Question 6

Not at all

High rise living was tried in the 1960s and 1970s and quickly became a problem. Shops at ground floor level closed down and the areas declined in popularity. A densely populated area with high rise blocks causes the wind to be funnelled around the buildings. The majority of the dwellings would appear to have to be 1 or 2 bedroom apartments and do not cater for growing families. People with children would need to move out of the area. It would seem that the occupants would need to be out at work all day, which does not fit well with your desire for "community".

Not at all

i dont think the number of homes here is proportionate

Not at all

Anything above 3 stories is entirely inappropriate for this rural fringe of our beautiful city.

Not at all

The building heights suggested are completely out of character for the Cambridge landscape.Has any assessment been made of the impact of proposed building heights on significant views? I think that buildings of this height are inappropriate for the region. The building densities also require much more public green space than has been planned for. The recent lock downs have shown that people value green space and there will probably be more demand for housing with space for a home office.

Neutral

The approach to building heights and density should be determined by aspects such as liveability rather than external factors which could lead to over development. The framework for the area should begin with walking and cycle routes and generous amounts of green space. Individual buildings and areas should be designed to provide a pleasant and attractive experience for people to move through the area on foot or by cycle. Plenty of street trees should be used in areas of tall buildings to avoid wind tunnel effects. Wayfinding should be clear and simple.

Yes, completely

This is an excellent way of meeting the targets for accommodation, jobs and supporting facilities. Being a considerable distance from Cambridge centre it should not dominate the sense of place that makes the city special, nor, it is hoped, detract from the key views over the city. By having a high density development, it is hoped that there will be minimal loss of Green Belt around Cambridge and the character of the necklace villages will not be diminished over time by being gradually absorbed as a Cambridge city suburb.

Not at all

Some very high buildings, 13 stories ! and high density housing.

Mostly not

Far too high a housing density for the existing or possible planned roads etc.

Neutral

The Wildlife Trust agrees that the location is appropriate for high density buildings, although has no specific comment on building heights. The Trust would like to query the limited acknowledgement given to water resources within policies relating to building density and street layout. Policy 7 says Integrate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) as part of a comprehensive site-wide approach but no other mention appears in this part of the AAP to an intention to maximise the retention and re-use of water within the district. More soft landscaping, rain gardens and water butts within the public realm would all contribute to this. We acknowledge more detailed consideration is given to water use efficiency in Policies 4a - c and comment on these as part of our response to Q.10.

Neutral

No comment

Neutral

*

Mostly not

It is a characteristic of new builds in many parts of Cambridge that their height and capacity is being maximised, and consequently out of character with their surroundings. Whilst NEC is largely a brownfield site the suggestion that heights of 8-13 stories are being considered seems wholly inappropriate for Cambridge, and the lifestyle/environment being promoted.

Not at all

This seems to be a disaster. Tall buildings such as those proposed are completely out of character in Cambridge and are not pleasant to live in. Some of these will be visible for miles as are Ely Cathedral and Kings College but I can't see tourists coming to take photos of the new ones. There's no merit in these buildings dominating the skyline.

Not at all

The density of homes is extremely high, especially with the limited open and green space in the development. If you compare this to central London, there would be access to large parks, whereas we have the already overused Milton Country Park, accessed over a busy road - this is not even nearly good enough. The proposed building heights are excessive and will radically change the whole area.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

Not at all. The proposal appears to add around 15-20,000 people, ie. 12 to 17 % of Cambridge’s total population, into a development area of less than 5% of the city. Due to the provision of commercial space, it appears that densities of 200 to 400 dwellings/ha are planned. The resulting building heights are incompatible with the historic city of Cambridge and the fenland landscape. We support the idea of building heights of 4 to 6 storeys generally. The case for a few taller buildings to break up the massing effect should be examined.

Not at all

Totally inappropriate – will detract from beauty of Cambridge and surrounding flat fenland landscape What guarantees are there that all developers will not opt for 13 storey, high density to maximise profit? Variance from Local Plan – why this variance is important enough to be allowed is not explained. Highest density and thereby highest buildings congregated at one site (Cowley Road) leading to lack of “community”

Neutral

The approach to building heights and density should be determined by aspects such as liveability rather than external factors which could lead to overdevelopment. The framework for the area should begin with walking and cycle routes and generous amounts of green space. Individual buildings and areas should be designed to provide a pleasant and attractive experience for people to move through the area on foot or by cycle. Plenty of street trees should be used in areas of tall buildings to avoid wind tunnel effects. Wayfinding should be clear and simple.

Not at all

The plan (heights and density of buildings and areas) should be designed to provide a pleasant and attractive experience for people to live, work in and move through, mainly on foot or by cycle. There should be lots of walking and cycle routes and generous amounts of green space. The density appears very high compared to other parts of the city. It looks like the cycleways are unlikely to be built wider than the 2.5m minimum, even where volumes of cycle traffic would require it, and green space is more limited than it should be. The high buildings are unlikely to be attractive places to live, especially given the limited open space. I am also concerned about the impact on the skyline and built environment. I think the development should be low rise

Not at all

Proposed accommodation blocks far too high and intrusive. Proposed density will overwhelm the space available.

Not at all

Totally inappropriate – will detract from beauty of Cambridge and surrounding flat fenland landscape What guarantees are there that all developers will not opt for 13 storey, high density to maximise profit? Variance from Local Plan – why this variance is important enough to be allowed is not explained. Highest density and thereby highest buildings congregated at one site (Cowley Road) leading to lack of “community”

Not at all

Not apropriate buildings too high out of keeping with local area

Mostly not

Looks too high-rise for Cambridge! People living in flats need plenty of access to outdoor space (particularly as summers get hotter over the coming decades!). This looks like over-development to me

Not at all

I think high rises too often lead to a sense of oppression, alienation and loss of connection to the area they are built in. See CB1 development in Cambridge, which aid seen high crime rates, including prostitution and bike theft. What if you replicate that? Do you want that to be your legacy as planners, with immense power to deliver a worthy addition to a first class City in many respects?

Neutral

This bit I like. The increased public parks from Chesterton to Waterbeach sound great. I’d put in birdwatching towers, as they have in Wicken Fen, and lots of education signs. Also some more orchards, as there is at Milton Country Park. In terms of biodiversity amongst the housing and retail developments, I’d put plenty of trees and bushes, and plenty of space between buildings. Plus allow for some independent shops, which may include garden shops and market area for local vegetables/fruit and other items. Having a herb garden and a sensory garden in the midst of housing area would help break it up, and give residents an immediate connection to nature and encourage to cook at home.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly yes

Please ensure safety and security is of prevalence within these more densely populated building areas. Please do not allow landlords to scoop them up and outbuy ordinary people.

Not at all

Heights should not exceed what we already have in the science park. People need to be able to see the sky! No one will benefit from the proposed density. The pandemic has shown that people in tower blocks with little access to green space suffered mentally emotionally and physically, far more than those in low density communities. I do not believe that a characterful and pleasant community can be created with tower blocks of the planned density. In addition, I am very worried that this density will create a no-go zone that effectively isolates my village from the rest of cambridge. If you build to this density you can expect anti social behaviour to follow - simply because no one can live well in a development such as this.

Not at all

More dense than inner city London without the corresponding necessary green spaces. Height is far too high.