Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Disagree

The vision is lacking in many ways. It states that NECAAP will have ‘a real sense of place’. What does this mean? The density of dwellings is not going to deliver an environment that ‘fosters communities’. There is a lack of infrastructure that sufficiently supports the community. The ratio of dwellings versus open spaces is too heavily biased towards dwellings, thus not leaving enough space for community and wellbeing. Densely packed high rises with very little outdoor space for the residents means that more open space would be required. With the recent changes in the world (pandemic) it has become apparent that people need this space if they are to live happy lives with a high level of wellbeing. There is no proof in the plan that the community, wellbeing and community amenities will be prioritised over sheer quantity of dwellings and revenue for builders. Cambridge does not stand to gain anything as a city that has a reputation for ‘wellbeing, recreation and community safety’. On top of this NECAAP is going to push out the waste water treatment plant to green belt. Turning a brownfield site into residential space is going to negatively impact both the proposed development and the surrounding greenbelt. Seemingly all the development is happening to make sure that central government’s housing targets are met, without regard for a holistic view for the entire Cambridge and Cambridgeshire area. Other developments in the area have not fully sold and in some cases sold to foreign investment and are not actually occupied. What is the real housing requirement for the Cambridge and Cambridgeshire area and how has this changed in recent times? With the pandemic we have been shown that the situation can change rapidly. 10 hectares out of 182 hectares (1 ha = 100m x 100m) are designated to public parks and squares. This is a mere 5.5% of all the space. This is not enough. If 6,000 of the 8,000 dwellings are flats and high rises, this equates to 100,000 m2 divided by 6,000. Averaging to 16.7 m2 per dwelling for those dwellings that do not have gardens. On average this is the footprint of a 4m x 4m room. Even if 3,000 of the 8,000 dwelling come without a garden or outdoor space and therefore provide 33.3 m2, this cannot be enough. NECAAP claims 20,000 jobs will be created. Where are these jobs precisely? Given that the 8,000 dwellings will provide homes for 18,000 residents, at least 2,000 of these jobs will be outside the area. This means that people will travel to NECAAP from other areas in the region or country. It is of course unrealistic to believe that all 18,000 residents will even be employed. With children, retirees and stay-at-home residents making up part of the community it is more likely that no more than half the residents will be employed. Some will already be employed elsewhere and not all of them will be employed in the Cambridge area. This is why infrastructure is very important and discouraging car use is not going to be a sustainable solution. To suggest that discouraging car use is done to address climate change is also outdated. Advances in working from home, green electricity generation and the advent of the electric car will result in residents feeling justified in owning and driving a vehicle. This is going to be a revolutionary change in society in the next five to ten years, resulting in the same amount of cars per household on the road. The communities that are being built for the future need to be able to support this and having adequate infrastructure to allow for parking cars near homes is vitally important. This includes road infrastructure, charging infrastructure, electricity generation infrastructure (Solar PV etc.) and parking spaces (public and private). Creating a network of roads, cycle paths and footpaths that is able to support all road users safely is what should be aimed for. It can be done look at good examples abroad. The road infrastructure can contribute to the green spaces if sufficient buffer space is provided between roads, footpaths and cycle ways. The current vision to provide 4,400 parking spaces off-site is a bad plan. Why would residents feel safe to leave their second most prized possession a very long walk away from their homes? Is the car safe? Can I even make the walk when I am ageing? How will my elderly parents visit my house? What do I do when I am disabled? Can I park near my home? How do I reach my home to drop off my weekly shop? Can the delivery vans come to my house? We need a much more holistic approach to roads, parking, foot paths and cycleways. The number of dwellings on NECAAP needs to drastically come down to support a community that needs parks, open green spaces, road infrastructure, schools, shops and dwellings that will support a post-COVID way of life. Working from home will be more prevalent and therefore it is extremely important that residents have a work-life environment that provides the correct balance.

Mostly not

On-site traffic Additional dedicated cycle and walking paths can only be a positive step for everyone living in and around the area. However, to encourage a diverse community of all ages active modes of transport must be balanced with sufficient options for those who are physically less able. Not to do so would be less inclusive and have an adverse effect on the community. There is mention of walking and cycling but there is no mention of how one would get around the site by car. How does the site provide for safe cycling and walking around the site in combination with car traffic. Is the transport network sufficiently separated so that traffic that needs access can move about the site efficiently but without intruding on the ease and safety with which pedestrians and cyclists should be able to move. Traffic budget and community With regards to traffic that needs access to the site, there is an increasing need for delivery traffic to dwellings. More and more people will rely on grocery deliveries and parcel deliveries. Especially when they themselves do not possess a vehicle or cannot readily drive into town because driving is discouraged. We have also seen that in a working from home society the reliance on home deliveries is important. Delivery traffic needs to be able to safely move around the site and have plenty of space to park by the roadside without impeding other traffic. Especially emergency vehicles. Having a safe 20MPH infrastructure for access that makes these larger vehicles slow down is even more important. Larger vehicles and pedestrian and pedestrians don’t mix well. Assuming that residents will use their cars at least once per day to go off site, this would mean that there are 4000 two way trips by residents alone during a day. This leaves only 4434 trips out of the trip budget (8434) for Milton Road and King’s Hedges road available. With all other traffic to be consider this is rather a low number. And that is assuming that people will only have 1 trip per day and 0.5 cars per dwelling. How does this account for delivery vans, taxis, visitors, computers to the site, emergency vehicles, public transport etc.? This is of course just accounting for all the new traffic the site will generate. What are the current levels of traffic and how does this affect the trip budget? Connectivity to the wider network With regards to connectivity in and out of the site and especially to and from Horningsea as is of interest to Horningsea Parish Council, we believe that more needs to be done to make sure that cycling access routes to and from the site connect the northern villages. There is no consideration for river crossings making access to the site from Horningsea, Fen Ditton, Bottisham, Quy and Lode difficult. There is a good chance that the site provides employment to these villages but crossing the river is not considered in the plan. Delivery hub The use of a deliverable hub is admirable but there is no way to know whether this concept will be adopted by internet companies and delivery companies. What is the support for this concept. The logistics of inserting another stop in the already complex delivery process would mean the delivery companies would only choose to deliver to the door anyway, completely bypassing the hub. If they choose to use the hub concept they would have to invest in new assets for cycle delivery which would constitute a major change on their behalf. Has this been taken into consideration? Have delivery and internet companies been consulted on this topic? Is the idea workable at all? Conclusion Horningsea parish council believes that the plan needs to provide a much better balance and quota for traffic of all kinds. Forcing an infrastructure that predominantly supports cycling, walking and public transport will not change people’s behaviours. The plan needs to be realistic and take into account motorists, pedestrians, cyclists and public transport in a balanced, realistic way. The plan is aspirational but does not explain how this will be achieved.

Neutral

The centres are spread out across the site and seemingly in places that would work based on the distribution of dwellings. It is the use of these spaces and the design that will greatly impact their usefulness and success. There is unfortunately very little information about this in the plan. There is mention of primary school and a potential secondary school as part of the centres. These should be considered separately in the same way that employment is. Though vital to the community schools need a consideration of their own. The setting would be completely different from retail, community centres and open spaces.

Mostly not

Residential density far too high for the location and 20,000 new jobs for 8,000 homes suggests it will do nothing to alleviate the current housing pressures in Cambridge – it will simply cancel each other out at best. What jobs will they be? Be better off creating more homes and jobs in an area that needs both. The events of 2020 are affecting economic growth, working practices and living arrangements. Lower economic growth will reduce the minimum housing provision in the LDP as required by Government. Increased working from home will reduce the requirement for office space and daily commuting but may result in a desire for more space in homes, to avoid living in dense urban areas or to live further away. The Government is proposing to allow change of use for redundant commercial buildings and other measures to rapidly increase residential space. This will affect NECAAP.

Mostly not

Such an increase in population would likely need a secondary school. There don’t appear to be any community sports facilities (astro, swimming pool, gym) to accommodate the additional population and reduce the already high pressure on existing facilities. The addition of a care home for the increasing elderly population should also be considered. Furthermore, there is insufficient green space for the number of people – local green areas e.g. Milton Country Park, are already well used and would not have sufficient capacity for such an increase in footfall.

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.

Neutral

There is not enough information to provide further comments.

Mostly not

The NECAAP should never be considered in isolation. The extreme negative impact on flora and fauna that would result in the relocation of WWTP to areas that are either partially or entirely green belt can never be undone and totally outbalance any of the measures proposed in these plans. We do not believe that this relocation is justified or necessary and strongly urge the reconsideration of keeping the sewerage works on the existing site and to negotiate with the Government about targets for housing and employment growth. The huge shift towards home working following the pandemic will have a significant impact on both of these needs moving forwards and must be revisited.

Neutral

Not enough information in plans to comment

Mostly not

There is very little mention of solar PV for residential structures in the plan. Generating energy through solar should be considered. Especially when paired with battery storage. Charging electric cars will become more and more important in the future. Providing charging near dwellings should be provided and paired with micro generation and power storage.