Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Summary of main themes raised in discussions with a varied group of local representatives discussing the North East Area Action Plan 2019 Throughout the series of meetings, those attending have varied in number and focus. There have been no minutes or summaries circulated, and therefore these themes rely on notes taken and memory. The concept of a balanced, sustainable and attractive community was welcome. Those attending were pleased to see the emphasis on zero carbon in line with City and wider aspirations, and have confirmation that the intention was to avoid adding to traffic on Milton Road. All parties wished to see a full range of on-site facilities including a welcoming social space served by attractive independent outlets. It was important that the new community should engage with existing surrounding communities, so that it would not be seen as exclusive, and should offer ‘social gain’ to the less fortunate adjacent residential areas, e.g. King’s Hedges. 1. Adequacy of school facilities. Whilst there is no clear definition of the target demographic or mix of housing or tenures, it is clear that local Secondary schools are full and under stress. They are also inconvenient, so a strong shared view emerged that there should be on-site secondary school provision with adequate ancillary space as well as primary school (and nursery) provision. 2. Adequacy of medical facilities. Accepting that these are facilities provided by third party (private) CCG entities, there was a strong view that adequate health facilities were required including pharmacy. The example of Trumpington should be followed. A settlement of circa 18,000 people will need more than primary care and at least integrated care centres. There also needs to be enhancement of the citywide facilities which the settlement will make additional demands on, such as Addenbrookes. 3. Permeability of the areas. There was a strong view that presently physical barriers prevent movement into and through both the science park and the eastern side of Milton Road. Therefore, it was vital to open up access points to ensure that free flow could take place. 4. Inward and outward flows. In a linked point there was a strong view that the interchange and outward as well as inward flows of activity and affluence should be facilitated, otherwise this area would persist in being a concentration of wealth and opportunities, not shared by the less privileged adjacent residential areas. 5. Adequacy of provision of open spaces. A widely held view was that in CB1 the provision of green space was completely inadequate. Therefore as well as ‘green arteries’/’a green spine’ running through the area, it was vital that adequate green space should be a requirement. It had been suggested that steps be taken to make the unoccupied area between the railway line and the river a formal country park extension to Milton Country Park, with appropriate access for pedestrians and cyclists. The representative of Milton Country Park also noted that Milton Country Park is full of users most of the time, and so cannot be viewed as an adequate reservoir of green space for the new development. 6. 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. 7. Commitment to biodiversity and high quality landscaping. Whilst various welcome indications were given about the central role of biodiversity, it remained hazy whether what was envisaged could combine increased density with sufficient space and emphasis on enhancing the natural environment. There was a lack of data, and in the case of the Science Park, the risk that densification would destroy the green qualities of this relatively low-density site. The attractiveness of the Science Park should be preserved whilst making it and its facilities more accessible. 8. Vision for the area. A concise expression of what the intended character and target occupancy is urgently required. What is the intended demographic? Where are the occupants of working age expected to work? What is the mix intended to be? 9. Car ownership. Whilst the vision of low car ownership is to be applauded, doubts remain that it will be possible both to respond to the current car ownership needs, and to avoid adjacent residential areas being the reservoir for parking ‘illicit’ cars owned by occupants. The danger is that measures to reduce car use will not be sufficiently thought through, robust or enforced to stand up to human creativity. The idea that not providing parking would reduce car usage at Orchard Park has just resulted in cars being scattered around the development. Adequate electric car charging provision is required from the outset. 10. A new Cultural Centre for Cambridge. So far only the idea of occupants feeling so connected by reliable public transport with the centre of Cambridge that they will readily go there for cultural activity has been explored. This of course relies on a proper range of high quality public transport, not just inadequate bus services. Nor does the proximity of the Guided Bus, which is questionably a positive factor, or the railway station offer the means to take people to where they wish to be. However, it is also important to consider using the creation of this community to be the basis for building a new top quality concert hall and venue for Cambridge that will be larger than anything presently on offer, near to the railway station, and of sufficient size and flexibility to serve as a major regional focus – 2,000 plus seats. 11. Sustainable building. It is essential that buildings achieve the highest eco standards and that adequate emphasis is placed upon water and achieving the Eddington standards of built-in sustainable water use, grey water recycling, SUDS etc. Emphasis on the highest standards of design and sympathetic materials are also regarded as essential. We should be aiming at Passivhouse standards of insulation which require barely any heating and actually pay for themselves in the long term. 12. Social and affordable housing. In order to obtain the widest benefit from the proposed development, there must be a mandatory social and affordable housing content, not diluted/redirected to alternative uses. 13. Finally dealing with the Fen Road Level Crossing. For decades the ‘oubliette’ status of Fen Road north of the railway has spawned a well-known range of social and behavioural issues that spill over dangerously into Chesterton. The level crossing is still a focus for these problems. Closing the level crossing is an objective fervently wished for by many residents. In order to do so, a new bridge and route to Milton Road is required. This new development provides the opportunity to create an adequate bridged link over the railway line between the northern end of Fen Road and Milton Road, and must be seized. This can be combined with relocation of working spaces currently along Cowley Road to a new area bisected by a road running parallel with the A14. 14. Provision of substitute employment space. Current use of the eastern area includes both light industrial and Cambridge’s major bus depot. So long as Cambridge remains wedded to buses, a suitable bus depot will be required. It is unclear what alternative provision is proposed for existing commercial users, or what commitment will be included for additional working space. 15. Shopping Facilities. Everything needs to be done to encourage vibrant independent shops and facilities. This will require affordable rents and the ability for facilities to grow in an organic and flexible manner. Steps may need to be taken to prevent large chains. Providing higher buildings will not in itself provide what is required. 16. Cycling. One would hope that cycling provision is designed into the plans coherently in all respects from the outset. Even on completely new developments it seems that the cycling facilities are fitted around everything else, as an afterthought, so are not properly linked together. The lack of proper bike routes to The Triangle and Station bike parks would be an example. The cultural disconnect of so many involved in these developments can be difficult to overcome. Another problem is the lack of decent lighting on cycle routes, even when they are new and purpose built. The cycle track next to the guided bus on Kings Hedges Road is treacherous at night as it is pitch black. There also needs to be consideration of improving cycling routes across Cambridge as there needs to be recognition that the new residents will want to go everywhere in Cambridge, not just to the edge. Although one can look at good examples (Pye Bridge) there are black spots (Newmarket Road Roundabout) and really easy things which are not done (Chesterton Road). The rate of progress is just not fast enough and I doubt I will see sufficient improvement in my lifetime. Adequate cycle parking provision is required from the outset. 17. Culture of Development. We are very encouraged by the approach of some of the planners who advocate the ideas of people such as Jan Gehl. However, so much of the culture around local developments does not match the continental examples which are held up as exemplars. It is difficult to see how stakeholders such as Brookgate will ever achieve what is required. Another problem is that although money can be found for capital there is no mechanism for providing sufficient revenue to support things such as bus services and social facilities. Until someone can find a solution examples from the continent, where this is not a problem, are not going to help. 18. Communities. Developing successful communities needs to be a top priority and needs to be given a great deal of thought. Certainly, providing the right facilities and a people centric environment is a start. Thought also needs to be given to how different demographics will live together, as has so lamentably failed at CB1. Marmalade Lane is an example of an alternative approach that much can be learnt from, although it may not work wholesale for everyone. 19. Noise. There doesn't seem to be much recognition of noise as a problem or emphasis on any kinds of noise barriers. As the development is right next to the A14, which is being enhanced to take more traffic, this is something that needs to be addressed. It is something people living at Orchard Park often comment on. The only solution we can see is having noise barriers which really work without impacting other areas. The danger is that this is a downshift on quality of life before we have even started. 20. Safety. If people are going to walk then the environment must not only be safe but be perceived to be so by the inhabitants. We assume that there is a body of knowledge that can be used to implement this. This will not be just about design but resources to deal with any issues that arise. There is an issue locally that the council have significantly cut the level of street lighting to save money and most people think that it is now completely inadequate. There will need to be a level of lighting that people are genuinely happy with which will need to be much more than the current council "standard". 21. Sense of Identity and Place. There is nothing so far to indicate that there will be anything about the design which provides a sense of identity which is unique, let alone anything identifiable with Cambridge and the local environment. Many new developments are bland and soulless and could be from any new development in Europe. Archetypal square boxes with a lot of steel, glass and concrete abound. The development has got off to a flying start in soulless architecture with the hotel and offices outside Cambridge North. 22. Impact on Citywide Facilities. A development of this size, on top of all the other new developments both built and planned, will make large demands on the citywide facilities. These would include the hospitals, education, arts facilities, night life, social services and local government. It is not clear how these will be expanded to avoid overcrowding, or even where there is space to do so. There don’t appear to be any plans for the developers to contribute to anything outside the actual development and local government has no money. 23. Housing for Local Workers. It is commendable that there is an ambition to provide housing for local workers. However, it is not clear what measures are possible to stop developers actively promoting housing to buy to leave investors and commuters attracted by the nearby station. Even if they don’t promote this then simple market forces may have the same outcome. The idea of tied housing is worth considering but it fell into disrepute in the past because it shifted the balance of power towards employers. 24. Implementation. There is a need to ensure that the balance of power lies with the planners and not the developers or we will have the familiar pattern of poor architecture (The Marque), facilities delivered decades after the development (Cambourne) and heights that creep up with soulless developments (CB1). There needs to be a quantum leap in the legal and governance framework at the outset to avoid this. There also need to be resources and capabilities kept in reserve to rectify any design issues that become apparent later. 25. Local Involvement. Local representatives expressed a view that the Science Park and the development are, and will be, a citadel of affluence surrounded by some of the less affluent local wards. The lack of opportunities for local young people was a particular concern. Things that could be done to address this could include upgrading nearby facilities, increasing permeability and providing career pathways for young local people to gain employment in the development, and building on the proximity of the Regional College. J. Latham, W. Blythe, M. Bond and A. Milbourn 22.10.2019

No uploaded files for public display