Question 6

Mostly yes

General density of 6, 7, 8 storeys definitely the way forward but not sure about necessity of 13 storeys for 'visual focus' - doesn't help that much with density, and not much evidence that developer mixed use can create the architectural quality that merits that height, or that planning control can ensure it is of quality - see absolute debacle of the Marque on Hills road - a disaster in a landmark spot. Cambridge needs good quality density as around station, not questionable towers. 'Landmarking' should be provided by high quality public buildings - potentially with big height? 13 storey arts centre I could get behind - see Tate Modern? Also - please no beige beige beige as per NW cambridge - a bit of colour, a bit of variety of materials

Not at all

This is ugly and environmentally unsound

Mostly not

Cambridge North is already much denser and containing less green space than South of the river. Access to substantial areas of nature (not just a "green corridor", actual space) is important for everyone, and even at the current density of the area this is not really provided.

Neutral

As I said in a previous comment, I support high-density buildings.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

If built at all, the buildings should not be so high. Maybe max of 4 stories.

Not at all

DEFINITELY NOT. The buildings must not be more than 3 or possibly 4 storeys high - these are hideous. The recent government plans say design must be in keeping with the local areas - homes and buildings in the local areas have pitched roofs. This will not be a beautiful area. It will be a total eyesore. It is far too dense for the area and particularly accounting for the number of residents going into Cambridge - the city will be completely gridlocked with bicycles, if people use them. It appears that none of the homes have balconies - it has been manifestly clear that people who have not had balconies or gardens/plenty of open area close to their home have suffered badly from lockdown and the restrictions related to Covid 19 resulting to long term mental problems. That is NOT providing for people's well being.

Neutral

I think lower build heights to allow more natural light for heating and cooling air heat ventilation pumps. An eclectic mix of houses and buildings some with wooden frames as per Future Build and to use some recycled materials where possible.. Green concrete.. Solar street lights

Neutral

I think lower build heights to allow more natural light for heating and cooling air heat ventilation pumps. An eclectic mix of houses and buildings some with wooden frames as per Future Build and to use some recycled materials where possible.. Green concrete.. Solar street lights

Not at all

It will be hideous. We used to ridicule the USSR for these types of buildings...now look at what we are proposing to save money. Not green enough. Less houses and more parks.

Not at all

This is a high rise hell.

Mostly not

Too high for the surrounding fenland countryside. Too high density - would you like to live there?

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

No, see comments on densification earlier. Too much in one space.

Not at all

The planned 8-10 story blocks exceed even those currently in the centre of Cambridge in the CB1 development. Even 6 stories is inappropriate for a new development that is promoting itself as 'sustainable' with 'open spaces'. The height of the buildings combined with the high-density approach will be far too intimidating and is wholly inappropriate for a small city such as Cambridge. This well exceeds the early-stage communications released to residents and funders in 2019.

Mostly yes

Having buildings 13 storeys high seems very tall given the general height of buildings in Cambridge. It would also be presumably visible from Milton park and the areas north of the a14 and the river areas, negatively impacting the natural environment

Yes, completely

No answer given

Mostly not

Cambridge is low rise and its few tall buildings are genuinely landmarks, mostly or very high architectural quality. That will not be the case for the 3 biodigesters Anglian Water will have to build fully above ground if the sewage works are moved to Honey Hill - they will be 26 meters high each so about 8 storeys high and visible for miles.

Not at all

You are ruining green belt land and surrounding villages to allow for this development. The water treatment works would be not be at a suitable level on the suggested locations. You are robbing Peter to pay Paul

Mostly not

High-rise buildings are ugly and affect the surrounding countryside, also what happens in them if the power fails? Milton Country park will be affected by the buildings around it

Yes, completely

As Cambridge is so flat we aren't renowned for our views so there is no risk of building height limiting views! It would be good if buildings are able to see green space.

Not at all

The Community Forum submission to the Issues and Options consultation on this topic was as follows: Height of buildings. Those attending had been astonished and dismayed by the suggestion, only arising two meetings ago, that 12-13 storey buildings were being considered in relation to their impact on nearby sensitive areas. Whilst those attending fully understand – even if they do not agree with - the urge to have dense and therefore most likely 4 to 6 storey average building heights, the 12-13 storey idea came out of the blue, was completely alien to Cambridge and could not be explained. A fixed maximum needs to be set, and Eddington offers the worked example of 6-8 storeys, absolute maximum. It was noted that Brookgate are notorious for exploiting any opportunity to go beyond the agreed building height and massing maxima, and it was entirely unclear how they would be restrained. Unfortunately, the country’s mechanisms for ensuring safety in high rise buildings have proved wholly unfit for purpose so this is another area where higher local standards need to be set. Given that higher buildings need more space around them, and cost more, it has not been demonstrated that any increase in height is worth the marginal increase in gross density. Literature on the subject emphasises the criticality of the quality of building, environment and maintenance as heights increase. Given the failures of CB1, with far lower heights than are proposed here, there are doubts the quantum improvement in approach that is required will be achieved. This is particularly so when the same developers and culture pertain. The height of buildings is the issue where local representatives are fundamentally opposed to what is being proposed and we would like to look at how lower height alternatives compare in terms of gross density, costs and quality. The building heights only became obvious very recently. End of CF submission I am disappointed that the recommendations of the forum have been completely ignored. The comparison between existing spires, such as Kings College Chapel, and modern flats to justify high buildings is completely fatuous. There is no comparison with the affect and impact. There has been no attempt to consider that high rise does not mean high density overall. In the 60s and 70s Victorian terraces were replaced in inner cities with tower blocks that, besides being a complete failure, actually had the same overall density once you consider that you need space around buildings Even if some changes due to covid are temporary there is a now a definite desire from people to avoid flats. Some of the people with the worst experiences were in flats in Orchard Park. In the current climate no one is going to be happy to be living in a 13 storey flat. Many are looking to WFH further from the office with more space and green space, not getting crammed into an expensive flat near an office they will hardly go to. The whole rational behind the development of providing high density accommodation for the Science Park has just disappeared. It also looks like the demand for office space will be drastically reduced due to WFH, particularly in the high tech firms on the Science Park. WSP are expecting a reduction in demand for office space of 25% to 40%. https://www.wsp.com/en-GL/insights/how-will-covid-19-change-demand-for-office-space The whole rational for all this extra office space has just disappeared as well. There are 3 references in the plan to covid, mostly about economic impact. There is no consideration of its impact on living and working practices. Unfortunately, this makes the whole plan obsolete before it was published. On page 41 of the plan it says there was “overall support for the creation of higher density …. led development”. There was definitely not support from The Community Forum for this level of heights and density so I don’t think this statement is correct.

Mostly not

The shape of the distribution of heights, with the tallest buildings clustered in the centre, is sensible. The overall population density is too high. I’d be happy to see some signature tall buildings but set in a context of more green space.

Not at all

13 storeys? In Cambridge? If the aim is really to help people rely on cars less, please improve and subsidise the public transport system, make the interchanges and the payment system more user friendly. It is unlikely that both partners in a family will be able to work close to home, so it must be assumed that at least one may have to commute to work. Implement the city wide residents' parking schemes that were promised years ago.

Mostly not

It looks similar to the disappointing development at Cambridge Central Station. High buildings need sufficient space in between, ideally green space with little traffic (less noise). The ratio of green space to built space seems far too low.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

Both building height and density are completely inappropriate for a city like Cambridge. Nowhere in Cambridge is there any residential or commercial building of 13 storeys. The comparison with such iconic buildings at Kings College chapel and Ely cathedral is frankly ludicrous. The development proposes house people at a density of around 10,000 per sq km, where Cambridge as a whole has a density of 3,000 per sq km. Around the country, only 9 inner city London boroughs, such as Islington, Tower Hamlets and Hackney, exceed this density, all of which are deprived areas. Is this really the ambition, here, to create a deprived area for Cambridge? Because that is the danger down the line.

Not at all

Both building height and density are completely inappropriate for a city like Cambridge. Nowhere in Cambridge is there any residential or commercial building of 13 storeys. The comparison with such iconic buildings at Kings College chapel and Ely cathedral is frankly ludicrous. The development proposes house people at a density of around 10,000 per sq km, where Cambridge as a whole has a density of 3,000 per sq km. Around the country, only 9 inner city London boroughs, such as Islington, Tower Hamlets and Hackney, exceed this density, all of which are deprived areas. Is this really the ambition, here, to create a deprived area for Cambridge? Because that is the danger down the line.

Yes, completely

No answer given