Question 6

Neutral

Seems ok.

Mostly yes

No comment.

Not at all

Absolutely not - it's disgraceful to consider 13 storey buildings and the density is completely inappropriate.

Not at all

NO. Completely out of character. TOO TALL - at the moment approach to city tallest view is King's. Keep it that way. ALSO - too many people in a building does not encourage neighbourliness.

Not at all

No, far too tall for the area. It will look like a concrete jungle. Square boxes and no character to the area or properties.

Not at all

Housing for families should be on the ground probably, with some garden space.

Not at all

It's awful to use beautiful historic buildings (Ely Cathedral, King's Chapel) to compare these awful high-rises! They will be too tall for the area!!

Not at all

Way too dense. There is land north of the city. Try not to pack people like fish in a tin.

Neutral

No comment.

Not at all

Too dense and way too high. Waterbeach & Northstowe when completed will cope with this extra need.

Not at all

No - it is far too high in density and will lead to social and noise issues.

Not at all

Too many!

Mostly not

No comment

Not at all

No! Too high and too dense.

Mostly yes

No comment.

Yes, completely

No comment.

Nothing chosen

Object: We welcome the on-going work you are undertaking in relation to building heights, densities and setting in relation to the historic environment. As you know, we are very concerned about the current building heights and densities being proposed within this area as part of the Area Action Plan. We are also concerned that decisions regarding height and density are evidence-based and informed by the evidence, not simply justified by retrospective evidence. We look forward to continuing to work with you on this aspect of the Plan. Suggested Change: We look forward to continuing to work with you regarding densities, heights, scale and massing on this site. We look forward to seeing the report that you are commissioning in this regard.

Nothing chosen

Too high and too dense. Need to ensure sense of community and resident investment. Must be a pleasant place to live. Who wants to rely on a lift to get home? Must be really good building spec with high quality built-in floor to ceiling accessible storage cupboards. A good quality sound installation between dwellings. 6-7 storeys is more than enough. Do not support the density proposed. Flats need to be larger to allow for working from home. Maximum of 4 storeys by the railway is supported.

Nothing chosen

Further comments: No comment

Mostly not

An approach where storey heights are generally greatest towards the centre of the area is sensible, but landmark buildings in key locations should not be discouraged. Commercial buildings in particular will often have a storey height of more than 3m, whereas the maximum storey heights are expressed as multiples of 3m. The LCVIA on which the AAP is seemingly based did not consider some taller buildings within areas and also only considered 3 scenarios – the majority of buildings being up to 6 storeys, 9 storeys and 12 storeys. A more nuanced assessment would support some taller buildings on parts of the site. The LVA submitted as part of applications 20/03523/FUL (South Cambs) and 20/03524/FUL (Cambridge City) for example demonstrates that some buildings taller than the maximum heights in metres shown on the plan on page 18 can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site in terms of landscape and townscape effects. It may be the intention that some taller buildings are appropriate where justified by the inclusion of “Localised increases in height should be located to help define key centres of activity within the area and help with wayfinding” in Policy 9, but reference to the maximum heights in the Policy makes this unclear. It should be noted that during the pre-application discussions with officers concerning the above two applications on land in the north west part of the Innovation Park, emphasis was placed upon the importance of a landmark building at this entrance to the City.

Mostly not

Refer to comments under Policy 9

Not at all

• The high skyline is going to make a huge impact on Milton Road and many residents in North Cambridge will see the towering flats from their homes. It will also give a feeling of overcrowding and being overlooked by the people in the top of the flats. It will make a huge difference to the people living in the area who are used to seeing the sky. • The new flats in bright colours will dominate the sky and that style will soon become outdated. Buildings should reflect their surroundings, not stick out like a sore thumb. • Edward Leigh from Smarter Cambridge Transport has mentioned the very high density of the area and compared it to areas in London. The proposals for the new area have one of the highest densities in the UK, but the difference is that these proposals have far less green space close by. So yes, the area will be far too dense for its position and the lack of green space can lead to mental health problems and further strains upon the medical services. • The high density will also put severe pressure on our water table, which is already far too low with the situation getting worse with every new development.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

• The 8,000 additional homes proposed is a “minimum”, implying more may be added. • We understand that the Housing Infrastructure Fund grant to enable the relocation of the water treatment plant is conditional on building this quantity of housing. That creates an unwanted pressure that could lead to overdevelopment of this land. • The population of Milton is estimated at a little under 5,000 in approximately 100 hectares, a density of 50 people per hectare. • The land proposed for redevelopment is approximately 84 hectares (excluding Cambridge North station and Milton Rd garage). It is proposed it will accommodate 8,250 dwellings (including beyond the plan period). At the dwelling occupancy rate of East Chesterton, Arbury and King’s Hedges (2.3 people/dwelling – 2011 Census), that would accommodate 19,000 people at a density of 226 per hectare. Once inaccessible and industrial (B2 and B8) land is excluded, the density will be higher still. Camden has a density of 109 people/ha (see Figure 13). How is it plausible to propose double that for NEC? • The justification for building up to 13 storeys “to create a visual focus” is weak. Precedent studies show that 5-6 storey buildings work well as a perimeter ‘mansion block’ with a shared internal garden. 8 storeys should be the absolute maximum. Building higher implies a tower block typology, for which there is no successful precedent in Cambridge. • These building heights will set a precedent for other developments, which are already pushing for heights that are out of keeping with Cambridge’s distinctly urban-rural character. • It is unclear whether any assessment has been made of the impact of proposed building heights on significant views. We have concerns about views from the River Cam floodplain and Fen Ditton, where the topography is flat and buildings of low heights, apart from church spires. The landscape and views are primarily fields and trees but this is being harmed by the Cambridge North Station development currently under construction (7 storeys) – see photographs in Appendix B. For this reason, building heights should be restricted and analysis is required as to where on the site the impact on important views might be greatest – which should influence the location of building heights. • The proposed housing densities were decided pre-COVID-19. The implications of this and future pandemics on longer-term living and working patterns needs to be analysed carefully. If the conclusion is that, for instance, homes need to include space for a home- office and residents need access to more public open space, this must be factored into the design density.

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly not

Heights and densities of the buildings are too high, compared to other developments, such as Eddington. This will impact on car usage - as the draft plan says, there are already very high levels of congestion on roads in the area and this will increase that congestion, as well as not leaving enough space for encouraging biodiversity.

Neutral

Further comments: Great care must be taken in the layout however especially around public spaces and in reference to existing Cambridge skyline.

Neutral

No Comments

Nothing chosen

No comment.

Mostly yes

No answer given