Question 6

Not at all

It presents a drab and very dull picture: ugly, when current thought is inclining to more care towards an attractive integration with green spaces. This looks like the worst of CB1, with wind tunnels, the odd tree and a quick descent into urban bleakness rather than a place where you might want to raise a family. Instead of being integrated with e.g. Chesterton Fen, it is separate. Even though it is so circumscribed by roads, the site would benefit from a much more imaginative approach, instead of what appears to be more piles of boxes. Who wants to look out on boxes?

Not at all

The plans are really about how to fit as many people as possible into a small space and the only way for the developers to make a good healthy profit after paying to move the water treatment site is to built high and not provide facilities. 13 stories is far too high and will tower over the the surrounding areas. The density is more than inner London but they have open spaces close by, this development does not. The pandemic must also be mentioned here. The lockdown has meant people forced to stay inside and those in high rise blocks have struggled with their mental health issues because they have been unable to get out. We must expect a better quality of life than being cooped up all day. HPERA have drawn an image of what the development will look like from Milton Road. From my home I will see a ugly towering skyline that is higher that anything else in Cambridge. I believe the original plans were for 4 to 6 stories, why has this been changed?

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

Definitely not! 13 storeys is higher than elsewhere in Cambridge, and simply not appropriate for the historic city of Cambridge. The density is also far too great (greater than much of inner London). The buildings would dominate the skyline

Mostly not

Overall, the density is probably too much. It is too tall (min 4-5 stories). Too much focus on high rise, not enough on high density terraced housing.

Not at all

No not at all appropriate for this location. The absolute maximum should be 8 storeys as is the case at Eddington , which even at this height has a tower block feel. 13 storeys is disproportionately tall compared to anything else in this area and will dominate the skyline in an ugly and detrimental way

Not at all

The planned building heights are too high. The documents compare the tallest of them to the largest buildings in the county rather than the local average, which would have a median of two stories and perhaps a mean of less than three? Is comparing the tallest planned building to King's College Chapel, the University Library and Ely Cathedral meant to suggest that similar levels of architectural significance and craftsmanship will be achieved? If not, the comparison seems manipulative.

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

Those building heights will spoil the horizon of Cambridge and the buildings proposed look ugly. I would not want to live in the proposed development and I doubt anyone with a choice would choose to.

Not at all

It's good to have a mix of building heights, but a range of 6 to 13 storeys for the residential areas is far too high for this city and for this location. Other recent residential developments around the periphery of the city are typically 3 to 5 storeys and would be equally acceptable here. On the Science Park a typical height of 4-5 storeys is shown so why should it be so much more on the other side of Milton Road? This proposal would set a precedent for an experiment in high density living not seen before in Cambridgeshire. If this plan goes ahead unchanged I fear for the prospects of a decent quality of life for those living there.

Not at all

Too many high rises and I am very worried about the proposal to have 10 storey buildings. For good living environments for current and future residents there should only be 5-6 storey buidlings maximum....including office buildings- unless the office buildings will be far back towards the A14. People dont want to live surrounded by mountains of brick and glass - we need air, trees, green space and lots of it.

Not at all

One of the beauties of Cambridge was that it can hardly been seen from the M11 until the development of the Addenbrooke's site and, from the A14, Orchard Park. You probably dream to make some statement with 13 storeys high tower blocks, call it a Gateway, or any such nonsense. No. Keep it low. The Science Park is barely visible, bar the traffic that spews in and out of it. So let its employees live in a modest development.

Mostly not

I have worries that too high buildings will destroy the landscape from Ditton Meadows.

Not at all

The densities proposed are far too high to ensure adequate green space counteract the urban heat island effect and promote biodiversity and air quality, The density means access to daylight will almost certainly be compromised. Such a concentration of apartments will mean the development will not be attractive families so it will not have a good social mix.

Not at all

No answer given

Neutral

While the height may not be such an issue the type of architecture and the density might raise some problems. During the pandemic we have seen people need more space at home and this will probably continue into the future.

Not at all

As an initial point, the 8000 homes is described as a ‘minimum’. With already very high densities, this is concerning and restricts a full view picture of what is being proposed. It is highly problematic, given the segregated nature of the housing, that in an outer suburb area the council is proposing something that is double the density of Camden. This will vastly alter the nature of the area and the city and is strongly opposed, particularly in the context of the lack of public open space. I strongly support CPPF’s assessment that, 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. The building density and heights in Trumpington Meadows works well and is integrated in that location, it is incredibly disappointing this is not part of the vision on this site. This will harm the rural landscape, such as Ditton Meadows, and potential views should have formed part of the consultation documentation.

Neutral

While the height may not be such an issue the type of architecture and the density might raise some problems. During the pandemic we have seen people need more space at home and this will probably continue into the future.

Neutral

While the height may not be such an issue the type of architecture and the density might raise some problems. During the pandemic we have seen people need more space at home and this will probably continue into the future.

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

These buildings will be up to 13 storeys high, higher than anywhere else in Cambridge and denser than much of inner London. I feel this is entirely inappropriate for an historic city which is almost all 2 or 3 storeys at most. It is simply absurd to compare a 13 storey block with buildings such as King’s College Chapel and Ely Cathedral. The latter are of course tall buildings, yet they are of enormous architectural and historical merit. High rise blocks, particularly if they are similar to the monstrous carbuncle of a hotel next to Cambridge north station, are in no way comparable. These buildings will dominate the skyline from Milton Road, Fen Ditton, the towpath etc. In my view the density of buildings is also absolutely unacceptable. There are good examples of social housing - for example the recently completed and much praised Goldsmith Street in Norwich, with around 83 dwellings per hectare, as opposed to 330-385 per hectare on the sewage works site. This kind of density will not offer a good quality of life to residents, and will place considerable strain on the already stretched transport and other amenities in the city.

Not at all

This development is not only making the same mistakes as 1960s urban planners with high-rise high density developments, but adding some new mistakes of their own that rely on a quantum shift in public behaviour that is unlikely to happen for decades. There is a high risk of creating the slums of the future.

Not at all

The heights of the buildings are extreme and completely out of character for the City. They will be seen from a long way around and will have a severe negative impact on the City as a whole.

Not at all

No way! The new buildings are going to be incredibly high, and will be visible from a long way away; Cambridge is a flat place after all. Eddington has no buildings above 8 storeys, and a similar limit here would be good. Access to outside space is vital, especially for families with young children where unsupervised outside play is not possible when living in a block of flats. The planned split between houses with private gardens, and flats without is not good. I'd prefer the plans to be modified for more houses and fewer high-rise blocks.

Mostly yes

Residential better not high rise but good to build up rather than out and have some green space. Gardens are really important for well-being. Communal allotments.

Not at all

The heights of building are totally inappropriate. Cambridge is losing its’ identity and this will swamp traditional houses nearby.

Mostly not

No answer given

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE INCLUSION OF A FORCED LIKERT SCALE CHOICE ABOVE. MY SELECTION DOES NOT REPRESENT MY VIEWS: IT IS MERELY AN ENABLER OF THE TEXT SUBMISSION IN THIS FIELD.

Not at all

Too many tall buildings and some considerably too tall. Cambridge city centre currently is quite low and whilst several buildings have tall spires and towers I think most are only 3 - 4 stories. Having upto 13 stories in an area outside of the centre will be very confusing as generally it's now considered a city should get denser and generally taller towards the centre then reduce in density and height as you go further out, however the heights proposed here would go against that and potentially create a "new centre" and "old/historic centre". Does not seem very "inclusive" to primarily (maybe even only) have high density apartment blocks. Not everyone wants to live in that type of housing and this will reduce the types of people living in the area. Also less suitable for families and older folk.