beneficial to wellbeing and safe social interaction.

Not at all

In Cambridge 3 storeys was just about acceptable. We are a historic town which will become overwhelmed by tower blocks - you area disregarding Cambridge's heritage. 13 storeys certainly not acceptable and will become an eyesore seen for miles. These high building overemphasise the over crowding and will just store up social issue for tomorrow (NB why 60s tower blocks of housing were pulled down). High density/lack of green space is not conducive to a successful community. What about the lack of water for this high density proposed development? I support MRRA and HPERA concerns.

Not at all

Overcrowding is not conducive to a successful community. I support MRRA and HPERA responses.

Not at all

No, no, no, no, no! Research carried out has shown that the health of residents in blocks of over 5 or 6 stories is affected negatively. We don't need to pile people up on top of each other like cars in a multi-storey car park. Well designed and built flats are a good way of housing lots of people, and if this is done in a sensitive way can contribute to a sense of community. However, this needs to remain low high-rise, especially for families, for 'affordable' homes and those designated for social housing. Additionally, the proposed heights would be an eyesore in a city which people flock to visit from all over the world.

Mostly not

7-11 storeys is too high for Cambridge. The Marque (10 storeys) won the Carbuncle Award for the worst architecture. There is a risk of a similar thing occurring in North East Cambridge as the building height is not sympathetic to the surrounding heights. The comparisons of "similar" buildings such as King's College Chapel or taking the fire training tower is woefully inadequate in assessing the city landscape. Instead residential buildings should be compared.

Mostly not

I am concerned about the heights and density proposed which is considerably higher than in most of the city, as well as visual impact with flat roofs.

Not at all

There is a wide range in height given for each building (e.g. the tallest building will be between 7 and 13 stories). This needs to be narrowed down before it is agreed as the height of the buildings has a big impact on the rest of the development and on the surrounding area and taller buildings will require more facilities and more space around them. A maximum building height should be set which reflects the heights of tall buildings in the rest of Cambridge. The maximum building heights given here are much larger than buildings in the local area and across Cambridge and will result in a high density of homes are which must be and while there is huge need for extra housing

Not at all

• No. • In each area, the maximum build height – 6 storeys, 8 storeys, 10 storeys, 13 storeys – are far greater than that of the buildings in the adjacent districts. • They will be visually dominant form much further afield, and they will not be a welcome sight. • The density of they tower-block flats means people will not have a great deal of defensible space, which is so important to mental health. • The population and build density will put even more pressure on our already-overstretch water supplies.

Mostly not

The approach to building heights and density should be determined by aspects such as liveability rather than external factors which could lead to overdevelopment.

Mostly not

I'm not sure about the building height. The taller the buildings the further apart they need to be. I'd guess that by doubling the height you only increase the density by 25%. I'd suggest that by building dwellings on the huge car parks on the Science Park you could achieve the target of 8k dwellings without exceeding 8 stories. {Please use 'dwellings' rather than 'homes'. 'Homes' implies 3 bed with garden. We need apartments with can be 'studio' or one bed flats,which are far more appropriate for a younger more mobile population as well as elderly retired folk who wish to downsize yet remain independant

Not at all

No comment.

Not at all

Cambridge is a beautiful low density, low building height city with wonderful Green Space/Green Lung/Greenbelt areas that MUST be preserved. High rise building developments 3 to 4 times taller than Eddington etc. will be unavoidable to the achieve the Developer’s aim of 8,000 dwellings in the available land area (maths by the Developer’s Proposal’s/Concept Designs don’t look at 3D volumes with ANY noted Height metric - we all wonder why !!). Impact of ‘layering’ (effect on views/vistas/skyline from all surrounding locations) shows major impacts & severe degradation on the rural landscape of this North Eastern environs of Cambridge. All Building Heights & Densities are definitely NOT appropriate to any Cambridge location. Clearly all driven by greedy Developers looking to make massive monies, leaving the local ‘mess’ behind, long after the Developer’s diggers have upped and left.

Nothing chosen

TOO high, too dense, ugly, not a fitting entrance to our beautiful city. Living in high rise blocks, there is no way a community can be built up. This pandemic has shown how important a community is. One and two bedroomed flats to not allow for families to grow. No Secondary school/sixth form. Will they have to try to move? Will they be able to move nearby?

Not at all

This will be the highest density housing outside London. Habits have changed in 2020 - people want more space, gardens and access to countryside (e.g. the countryside we are destroying by moving AW sewage works).

Not at all

No. This development still stands out as a carbuncle of high rise in a city of low rise developments.

Not at all

Too dense, too high buildings, too few green spaces, all are too small. Reminds me of CB1 around the station. No sun allowed in. Looks 3rd world.

Not at all

Longer term: Coastal.Climate.org and other modelling suggest sea level rises within 30 years will be a major disruption to NE Cambridge. Without stronger commitment to build quality(e.g. passivhaus standards) the high density risks repeating issues/ slum conditions of similar estates on the edge of major sites in the UK post war. NE Cambridge already has highest inequalities in terms of life expectancy , health outcomes, education, socio-economic wellbeing in the city.

Not at all

The buildings are too high and population density is too concentrated. You can't compare the top of the University library tower with an entire block of flats, which you have done in the illustrations.

Yes, completely

Building height is good. Density is a little too dense.

Neutral

I think 8-10 storey buildings are too high for the area.

Not at all

Terrible idea of multi storey blocks. Should be no higher than King's College.

Nothing chosen

What is needed is 2-4 bed homes with a bit of garden. Cambridge is supposed to be medium-sized city not a conurbation.

Not at all

Disgraceful. The development is already blighting the vista as far away as Fen Ditton!

Neutral

No comment.

Not at all

5 storeys high enough. Too many people crammed into the area is likely to lead to social problems.

Not at all

NO Too much too high. Not enough green space.

Not at all

7-11 and 6-8 storeys TOO HIGH for comfortable housing.

Not at all

No, buildings will be too high and spoil views.