Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Strongly disagree

Disappointing. As a local resident, I certainly understand the need for additional development in the City and especially new affordable homes but we I am very concerned about the plans to redevelop North East Cambridge as put forward in this consultation. Naturally a plan which seeks to create an ‘inclusive, walkable, low-carbon new city district with a lively mix of homes, workplaces, services and social spaces, fully integrated with surrounding neighbourhoods’ intended ‘foster community wellbeing’ and be ‘socially cohesive’ is an attractive idea, but on the face of it it’s impossible to see how this can work with the ratios of buildings to hectare in this area. Indeed, the overall density, heights, lack of green space and infrastructure is a subject of considerable worry. It is also disappointing that Cambridge, with its own specific history and urban grain and high concentration of inventive and knowledge-based economies, is not providing the models of the very best quality of distinctive and sustainable development and not rolling out an inner-city model (c.f. J.G.Ballard’s 1975 novel High Rise). In my view, this really ought to be an opportunity for an outstanding sustainable ‘garden suburb’ development for the 21st century (perhaps drawing inspiration from BedZED, and not modern-day Singapore. I am concerned about the diminution of what began as a strategic vision and what seems to be evolving, and indeed between that and what will be delivered once the quantity surveyors have their cut of the development pack (qv the main station development).

Mostly not

No. Again it is very difficult to see how policy of discouraging cars can be monitored and projected into the future. The already high traffic levels in the north of the city are likely only to be increased by this development, even with the provision and design around walking and cycling.

Not at all

No. There should be a greater sense of a planned street-scape and open and integrated community. Cambridge is fast gaining a reputation as a city of ‘cloned’ modern development lacking in distinctiveness and diversity, and I would argue, a lack of the linked and open, green and planted spaces which define the local Cambridge urban (and to some extent semi-rural) ‘grain’.

Mostly not

No. My impression is that that the proposed development will actually bring a net increase in demand. I am concerned that this development does not seem to be planned with other related new developments, such as Waterbeach New Town development, and how those homes and jobs and transport impact on this end of Cambridge.

Mostly not

No. But again, how can we judge? It is really difficult to understand from the consultation document what the community facilities will be. The provision seems vague and imprecise and dependent on numerous other unspecified factors. Community facilities must surely be an essential foundation for these new communities, otherwise too much pressure will be placed on already over-subscribed schools, health centres and exercise facilities in the already highly populated area of Cambridge. There is provision for a library and a community centre, a GP surgery but not currently for a secondary school for a new suburb the size of Ely.

Mostly not

No. The proposed building heights are entirely inappropriate to this city, and will be a major blow to the character of the townscape and the surrounding landscape. Up to ten or even thirteen stories means an extreme height in relation to surrounding buildings, and ought to firmly rejected from this point. A maximum of six storeys should be the target, and a greater emphasis on creating street communities. Even these buildings must be of very high architectural and design standards. More individual dwellings with gardens should be planned – these could be private or part-shared (Mulberry Close has a good balance of small private gardens and a popular shared public space at its centre). Nor is there any provision for allotments – increasingly popular with Cambridge families. The coronavirus pandemic has proved just how essential having access to outdoor space is beneficial to both mental wellbeing and safe social interaction.

Mostly not

No. I am very concerned at the apparent lack of open space in the plans. According to Cambridge Local Plan the standard for new developments is 2.2 hectares of informal open space per 1000 residents (in addition to other types of open space such as sports facilities). The 18,500 people proposed to be housed in the North East Cambridge site should therefore have at least 41 hectares of informal open space. However, only 10 hectares of public parks and squares are set out in the plans, which seems at odds with the statement in the Local Plan that ‘our expectation is that all open space requirements will be met on-site’.

Mostly not

No. Given the current outline plans I would say that bio-diversity will not be improved on the development site, and a negative impact will also be felt on the shoulder areas such as Milton Country Park. My own view is that a tragic missed opportunity to create a green corridor and potential related tree canopy which links Stourbridge and Chesterton Fen with Milton Country Park, at least from the point where Cambridge North station sits.

Not at all

No. The only way this can be done effectively is by legal constraints. Even in a bike and walk friendly development, personal choice and need will encourage a percentage to be car owners (for instance, caring for elderly relatives at a distance, of which one is especially conscious during the current pandemic, or taking children to related out of school activities not catered for in the immediate area).

Not at all

No, not as far as I can see from the discussion document, rather the reverse.