+
+
+ Summary
+The responses to the South Cambridgeshire Council’s development plan reflect a complex interplay of support and opposition, highlighting a range of concerns and aspirations for the future of Greater Cambridge. Overall, there is a strong emphasis on the need for sustainable development that prioritises green spaces, affordable housing, and improved public transport. Many respondents advocate for the creation of vibrant, mixed-use neighbourhoods that facilitate access to essential services and promote community wellbeing. However, there is also significant apprehension regarding the potential negative impacts of overdevelopment, particularly in rural villages and green belt areas, which could undermine local character and biodiversity.
+Key themes include the desire for enhanced public transport and cycling infrastructure to reduce car dependency, the importance of preserving existing green spaces and wildlife habitats, and the need for affordable housing that meets the diverse needs of the community. Respondents express concerns about the adequacy of current infrastructure to support proposed developments, particularly in relation to healthcare and educational facilities. There is a clear call for community engagement in the planning process to ensure that local voices are heard and that developments align with the needs of existing residents.
+OPPOSE: 45.52% (310) | SUPPORT: 28.05% (191) | MIXED: 24.08% (164) | NEUTRAL: 2.35% (16)
+Aim Breakdown
+The aim breakdown identifies which aims are mentioned within each response. A single response may discuss multiple topics.
+| Aim | +Percentage | +Count | +
|---|---|---|
| Infrastructure | +21.08% | +556 | +
| Homes | +17.10% | +451 | +
| Biodiversity and green spaces | +15.62% | +412 | +
| Wellbeing and social inclusion | +14.40% | +380 | +
| Jobs | +12.36% | +326 | +
| Place | +Count | +Mean Sentiment | +
|---|---|---|
| Cambourne | +351 | +4.99715 | +
| Cambridge Biomedical Campus | +317 | +5.8959 | +
| North East Cambridge | +226 | +5.19469 | +
| Cambridge | +209 | +4.37321 | +
| southern rural cluster of villages | +154 | +3.96104 | +
Key points raised in support
+Biodiversity and green spaces
+-
+
- Many respondents advocate for the inclusion of green spaces and parks in new developments to enhance community wellbeing and support local wildlife. +
- There is a strong emphasis on preserving existing natural habitats and promoting biodiversity through initiatives like tree planting and the creation of wildlife corridors. +
Homes
+-
+
- Support for the development of affordable housing, particularly for key workers and families, is prevalent, with calls for a diverse range of housing options to meet community needs. +
- Respondents express a desire for housing developments to be integrated with local amenities and services to create self-sufficient communities. +
Infrastructure
+-
+
- There is a consensus on the need for improved public transport links and cycling infrastructure to facilitate access to jobs and services, reducing reliance on cars. +
- Many advocate for the development of transport hubs and better connectivity between residential areas and employment centres. +
Great places
+-
+
- There is a strong desire for developments to reflect local character and heritage, with calls for high-quality design standards that harmonise with existing architecture. +
- Many respondents advocate for the creation of vibrant, mixed-use neighbourhoods that encourage social interaction and community engagement. +
Key points raised in opposition
+Biodiversity and green spaces
+-
+
- Concerns are raised about the potential loss of green spaces and wildlife habitats due to overdevelopment, particularly in rural areas and the green belt. +
- Some respondents oppose developments that encroach on natural reserves, fearing negative impacts on local ecosystems and biodiversity. +
Homes
+-
+
- There is apprehension regarding the potential for new housing developments to exacerbate existing issues of affordability and overcrowding, particularly if they cater primarily to external investors rather than local residents. +
- Some respondents express concerns that the proposed housing targets may not adequately reflect the needs of the community, particularly in light of changing work patterns post-pandemic. +
Infrastructure
+-
+
- Many express doubts about the adequacy of current infrastructure to support proposed developments, particularly in relation to transport, healthcare, and educational facilities. +
- Concerns are raised about traffic congestion and pollution resulting from increased housing density without corresponding improvements in public transport. +
Great places
+-
+
- Opposition is voiced against developments that are perceived as generic or lacking in character, with calls for more thoughtful, context-sensitive design that enhances the local environment. +
- Concerns are raised about the potential for urban sprawl to diminish the unique character of Cambridge and its surrounding villages. +
Summaries
+TODO
+The author expresses mixed support for the SCDC Local Plan H/1e housing site off New Rd, endorsing the green spaces policies but questioning the development’s ability to meet local needs and suggesting there are better alternatives. They also support the decision not to include certain housing site options in the Draft Local Plan.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author objects to the proposed developments at Bourn Airfield and West Cambourne, citing concerns over disproportionate housing growth, traffic congestion, and the impact on local infrastructure. They argue that the burden of new homes should be more evenly distributed across South Cambridgeshire, particularly suggesting reconsideration of rejected sites with better transport links. Additionally, they support the rejection of the North Cambourne development due to its impact on agricultural land, landscape, and local traffic issues, emphasising the rural character of the area.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author supports the alteration of public bridleways within Green Infrastructure to enhance leisure routes for walkers, riders, and cyclists, which would benefit the local community and reduce traffic flow. They also advocate for the inclusion of bridleways in the Longstanton policy, emphasizing the importance of conservation areas and green separation.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author has submitted comments regarding the planning application but has not provided specific details in the response. They refer to enclosed representations for a more comprehensive overview of their views.
+Stance: NEUTRAL
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author supports increased housing development in villages, particularly Fen Ditton, arguing that the current plan disproportionately allocates housing to urban areas while neglecting villages. They suggest that Fen Ditton should be designated as a Minor Rural Centre and propose a site for up to 30 dwellings, emphasizing the potential for sustainable growth and enhancement of community services without harming the green belt.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author supports the policy on affordable housing but expresses concerns about its practical implementation in a group village setting.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author supports the inclusion of Lupin and Merton fields as local green spaces, suggesting that a section of Merton field could be designated as a play area for children, while also advocating for the management of Lupin field as a wildlife and flower area. The author expresses concern about losing these green spaces amidst new housing developments.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author supports the designation of site 078 as Local Green Space, confirming it meets the necessary criteria and is backed by the Parish Council. The site, known as “The Rouses”, is integral to the Bassingbourn community, providing a valuable amenity for recreation and maintaining the character of the village. Development would harm this area and remove an important green space.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author objects to the proposed housing developments on sites H/1:b and H/1:c due to concerns about inadequate infrastructure, particularly regarding traffic congestion and parking in Sawston. They argue that the developments conflict with national policy on protecting greenbelt land and ensuring the vitality of town centres. The author supports the development of a brownfield site (H/1:a) but believes that the additional developments would strain local resources.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author, representing the Swavesey & District Bridleways Association, expresses concern that the South Cambs Local Plan does not adequately address the needs of horseriders as part of the Non-Motorised User (NMU) group. They advocate for the inclusion of equestrian access in the Local Plan, highlighting the benefits of improved facilities for NMUs, such as reduced road traffic, economic development, and enhanced community wellbeing. The author supports comments made by another local group regarding the need for inclusive routes and compliance with national planning policy.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The response is addressed to various stakeholders regarding a planning application. It highlights the importance of considering local wildlife and access for horse riders, indicating a need for careful planning to ensure that the development does not negatively impact these aspects.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author has submitted comments regarding the planning application, but the details of their stance and specific concerns are not provided in the response.
+Stance: NEUTRAL
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author opposes the development due to a lack of infrastructure to support the increased population, including concerns about traffic, schools, and healthcare facilities. They also question the necessity of the development in the area.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author provides no input or suggestions regarding the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They express a lack of opinion on housing, jobs, facilities, or open spaces for these sites and do not offer any thoughts on the future of Greater Cambridge.
+Stance: NEUTRAL
+Constructiveness: 1
+TODO
+The response from RES UK and Ireland Limited expresses support for the aims of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan regarding climate change and renewable energy generation. However, it opposes the current wording of Policy S/2, arguing that it does not adequately promote renewable and low carbon energy development, which is essential for sustainable growth. RES suggests amendments to ensure that renewable energy is a key component of the planning framework. The company supports the principles of mitigating climate change and the provision of renewable energy generation, while also raising concerns about the decommissioning policy for energy projects.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes part 2 of Policy CC/2, which proposes a minimum separation distance of 2km between wind turbines and dwellings, arguing that it is unnecessary and contrary to national policy aimed at promoting renewable energy. They assert that the policy is overly restrictive and does not align with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) or Planning Practice Guidance. The author supports Policy CC/3, which encourages the use of on-site renewable energy technologies in new developments. They express concern that the objectives of the Local Plan should better reflect the importance of renewable energy in addressing climate change.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author argues that the Policy is unsound because it imposes inflexible rules on separation distances, which contradicts the Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy. They state that the Policy is not positively planned, justified, or consistent with national planning policy.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses apprehension about the development of a dense city district in North East Cambridge, suggesting caution and limits on development, particularly around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. They question the necessity of more jobs in Cambourne and express concern about saturation in development in the southern rural cluster of villages. The author advocates for limited development in villages and emphasizes the need for radical action to reduce motor traffic and prioritise climate change in future planning.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, arguing that existing infrastructure issues must be addressed before any new projects are considered. They advocate for the preservation of open spaces and green landscapes, particularly in relation to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the East-West Rail link.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author opposes the redevelopment of the waste water treatment plant, arguing it should not be relocated to a greenfield site. They also oppose any development that would encroach on the green belt, advocate for limited development in villages without improved public transport, and envision a densified, vehicle-free city by 2041.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road, suggesting facilities that promote a circular economy, such as allotments and community centres, and emphasises the need for car-free development. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more healthcare facilities but oppose additional housing. The author calls for safe cycling routes to Cambridge from Cambourne and insists on limited development in villages, contingent on car-free initiatives and improved cycling routes. They propose more green spaces and suggest a site north of Barton Road for potential development. Overall, the author envisions a car-free Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of community spaces, green spaces, and affordable housing across various locations including North East Cambridge, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They also suggest the inclusion of active transport routes and low emission zones for a sustainable future in Greater Cambridge.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses a vision for the development of areas in Greater Cambridge, advocating for a lively city district east of Milton Road after the relocation of the waste water treatment plant. They suggest that Cambourne should develop into a proper town with centralised transport access and improved services, while maintaining clear natural borders with surrounding villages. The author emphasises the importance of open spaces and natural habitats in any development, particularly in rural areas and villages like Caldecote, and envisions a future with low-rise buildings and abundant green spaces.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author proposes a range of community facilities and green spaces for various development sites in Greater Cambridge, including recreational areas, biodiversity initiatives, healthcare facilities, and support for local businesses. They emphasise the importance of inclusivity and accessibility for all ages and genders, as well as the need for environmental sustainability through biodiversity planting and recycling spaces.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for a variety of community facilities and green spaces, including recreational areas, gardens, and support for local businesses. They emphasize the importance of retaining and strengthening existing policies in the Cambridge Local Plan, particularly regarding specific areas that should be protected from development.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road into a vibrant city district with housing, jobs, and community facilities, while also supporting the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare and green spaces. They express a desire for Cambourne to develop into a proper town and advocate for limited development in villages, showing a preference for areas with good transport links. However, the author conveys a sense of boredom and lack of engagement with the questions posed.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, highlighting concerns about the loss of green spaces, the impact of housing developments on local areas, and the potential for overdevelopment driven by developers. They advocate for limited development in villages and stress the importance of maintaining the rural character of the area, warning against excessive concrete expansion.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, arguing that they threaten local biodiversity, water resources, and agricultural land. They advocate for prioritising brownfield site development, affordable housing for local workers, and a focus on climate change and water safeguarding research. The author believes that development should be shared equitably among villages and that existing permissions should be fully realised before further allocations are made. They call for a shift in priorities towards environmental conservation rather than continued expansion.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author suggests that development in villages should be very limited, advocating for new developments only in villages that already have local services, including healthcare access.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, emphasizing the need for high-density housing with efficient transport links and local independent businesses. They also stress the importance of transport capacity at the Cambridge South railway station to support the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and call for easy and affordable transport options in Cambourne to prevent car dependency. Additionally, they highlight the necessity of good transport links in the southern rural cluster of villages. The author suggests looking to the Netherlands as a model for Greater Cambridge’s future development.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes any further development in Greater Cambridge, arguing that it would stretch the city’s already constrained infrastructure. They express this sentiment consistently across various proposed developments, including areas east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and rural villages.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 1
+TODO
+The author supports the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, advocating for increased housing, improved cycling infrastructure, and prioritisation of bike lanes over car access. They express a need for more homes in the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambourne, and suggest that villages with good transport links should also see development. The author criticises the current use of land in the Newmarket Road area, calling for it to be repurposed for housing and community facilities. Overall, they endorse high environmental standards and a vision of reduced car dependency by 2041.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, advocating for the preservation of open spaces and the green belt. They highlight concerns about overdevelopment, particularly in areas like the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and suggest that any necessary transport developments should be electric rather than diesel. The response consistently calls for limited development and prioritises open spaces over housing or commercial facilities.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the proposed developments in various areas, advocating for the protection of natural spaces and expressing concerns about climate change and pollution. They suggest re-wilding areas instead of developing them, and highlight the need for open spaces rather than more buildings. The author also raises issues regarding the safety of existing infrastructure and the importance of preserving rural life.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus for healthcare facilities, research, and housing, suggesting the creation of semi-natural areas linked to Hobson’s Park. However, they oppose the current East-West Rail route and advocate for better, larger, and more connected wild areas in Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of housing and facilities in Greater Cambridge that are socially inclusive, catering to a diverse range of occupations beyond just office-based jobs. They emphasize the importance of local employment opportunities in villages to prevent them from becoming exclusive areas for wealthier residents. Additionally, they raise concerns about the need for resilient electrical power generation systems in the face of climate change and potential threats.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of green, natural parks with trees and lakes in various areas, including the site east of Milton Road, around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They express a preference for limited development in villages and suggest no new development in certain areas, while consistently emphasising the importance of green spaces.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the proposed development in North East Cambridge, arguing that the relocation of the sewage works is profit-driven and unnecessary, as the current facility has sufficient capacity until 2050. They express concern over the lack of transparency regarding the sewage works’ status as a nationally significant infrastructure project and criticize the potential loss of Green Belt land. Additionally, the author is critical of the approach to development in Cambourne and surrounding villages, advocating for gradual, small-scale development rather than large-scale projects that disrupt communities and the countryside.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the development of a dense city district east of Milton Road, suggesting a preference for outdoor garden spaces over flats. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus for local jobs and healthcare facilities but emphasize the need for jobs for local residents. The author is unsure about the current situation in Cambourne and the southern rural cluster of villages, suggesting limited development in villages with good transport links. They recommend Waterbeach for new development, specifically advocating for better shopping facilities.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the proposed developments in various areas, expressing concerns that they will lead to overdevelopment and negatively impact the character of Cambridge and its surrounding villages. They argue that the city is already overdeveloped and that further construction will ruin its beauty and livability.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses strong reservations about development in various areas, insisting that no new projects should proceed without adequate water management and public transport infrastructure. They advocate for preserving the character of existing villages and enhancing green spaces, while showing a lack of specific suggestions for new developments.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of social housing in various areas, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and Cottenham, while expressing concerns about restrictions on who can move into these areas. They suggest that more housing, shops, and facilities should be provided, particularly social housing without local connection restrictions. The author also highlights the need for better public transport and local services in villages, and calls for a more inclusive approach to housing development.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, emphasizing the need for affordable housing, ample parking with EV charging, sustainable energy solutions, and various community facilities including schools, shops, and recreational areas. They also support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more healthcare facilities and housing, and suggest similar developments in Cambourne and the southern rural cluster, while expressing concerns about the current transport infrastructure in villages. The author calls for improved connectivity for South Cambridgeshire to enhance access to services and leisure facilities.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses a preference for limited development in the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, supports the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, opposes growth in Cambourne, and advocates for minimal development in rural villages, preferring to maintain their current state. They envision Greater Cambridge remaining rural and happy by 2041.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, particularly regarding the need for appropriate housing and facilities that cater to local communities rather than external speculators. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but highlight the need for improvements to existing facilities. The author is critical of the East-West Rail link, suggesting it disrupts local communities and does not provide a sustainable solution. They advocate for limited development in villages, emphasizing the importance of public transport and local needs. Overall, the response reflects a cautious approach to development, prioritising community needs and sustainability.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses opposition to various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, particularly concerning housing in green belt areas and around existing facilities like the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. They advocate for maintaining agricultural land and limiting housing developments to small numbers in villages. The author supports the idea of enhancing existing facilities and infrastructure, such as healthcare and shops, while discouraging further housing in crowded areas. They also emphasise the importance of concentrating developments in Cambridge to promote sustainable transport options.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses a desire for affordable and social housing in the proposed developments, particularly in the area east of Milton Road and around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. They are uncertain about specific developments in Cambourne and the southern rural cluster of villages, indicating that the suitability of these areas depends on their exact locations. The author also raises concerns about the potential negative impacts of development on the quality of life for existing residents, particularly regarding congestion and infrastructure needs.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district, emphasising the need for more open space than currently proposed. They also highlight the necessity for improved transport infrastructure, including bike parking, safe pedestrian routes, and reliable public transport services.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for the development of a second site to distribute growth more evenly. They criticise the East-West Rail project as inadequate for local transport needs and suggest it should focus on broader connectivity. Concerns are raised about the impact of infill development on southern villages, calling for improved transport infrastructure before any further development. The author advocates for more outdoor recreational facilities and a balanced approach to job creation, particularly in manufacturing, to diversify the local economy. They emphasise the need for Greater Cambridge to lead in environmental action and social well-being.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, arguing that relocating the waste water treatment plant is unnecessary and financially unfeasible. They express concerns about the impact on green belt and agricultural land, describing the proposed development as destructive to the local community and conservation areas. The author dismisses the need for additional healthcare facilities at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, criticises the affordability of rail travel for Cambourne, and opposes any development in the southern rural cluster of villages. They advocate for listening to local populations regarding development and express a general discontent with the direction of growth in Greater Cambridge, fearing it will lead to a loss of community and democratic engagement.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the potential for growth in Cambourne, but raises concerns about the specifics of what constitutes a ‘proper town’ and the need for more retail options. They advocate for limited development in villages, emphasizing the importance of maintaining village character and prioritizing brownfield sites for housing over greenfield sites.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed developments in various areas, arguing that the density of housing in North East Cambridge could lead to future slum conditions, that the Cambridge Biomedical Campus should focus solely on biomedical uses without housing, and that Cambourne has already taken on enough housing without additional development. They stress the need for sustainable housing, proper facilities, and the preservation of existing leisure areas before any new housing is built.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses opposition to relocating the waste water treatment plant, arguing it would waste money and green belt land. They advocate for improved safety for pedestrians and cyclists around Addenbrookes, suggest replacing oil with greener technologies in rural villages, and oppose developing green belt land. The author calls for more greenery, better public transport, and sustainable building practices in Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests that Cambourne should develop various facilities including a swimming pool, adventure playground, and more retail options. They advocate for limited development in villages, recommending Gamlingay and Bourn for new sites. Additionally, they propose Barton for housing or business use and express a desire for more affordable parking and out-of-town shopping areas, as well as country parks to enhance the countryside experience.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses frustration over the lack of promised developments in Cambourne, including a high street, swimming pool, and adequate healthcare and sports facilities. They highlight the absence of local jobs, forcing residents to travel to Cambridge, and criticise the slow public transport. The author calls for improved infrastructure and the establishment of entertainment venues and retail parks to reduce reliance on travel to Cambridge.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, suggesting the addition of healthcare facilities, housing, and open spaces. They advocate for Cambourne to develop into a proper town with healthcare jobs and facilities. The author believes that the southern rural cluster of villages should see limited development, particularly in Shelford and Stapleford, with a focus on mixed and lower-cost housing, a supermarket, and quality recreation facilities. They express a desire to maintain the distinction between city and villages while improving planning for electric vehicles and low-carbon transportation options.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author opposes further development in Melbourn, citing recent housing increases that have outstripped local infrastructure, particularly in healthcare and education. They advocate for maintaining the current state of the village.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, arguing that they would lead to a loss of character and livability in the area. They specifically criticise the idea of a dense city district, the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and any development near diesel rail lines, advocating instead for the preservation of open spaces and historical architecture.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, currently housing a waste water treatment plant, has potential for development into a vibrant city district once the plant is relocated. They specifically mention the need for parks and open spaces in this new development.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses a vision for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, advocating for the inclusion of essential facilities such as schools, healthcare services, and leisure spaces. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but call for improved transport links. However, they oppose development in the southern rural cluster of villages and stress the importance of preserving the rural character of the county, suggesting that only brownfield sites should be used for new developments.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, suggesting the inclusion of outdoor entertainment for families and young people. They also support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities, research, and housing, emphasizing the need for sports facilities to promote health and fitness. Furthermore, the author expresses a desire for Greater Cambridge to achieve world-leading environmentally sustainable transport and housing by 2041, criticizing the current situation.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, particularly in rural areas and green spaces, citing concerns over environmental impact and the importance of preserving natural habitats. They advocate for limited development focused on brownfield sites and emphasize the need for healthcare, schools, and local services in urban areas, while rejecting large-scale developments that threaten green land.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus for healthcare, research, and housing, emphasising the need for affordable housing to retain graduates. They advocate for improved transport links and facilities in Cambourne and the southern rural cluster, including better access between villages and the creation of a large country park. The author suggests developing a new village with essential amenities and highlights the need for a pedestrian route and cycle path near Meldreth. They envision Greater Cambridge as a more affordable place for young people with more family-friendly activities.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge could be developed into a vibrant city district after relocating the waste water treatment plant. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities, research, and housing. They believe East-West Rail presents an opportunity for Cambourne to develop into a proper town. However, they oppose any development in the southern rural cluster of villages and advocate for limited development in villages with good public transport. The author also highlights the need to address traffic issues in Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author suggests that the southern rural cluster of villages near the rail line and business parks south of Cambridge could accommodate limited development, specifically highlighting the need for more schools and GPs in the area.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses a strong opposition to any new housing or development in Greater Cambridge, advocating for the preservation of existing land and the character of villages. They reject the idea of expanding housing in various proposed areas, including the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambourne, and do not support any development in villages, emphasising a desire to maintain their current state.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author criticises the North East Cambridge development plan, arguing that it is flawed due to the unnecessary relocation of the Waste Water Treatment Works to green field Green Belt Land. They assert that the development should not depend on this relocation.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district with diverse shops and faith centres. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with housing for on-call staff and affordable accommodation for families. They advocate for more local shopping in Cambourne and the preservation of rural walks. The author believes development in villages should be limited to those with good transport links, and they propose potential development sites along the A1307 due to the A14 improvements.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed developments in North East Cambridge, particularly criticizing the lack of environmental consideration, the relocation of the waste water treatment plant, and the impact on local green spaces. They advocate for lower density housing, better public transport, and the protection of the green belt. The response also highlights concerns about the aesthetic quality of new developments and the need for more imaginative planning. Overall, the author fears that Cambridge will become an unattractive and unsustainable place to live.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the appropriateness of further development in the congested area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, suggesting improvements in public transport, local shops, and a variety of housing options. They advocate for the growth of Cambourne, highlighting the need for more shops and a cottage hospital. The author suggests limited development in the southern rural cluster of villages, proposing more housing along the Cambridge Royston railway and a regional shopping/sports centre. They recommend specific villages for new development and emphasize the need for improved shopping, sports centres, and public transport services. Additionally, they suggest developing more homes in the south-west of the area and envision Greater Cambridge as a world-leading centre of technical excellence by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author suggests that the development should include numerous parks and safe play areas for children.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes any new development in Greater Cambridge, expressing a desire to maintain the current state of the area and criticising the council for prioritising housing over community needs. They specifically reject proposals for housing and facilities in various locations, including the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambourne, and call for a halt to all new housing projects, suggesting that the focus should be on preserving the character of the area rather than accommodating more residents.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author advocates for high-density housing development in various areas, including the east of Milton Road, around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They emphasise the need for housing to alleviate the current housing shortage, reduce commuting, and support local economies. The response also suggests utilising existing retail parks for housing and promoting active travel in Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author opposes the development of the area east of Milton Road due to the economic implications of relocating the waste water treatment plant. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus for healthcare and research but suggest improving access to the city centre instead of new housing. The author disagrees with the proposal for Cambourne’s growth and advocates for the protection of surrounding villages from development. They emphasise the need for open spaces and green corridors rather than further development, expressing a strong stance against greedy developers in Cambridgeshire.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district with a mix of housing types, various job opportunities, schools, and recreational open spaces. They also support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities and housing, while advocating for recreational spaces. In Cambourne, they express a need for development that mitigates wind exposure. Lastly, they express doubt about the acceptance of new developments in villages, suggesting limited development only in well-connected areas.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes any further housing development in Cambourne, citing a lack of resources, increasing traffic issues, and a departure from the original vision of interconnected villages with town attributes.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses no opinion on the development east of Milton Road but supports the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, emphasizing the need to protect the Magog Hills. They advocate for improved transport links to Cambourne through the East-West Rail, highlighting the necessity for more local facilities and a proper town centre. The author is critical of overcrowded housing developments in Upper Cambourne and calls for more spacious living conditions. They also stress the importance of enhancing public transport services to reduce car dependency and improve access to employment opportunities.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author agrees that East-West Rail could facilitate growth in Cambourne but insists that the route must serve the majority of proposed developments, including Northstowe. They advocate for all new houses to include solar panels and centralized water storage. However, they oppose any significant development in the southern rural cluster of villages, arguing that there is no need for additional facilities, jobs, or open spaces. They believe that village life should be preserved and that existing facilities are sufficient. The author expresses concern about the impact of development on the character of Cambridge and surrounding villages, urging for their beauty and individuality to be maintained.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, expressing concerns about urbanisation, pollution, and the impact on local communities. They advocate for limited development in villages with good transport links and suggest that existing housing plans are excessive.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with a focus on affordable housing for essential workers. They express concern about overdevelopment in the northern and western areas of Cambridge, advocating for significant development in the southern region to improve transport links and reduce reliance on cars. The author believes that villages in the south should also accommodate development similar to that in the north, particularly near railway lines and the East-West rail link. They stress the importance of maintaining car infrastructure until public transport can adequately meet diverse travel needs.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author opposes the development of the area east of Milton Road due to the recent upgrade of the wastewater treatment plant and the high costs of relocation. They advocate for housing to be built at the relocated plant site instead. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with a focus on vast open spaces and community centres, while opposing development in Cambourne and the southern rural cluster of villages. They suggest Grantchester for limited development and propose road bypasses for villages. They also mention Barton and Newnham as potential sites for development, expressing a desire for Greater Cambridge to remain underdeveloped and preserved by 2041.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, arguing that they would lead to the destruction of green spaces and exacerbate climate change. They advocate for minimal housing and more open spaces, particularly around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and suggest that the development plans do not adequately address climate emergency challenges.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses a preference for limited development in the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, suggesting it could become a vibrant city district after relocating the waste water treatment plant. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities and parkland. However, they oppose further housing in Cambourne, advocating for the preservation of ancient woodlands and farmland. The author is against any new development in villages, emphasising the need for open spaces. They also express skepticism about the planning process, suggesting a lack of transparency.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge should be developed into a vibrant city district with housing, jobs, and facilities, particularly after relocating the waste water treatment plant. They advocate for supporting the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities and affordable housing. In Cambourne, they express concerns about insufficient medical services and the need for more retail and educational facilities, suggesting that further development is contingent on these services. They recommend limited development in villages with good public transport and local amenities, and emphasize the need for increased capacity in existing amenities. The author also expresses a desire for fewer large luxury homes in Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses no opinion on various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, including the area east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, the southern rural cluster of villages, and potential sites for housing or business use. They also do not provide any thoughts on the future vision for Greater Cambridge in 2041.
+Stance: NEUTRAL
+Constructiveness: 1
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a strong cycle network and small homes in various areas, including the east of Milton Road, around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and in Cambourne. They express a need for more wild areas and forests, highlighting local residents’ willingness to invest in such projects. The response also calls for a future with more forested areas and fewer cars.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, suggesting the inclusion of a major theatre/concert hall, artists’ studios, and large outdoor spaces for sports and health. They also support the growth of Cambourne into a proper town with leisure facilities, shops, and green spaces. The author opposes the transformation of border villages into suburbs, recommending that development should focus on standalone villages with good transport links and local employment opportunities. They emphasize the importance of facilitating local businesses to recruit from the local population.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author expresses skepticism about relocating the water treatment facility but supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more housing and a large park. They are unfamiliar with Cambourne and suggest re-establishing rail stations in Cherry Hinton and extending connections to Teversham and Fulbourn. The author advocates for improved public transport connections to benefit more villages.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author opposes development in the southern rural cluster of villages near Cambridge, arguing that the area is quaint and should not be built upon. They express strong concerns about the lack of good public transport connections in villages and stress the need for frequent, reliable, and affordable public transport as a priority. The author advocates for local amenities such as shops, cafes, and parks within walking distance, and highlights the importance of a well-connected transport network to reduce reliance on cars and avoid traffic congestion.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the proposed housing density in North East Cambridge, arguing it would degrade the quality of life and the city’s character. They advocate for more cultural and social spaces around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, suggest a mix of employment opportunities in Cambourne, and recommend limited development in villages. Overall, they feel that the current development plans are excessive for Cambridge.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for the inclusion of more affordable housing, jobs, and healthcare facilities in the area.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, emphasising the need for carbon net-zero housing, green spaces, and facilities that accommodate wheelchair users. They express a desire for a mix of housing, jobs, and amenities across different sites, while highlighting the importance of public transport and the use of brownfield sites for development.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of public open spaces in the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, emphasising the need for sufficient space to benefit existing residents. They oppose further development at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, citing concerns over green belt encroachment. They suggest Sawston as a suitable location for new development in villages and recommend creating travel hubs instead of park-and-ride facilities to promote car-free travel into Cambridge.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses uncertainty regarding specific developments in various areas, including the potential for a city district east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They suggest limited development in villages with good public transport connections and highlight the importance of public transport and healthcare facilities in planned developments. Overall, they find the current plan focusing on larger villages and towns sensible.
+Stance: NEUTRAL
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed development of a dense city district east of Milton Road, citing concerns over overcrowding and the need for more open spaces and better public transport. They also advocate for the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but stress the importance of avoiding segregation in housing. The author questions the use of diesel for the East-West Rail and criticises the overall lack of infrastructure and affordable transport in Cambridge. They call for more parks, leisure areas, and eco-friendly initiatives, while opposing any new development in villages without good transport links.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus for healthcare facilities, research, and housing but raises concerns about increased traffic congestion and the need for improved emergency care capacity. They advocate for more flexible development in villages with good transport links and express worries about the healthcare system’s ability to cope with the growing population in Cambridge.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author supports the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages, while advocating for limited development in villages due to inadequate infrastructure. They emphasise the need for housing, jobs, facilities, and open spaces, particularly focusing on enhancing green spaces and community renewable energy projects. The author envisions a carbon-neutral future with a thriving natural environment and sustainable economic principles.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, emphasizing the need for cycle lanes, direct access to the river, and wild green spaces. They also stress the importance of local shops to avoid a sterile suburb feel. Additionally, they support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more healthcare facilities and housing, while suggesting that village developments should be limited to select hubs with good transport links. The author highlights the necessity of direct routes to essential shops and improved public transport connections to tourist sites outside Cambridge.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the lack of leisure facilities, healthcare services, and affordable housing in proposed developments in North East Cambridge and around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. They advocate for the inclusion of local amenities in villages and suggest that development should not be limited to Cambridge alone, urging for investment in surrounding areas. The author stresses the importance of ensuring infrastructure is in place before any new developments occur, questioning the effectiveness of the previous local plan.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes any additional development around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, arguing that existing communities are already overwhelmed and that no further housing should be added. They also oppose the East-West Rail project, suggesting that funds should be redirected to northern areas instead. The author believes there should be no new development in the southern rural cluster of villages or in any villages, advocating for the preservation of the green belt and the support of existing developments only. They express concerns about water availability for future plans and envision a Greater Cambridge in 2041 that is improved but not expanded.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the proposed development in Great Shelford, citing concerns about the importance of green belt land for maintaining separation between villages, poor access, increased traffic congestion, and pressure on local schools. They believe the development will not support sustainable travel and will primarily benefit developers rather than the community. Additionally, they express concern about the overall number of homes planned too close to Cambridge, advocating for housing to be located outside the green belt.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed development in the green belt area of Shelford/Stapleford, citing concerns about the merging of the villages, erosion of green belt protection, increased traffic, and safety risks associated with additional housing. They suggest that housing should be planned in a more distant village to promote rail use instead of car dependency.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author believes that development in villages should be very limited, suggesting that only a few sites in well-connected villages should be considered. They also express a desire for future developments to have character, contrasting them with recent developments near Addenbrooke’s.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, emphasising the need for mixed-use developments that include housing, jobs, facilities, and open spaces to foster community. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare and housing, and stress the importance of self-sufficiency in Cambourne to reduce travel. The author suggests limited development in villages, focusing on brownfield sites and ensuring essential services like schools and healthcare are available. They do not propose any new sites for development beyond those already identified.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author opposes the relocation of the sewage works, arguing that it would negatively impact green belt land. They also express concerns about traffic congestion around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, suggesting that no further development should be pursued in that area.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road with carbon-neutral housing and starter homes for young families. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities while urging the preservation of the Nine Wells nature reserve. They suggest creating local community hubs in Cambourne, including cafes and shops, while ensuring access to green spaces. The author expresses caution about limited development in villages to maintain their character and raises concerns about the impact of increased remote working. They propose transforming the Grafton Centre into housing with a design that complements Cambridge’s skyline. Lastly, they envision a future town that is resilient to climate change and safe for future generations.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed development site in Shelford, arguing that it is poorly chosen as it threatens to merge the communities of Great Shelford and Stapleford and could lead to further sprawl into the green belt. They also express concerns about inadequate access to the site, which may exacerbate traffic issues at the level crossing, and warn that such developments could encourage more building in other green belt areas.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns that the development plan lacks genuine sustainability and suggests better use of existing rail routes, such as Ashwell & Morden and Meldreth, to improve transport links. They advocate for sustainable transport options to reduce dependence on private cars in Cambridge.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests that limited development could occur in the southern rural cluster of villages near the rail line and business parks south of Cambridge, while emphasising the importance of maintaining the village identity in Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the proposed development site in Shelford, arguing that it does not meet the criteria for exceptional circumstances to remove land from the green belt. They express concerns about increased car usage by new homeowners and the potential blending of Shelford and Stapleford, which the green belt aims to prevent. Additionally, they highlight the risk of further encroachment on the area due to nearby transport links.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for more diverse and human-scale buildings, including shops and cafes. They express a need for a better town centre in Cambourne and suggest limited development in villages, specifically mentioning Cottenham. The author emphasises the importance of improved public transport, suggesting a metro system to reduce reliance on cars.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, suggesting the addition of a railway station to enhance accessibility. They advocate for limited development in villages, focusing on new communities rather than altering existing ones, and highlight the need for improved broadband in rural areas to facilitate remote work and reduce carbon footprints. The author also notes the rising housing demand due to the influx of skilled workers in the area, emphasizing the need for diverse housing options.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the scale of proposed developments in various areas, emphasising the need for affordable housing and high environmental standards. They highlight potential environmental impacts, particularly regarding biodiversity and public transport access, while supporting limited development in rural areas and advocating for renewable energy solutions.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author suggests that all developments with more than 10 new homes should undergo a Whole Life Cycle (WLC) assessment, arguing that the current threshold of 150 is too high. They also advocate for no new car parking facilities in new developments.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses opposition to relocating the sewage works to facilitate housing, arguing that Cambridge is becoming too dense and that green spaces are essential for residents. They advocate for recreational facilities around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and stress the importance of consulting villages on development. The author emphasizes the need to preserve the green belt, protect wildlife, and ensure sustainable building practices to reduce carbon usage and promote mental health.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses a desire for balanced development in various areas, advocating for affordable housing, healthcare facilities, and open spaces while cautioning against excessive density and the creation of commuter towns. They highlight the importance of accommodating driving and cycling infrastructure, particularly in relation to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the expansion of Cambourne. Specific locations mentioned for development include Histon, Impington, and the Milton Road Impington project.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses opposition to the relocation of the waste water treatment plant, advocating for its current location. They support the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but raise concerns about the existing strain on Addenbrookes Hospital. The author questions the need for further development in Cambourne and the southern rural cluster, suggesting that existing plans should be allowed to settle before new developments are considered. They oppose additional development in Meldreth and Melbourn due to capacity issues and advocate for more recreational facilities for youth. The author also criticizes the relocation of City Council offices to Alconbury due to lack of public transport access.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the proposed developments in various areas, including Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and surrounding villages. They highlight issues such as inadequate parking for staff at healthcare facilities, the need for better transport links, and the impact of new developments on local environments and farming land. The author advocates for limited development in villages and suggests that Cambridge should aim for a car-free environment with improved public transport options.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests that the Park and Ride (P&R) facility should be expanded and that there should be regular bus and train connections to create a more integrated travel system, rather than the current confusing options between driving and using P&R.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses strong concerns about the proposed housing development in Stapleford/Shelford, particularly regarding increased traffic, safety for children, and the impact on the community’s identity. They question the planners’ consideration of these issues.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the lack of parking in the proposed development area east of Milton Road, stating it will disadvantage future residents. They strongly support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for a mix of high-tech facilities and open spaces. However, they oppose the current form of the East-West Rail route. They suggest limited housing and infrastructure for the southern rural cluster and propose Duxford and the A505 for potential development. Additionally, they advocate for a sustainable metro system to connect Cambridge with surrounding villages.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed development in Stapleford, arguing that it exacerbates traffic issues and offers no benefits to current residents. They express concern over the cumulative impact of multiple developments in the area, advocating for stronger protections for the green barrier.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, emphasising the need for segregated cycle paths to enhance connectivity and promote active travel. They suggest creating a lively city district east of Milton Road, supporting the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities, and developing Cambourne into a proper town with sports fields. The author envisions a future city with minimal car use, safe cycle paths for all ages, lower house prices, and thriving communities.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, suggesting that dense developments should be avoided until water supply issues are addressed. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with low-cost housing but have no suggestions for Cambourne or the southern rural cluster of villages, advocating for limited development in villages due to inadequate public transport. The author emphasizes the need for additional water supplies before any development can proceed.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for housing specifically for campus employees. They express concern over the assumption that growth should be maximised and call for the enforcement of amenities and permeability in new developments before construction.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author opposes the relocation of the waste water treatment plant and any further development in the area, arguing that it would contribute to climate change and is unnecessary. They also express a desire for better public transport and the preservation of green spaces, stating that the city does not need to continue developing.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district after relocating the waste water treatment plant. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities, research, and housing. They express uncertainty about existing amenities in Cambourne but acknowledge its potential for growth. For the southern rural cluster, they propose limited development with jobs, training resources, and green spaces. They recommend essential services in villages, such as shops and healthcare facilities, but are unsure about specific villages for development. They do not identify any additional sites for housing or business use and have no further comments on the future of Greater Cambridge.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses uncertainty about supporting the relocation of the wastewater treatment works, which is a key consideration for the proposed development of a lively city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge.
+Stance: NEUTRAL
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author expresses a vision for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, advocating for the inclusion of essential facilities such as schools, shops, and healthcare services. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but insist that it should not encroach on surrounding greenbelt land. The author opposes any development on greenbelt land in the southern rural cluster and raises concerns about economic growth plans that lack public consultation, emphasising the need for sustainable transport alternatives and more affordable housing options.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed developments in various areas around Cambridge, citing concerns about congestion, inadequate public transport, and the negative impact on local infrastructure. They argue that housing should not be built without proper public transport solutions and highlight the need for more green spaces, particularly around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. The response emphasizes that current transport links are insufficient and warns against further development without addressing these issues first.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author opposes the relocation of the waste water treatment plant due to its significant carbon footprint and criticises the use of green belt land as contradictory to council priorities. They express that the Cambridge Biomedical Campus is already overdeveloped and advocate for limited development in villages, suggesting more recreational facilities and improved bus services. They also propose developing wooded areas and parks for recreational use.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed development in Great Shelford, citing concerns about poor access, increased traffic congestion, and the potential negative impact on local services, particularly schools. They also highlight the importance of maintaining open land to mitigate future busway development and express concern about the loss of separation between Shelford and Stapleford as distinct villages.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, arguing that there is no need for additional housing, jobs, or facilities due to the negative impacts on water supplies and air quality. They advocate for a halt to all new building projects and express concern that current developments are detrimental to community health and well-being. The author believes that limiting population growth is essential for maintaining a healthy environment and community.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses concern that large-scale development in villages diminishes their character and advocates for focusing on reusing brownfield sites with environmentally friendly buildings. They envision Greater Cambridge in 2041 as a place with clean air, high-quality green spaces, and rich wildlife, where people are motivated to live and care for their environment.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author criticises the consultation for misidentifying car travel as the primary source of carbon emissions, arguing that new housing developments will produce significantly more carbon emissions than cars. They highlight the overlooked issue of embodied carbon in new buildings and express concern that housing and growth projections are outdated due to changes in policy.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge could be developed into a vibrant city district after relocating the waste water treatment plant. They advocate for limited development in villages, recommending Melbourn due to its existing employment and transport links. The author emphasizes the need for high-value jobs and ample green space in developments, catering to those who prefer proximity to work without the social amenities of the city.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses a desire for the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road, suggesting the inclusion of a nature reserve, library, swimming pool, playgrounds, local shops, schools, and restaurants. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but question the need for more housing. The author believes villages should remain as they are and expresses a general need for good quality facilities everywhere. They also advocate for schools for all ages and nature reserves in the future.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of affordable housing and open spaces in North East Cambridge, particularly after the relocation of the waste water treatment plant. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with adequate housing for staff and suggest that job types should be determined by campus staff. The author emphasizes the need for improved public transport to reduce congestion in Cambridge, particularly for Cambourne, and calls for affordable housing for young people in the southern rural cluster. They express caution regarding development in villages and stress the importance of considering climate change and local transport in future planning decisions.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author opposes further development in various areas, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and villages, expressing concerns about the destruction of green spaces and the rural character of the region. They suggest that science parks should be developed in satellite locations around Cambridge to alleviate pressure on the city and surrounding villages.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, advocating for limited development and improved infrastructure instead. They suggest creating a quality green recreation area in North East Cambridge but oppose the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the East-West Rail project, calling for a light rail network instead. They also recommend no changes in the southern rural cluster and limited development in villages, emphasising the need for better medical, educational facilities, and transport before any further development.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a tramway-style connection to the city centre of Cambridge, along with world-class walking and cycling infrastructures across various proposed developments in North East Cambridge, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They express a need for improved transport infrastructure that does not rely on cars and buses, while also indicating that they are not concerned about finding places for new housing.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed development in Shelford, arguing that it is unlikely to encourage train commuting due to low usage of the station. They suggest that new housing should be located further from Cambridge to promote train use. Additionally, they criticize the site selection, citing its location on fields that separate Great Shelford and Stapleford, and highlight existing traffic issues in the area.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, emphasising the need for walkable neighbourhoods that reduce car dependency and promote green living. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities and housing, while also suggesting limited development in villages with good public transport. The author envisions a future with accessible local amenities, wildlife-friendly spaces, and a preference for autonomous electric vehicles over private cars.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about overdevelopment in various areas, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They argue that there is already sufficient development in these locations and caution against further expansion, suggesting that housing needs are being driven by profit rather than actual demand.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to any new development in the southern rural cluster of villages and surrounding areas, advocating for limited development only on brownfield sites and the protection of the green belt. They believe the current proposals are excessive and detrimental to the city and its surroundings.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author opposes any development in Greater Cambridge until a guaranteed water supply is established, expressing concerns across multiple proposed sites including North East Cambridge, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and various villages.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses a preference for keeping the Cowley Road wastewater treatment plant in its current location, citing concerns about the impact on the green belt and taxpayer money. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities, research, and housing, and suggest the need for new shops and schools. They advocate for Cambourne to develop into a proper town with shops and affordable train fares, and call for cheap housing in the southern rural cluster for those unable to afford private rent. The author also mentions the need for schools and shops in villages, and proposes developing Cambridge Airport for housing and community facilities.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, emphasising the need for energy-efficient housing built to Passivhaus standards, the establishment of local eco-sustainable businesses, and improved public transport links. They highlight the importance of creating vibrant communities with local markets, recreational facilities, and green spaces while reducing concrete use and capturing rainwater. The response also calls for a more inclusive community that addresses mental and physical health issues and fosters connections between different socio-economic groups.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses a preference for developing the area east of Milton Road into a vibrant city district after relocating the waste water treatment plant, advocating for working locations, schools, shops, community facilities, and electric car charging points. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but suggest it should remain within existing boundaries. The author believes East-West Rail should be routed north of Cambourne to serve new housing developments. They oppose development in the southern rural cluster of villages due to concerns about increased traffic and suggest limited development in villages with good transport links. They advocate for local jobs and fast broadband but do not identify specific villages for development. The author emphasizes the importance of preserving countryside and opposes the EWR Southern route due to its impact on Green Belt and conservation areas.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge should be developed into a vibrant city district with a mix of housing types, green spaces, shops, and community areas. They advocate for improved access through a bridge to connect residential areas and express the need for sensitive development in villages that respects local character. Additionally, they call for better road surfaces for cycling, more trees and green spaces, and investment in neglected areas to enhance overall quality of life and reduce inequality in Cambridge.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for high-quality housing developments across various sites, emphasising the importance of energy-efficient standards such as passivhaus to reduce carbon emissions. They express concerns about the current state of housing and infrastructure in areas like Northstowe, suggesting that further development should be limited without improvements in public transport and amenities. The author also highlights the need for open green spaces and facilities to promote active travel.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed development in Great Shelford, citing concerns about its impact on the green belt, traffic issues, and increased pressure on local services. They argue that no compelling reasons have been provided to justify this site over others, and the negatives outweigh any potential benefits.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the relocation of the waste water treatment plant, arguing that it is unnecessary and contradicts sustainability goals. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with a focus on affordable housing for key workers. However, they do not provide input on other proposed developments or areas.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests that improvements should be made to Newmarket Road to enhance Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: NEUTRAL
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of eco-friendly housing, zero carbon transport, parks, leisure centres, and parcel drop-off points in various areas including North East Cambridge, around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They express a desire for limited development in villages and suggest the inclusion of wind turbines for energy generation in rural homes.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the proposed development east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, suggesting that relocating the waste water treatment plant to the green belt is unappealing and prefers other sites. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for additional healthcare facilities, a train station, more cycle storage, shops, and childcare facilities due to current oversubscription. They also call for better and safer cycle lanes in surrounding villages.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road into a vibrant city district after relocating the waste water treatment plant, advocating for mixed housing and offices. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities, research, and housing. The author believes Cambourne should develop into a proper town with more shops, and they propose limited development in the southern rural cluster of villages, emphasizing dense housing near the railway. They recommend new development in Cottenham, Water Beach, and Land Beach, focusing on local shops and schools. Additionally, they mention Shepreth and Meldreth as potential sites for housing or business use and express a desire for a cost-effective underground railway by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road into a vibrant city district after relocating the waste water treatment plant, and advocates for larger entertainment venues. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with affordable housing for medical staff. They propose a safe cycle route into Cambourne and recommend limited development in villages, with specific suggestions for Histon, including a new GP surgery and a public playground. The author emphasises the importance of green spaces in Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author supports the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more healthcare facilities and housing, and the growth of Cambourne into a proper town with additional facilities. However, they oppose any development in villages, advocating for limited development only in areas with good public transport and local services.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of fully self-contained sites in various areas, including North East Cambridge, around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages, while expressing a preference for limited development in villages lacking good public transport and local services. They also suggest that anticipated growth in the region should be robustly challenged.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the idea of the Thakeham new town, suggesting it should be avoided at all costs.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author suggests limited development in the southern rural cluster of villages near the rail line and business parks south of Cambridge, advocating for some infill housing but opposing the idea of a large new town. They recommend Melbourn and Foxton for new development, emphasising the need for family-sized houses and open green spaces, while deeming job creation less relevant due to the rise of remote working. The author does not support any additional sites for housing or business use beyond those already identified.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author opposes any new housing development in South Cambridgeshire, advocating for the preservation of the countryside and increased open spaces. They suggest that development should be very limited and only in areas with good public transport and local services, but they do not identify any villages suitable for new development. The author envisions a future where limited housing is built to maintain access to green spaces and local produce.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, highlighting the need for additional healthcare facilities, research, and housing. However, they do not specify any particular housing, jobs, facilities, or open spaces that should be created around the campus.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the development in Greater Cambridge, particularly regarding the impact on mental health due to constant building, inadequate infrastructure, and the need for proper drainage and sewerage systems. They advocate for remote working and emphasize the importance of protecting green spaces and local wildlife. The author is critical of developers and their accountability, suggesting a halt to further development in certain areas until existing issues are addressed.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author envisions a more equitable Greater Cambridge by eliminating homelessness and addressing overcrowding caused by tourism. They advocate for improved cycling infrastructure, better-designed and sustainable housing, and caution against prioritising economic growth at the expense of other regions. They highlight the need for higher standards in residential developments, referencing the University at Eddington’s commitment to quality and eco-standards.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the proposed developments in various areas, advocating for the preservation of wildlife habitats and the creation of green spaces. They suggest that development should focus on open crop fields rather than natural habitats, and emphasize the importance of promoting cycling and wildlife corridors. The author is critical of developments that could harm existing natural environments and calls for stricter regulations to protect these areas.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, arguing that they contribute to urban sprawl and fail to provide adequate infrastructure, leisure facilities, and affordable housing. They highlight concerns about the accountability of developers and the lack of meaningful community identity in new developments. The author also opposes further infill in villages and emphasizes the need to protect traditional village facilities from the encroachment of larger commercial interests.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed housing development, arguing that it is unsustainable due to a lack of demand and inadequate infrastructure. They highlight the negative impact of previous developments on local wildlife and amenities, and express concern over the absence of jobs and social facilities. The author calls for a more imaginative approach to urban design and emphasizes the need for infrastructure to be built before housing. They also raise issues regarding water sustainability and the questionable benefits of the East-West Rail project, while criticizing the lack of cycle lanes in the area.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author advocates for a balanced mix of housing, jobs, community facilities, and open spaces in the area east of Milton Road and Cambourne, while supporting the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with a focus on research and healthcare facilities, suggesting less emphasis on housing and open spaces. They also recommend primarily housing in the southern rural cluster and caution that remote working trends may affect housing needs estimates for Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to further development in Greater Cambridge, arguing that local government planning should not be dominated by commercial interests. They advocate for a shift away from growth models towards repurposing existing spaces, reducing travel, and improving housing insulation, particularly in light of climate change.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author raises concerns about potential flooding in the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge and advocates for the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, emphasising the need for improved public transport access. They suggest Cambourne should develop a unique business cluster rather than mimic Cambridge. The author expresses a lack of familiarity with some areas and highlights the necessity for healthcare facilities in villages to alleviate transport infrastructure pressure. They conclude by stating that the future of Greater Cambridge depends on the construction of a railway to the West.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and Cambourne, suggesting a mix of social and private housing designed with climate change considerations. They emphasize the importance of green spaces, local facilities such as schools, shops, and healthcare services, and good transport links. However, they oppose any development in rural villages, suggesting instead to enhance existing open spaces with biodiversity. The author envisions a future Greater Cambridge with ample green spaces and sustainable housing.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author believes that development in villages should be very limited and only permitted in areas with good public transport and local services, suggesting that no new development should occur unless infrastructure and public transport are improved.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses a strong opposition to new developments in various areas, suggesting that minimal housing and facilities are needed due to a shift towards remote working. They argue that existing locations already have sufficient resources and that future planning should consider the changes in living and working patterns post-COVID.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses concern over the lack of local planning input for Cambourne, suggesting that East West Rail is directing development without adequate oversight. They highlight the need for a proper high street and infrastructure in Cambourne to function independently from Cambridge. Additionally, they support limiting development in villages to those with good transport connections and local services, advocating for more open space in rural areas. The author also notes a significant shortage of smaller affordable properties and questions the value of shared ownership schemes.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the proposed development site due to concerns about urban sprawl between Great Shelford and Stapleford, the impact on local schools which are already oversubscribed, and increased traffic from new residents. They also criticise the council for poorly considering the site and for the limited local advertisement of the consultation, which may not accurately reflect residents’ views.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, highlighting the need for improved access and parking. They suggest that the area east of Milton Road could become a vibrant city district after relocating the waste water treatment plant. However, they advocate for limited development in villages, preferring to maintain their character, while suggesting parks and open spaces as potential developments. The author shows a lack of enthusiasm for future planning, indicating a disconnection from the vision for Greater Cambridge in 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, arguing that the area is already dense and vibrant, and that further development would detract from its rural character. They suggest that existing sites, such as the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, have already consumed enough land and resources, and advocate for limited development in villages, with a preference for maintaining farmland and wild areas. Overall, the response reflects a desire to preserve the rural landscape and limit urban sprawl.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road into a vibrant city district with housing and commercial spaces, while supporting the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus for healthcare and research. However, they express concerns about further development south of Cambridge, deeming it sufficient and potentially harmful to the countryside. They view the East-West Rail project as unnecessary and advocate for development in new villages rather than older ones, focusing on brownfield sites and conversions. They also propose new science/business parks but do not identify any additional sites for development.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, highlighting concerns about the loss of green belt land, the need for adequate infrastructure, and the prioritisation of financial gain over community needs. They advocate for low-cost housing and the use of brownfield sites instead of rural land, and stress the importance of supporting local facilities such as schools and healthcare. Overall, the response calls for careful planning and consideration of existing community resources before proceeding with new developments.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author opposes any development in Greater Cambridge, expressing a desire to maintain the current state of the area and keep developers away, indicating that no new housing, jobs, facilities, or open spaces should be created.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 1
+TODO
+The author advocates for high-density housing and community facilities in North East Cambridge, while expressing concerns about green space loss around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the potential for urban sprawl in Cambourne. They emphasise the need for local amenities, public transport, and community cohesion in all developments, particularly in villages. The author supports densification over sprawl and highlights the importance of maintaining community connections in future developments.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the East-West Rail project and the proposed development in the southern rural cluster, arguing that it will not benefit local residents and will harm biodiversity. They express concern over the destruction of a historic meadow and suggest that existing housing needs can be met through brownfield development without encroaching on green spaces. The author believes that villages should remain as they are, rather than becoming urbanised areas.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the potential socio-economic division in the planned development east of Milton Road, fearing it may become a low-income area while other parts of Cambridge remain affluent. They advocate for sufficient open spaces and recreational facilities, as well as better job opportunities near existing business parks. The author also critiques the housing plans around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, suggesting that housing should be more accessible to those working there. They call for improved transport links, particularly the East-West rail, to connect Cambourne to Cambridge and emphasize the need for more housing in the southern rural cluster. The response highlights the importance of creating inclusive communities with diverse housing options and better access to jobs and facilities.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author supports the proposed expansion of the Science Park in Cambridge, highlighting its potential to create jobs and enhance local R&D facilities. They express concern that this development is not included in the current Local Plan and advocate for its inclusion, noting the need for job opportunities alongside housing developments in North Cambridge. The author also emphasizes the importance of providing significant open space, specifically an 80-hectare Country Park, to serve the growing communities in the area. They argue that the plan should not overlook the historical significance of the tech industry in Cambridge and call for a balanced approach that supports both tech and biomedical sectors.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for affordable housing for frontline workers, the establishment of nurseries and schools, and the inclusion of shops and services. They suggest that any development in the southern rural cluster should be preceded by improvements to the road infrastructure and the introduction of electric trams and cycle ways. The author also calls for rural exception housing in villages with good public transport, rather than expensive private developments, and emphasizes the need for better open green spaces and local amenities.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the assumptions regarding job growth in Cambridge, suggesting that the rise in remote work may reduce the need for high job growth in the area. They highlight that while integrating employment and housing is a good idea, it often fails in practice, as evidenced by Northstowe, where essential services lag behind housing development. The author notes that people may initially use local transport options but could revert to car commuting if they change jobs.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author expresses a lack of enthusiasm for the survey regarding the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, indicating dissatisfaction with the questions posed.
+Stance: NEUTRAL
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses skepticism about developing a dense city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, questioning its appeal given its proximity to an industrial estate and the shift towards remote working. They suggest that low-rise housing should cater to families and emphasize the need for ample open spaces and community facilities. Additionally, they support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for more healthcare facilities, research opportunities, and family housing in the area.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author supports the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, contingent on the relocation of the waste water treatment plant. They advocate for the expansion of healthcare facilities and research at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and suggest a mixture of housing, jobs, and open spaces in Cambourne and the southern rural cluster of villages. The author emphasizes the importance of preserving the green belt south of Barton and expresses a preference for limited development in villages with good transport links. They also highlight the need to maintain Cambridge’s expertise in biotech and protect the Coton corridor and Magog Down areas.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author expresses a preference for developing brownfield sites and advocates for minimal car usage. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with an emphasis on greenspaces, trees, and wildflowers. The author suggests limited development in villages, prioritising resident input on housing needs, and stresses the importance of maintaining green spaces and combating climate change. They believe that development should be minimal to preserve the area’s character and environment.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses a strong opinion on the development plans in Greater Cambridge, highlighting the need for housing, jobs, and facilities while also acknowledging the inevitability of development. They suggest that infrastructure like the busway indicates future development intentions and call for transparency in planning. The author emphasizes the importance of local needs and facilities in development, as well as the necessity of ensuring safety in pedestrian areas.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the adequacy of Service Water Drainage systems in light of ongoing development, highlighting the risks of blockages and flooding that could affect properties and gardens. They suggest the installation of observation windows on flow pipes to monitor drainage effectively.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses a strong desire for development in various areas, including the east of Milton Road, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They advocate for more housing, jobs, and facilities, particularly affordable housing for local communities. The author encourages bold development without restrictions on certain areas.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, arguing that a dense city district is unsuitable for families, that the Cambridge Biomedical Campus is already too large, and that the East-West Rail project would lead to undesirable housing growth in the countryside. They also believe that further development in villages is unnecessary and advocate for fewer people to reduce emissions. Additionally, they suggest specific infrastructure improvements, such as parking for trains and relocating a parkway station.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses an inability to comment on specific developments in the Milton Road area, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and Cambourne due to unfamiliarity. However, they suggest that the southern rural cluster should focus on limited housing and more facilities to reduce travel, and they advocate for equitable housing distribution among villages, provided it remains within village envelopes.
+Stance: NEUTRAL
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author supports the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages, advocating for the inclusion of housing, jobs, facilities, and open spaces. They also suggest limited development in villages with good transport links and emphasize the need for adequate open spaces with good access to the city wherever housing is built.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses opposition to the development of the area east of Milton Road, advocating for the retention of the current wastewater treatment plant and opposing high-rise buildings. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more affordable housing but question the necessity of a rail stop at Cambourne, suggesting that the East-West Rail should primarily connect the Biomedical Campus with Oxford and Cambridge City. The author agrees with limited development in the southern rural cluster of villages and insists on developing only brownfield sites, rejecting any further development on the green belt. They do not identify any additional sites for housing or business use.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concern about proposed housing development in Shelford, arguing that it will not lead to increased public transport use due to its location. They suggest that development should be focused on villages with better transport links further out, which would encourage more affordable housing and sensible commuting options.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge could be developed into a vibrant city district after relocating the waste water treatment plant. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities, research, and housing. They also see potential for Cambourne to develop into a proper town due to East-West Rail, and suggest limited development in the southern rural cluster of villages. However, they oppose any new development in villages without good public transport connections and local services. The author proposes a traffic management idea for safer streets in Greater Cambridge by limiting car speeds automatically.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus to enhance healthcare facilities and housing, while advocating for improved transport networks and local services in villages before any new development is approved. They also suggest the need for better shopping facilities and access in the southern rural cluster of villages, and highlight the importance of green spaces and cycle networks for mental and physical health. Overall, the response reflects a desire for a well-planned, sustainable Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author does not provide comments on the development of the area east of Milton Road and the southern rural cluster. They express concerns about the overloaded access from the M11 for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus development and highlight issues with the proposed railway route between Cambourne and Cambridge.
+Stance: NEUTRAL
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge should be developed into a vibrant city district with a swimming pool/theme park. They also express concerns about the reliance on bikes for access, arguing that cars should not be disregarded as some individuals cannot ride bikes, which could create a divide between able-bodied and disabled people.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes any development in the areas discussed, arguing that it will lead to negative impacts on local communities and the environment. They express a desire to preserve villages and green spaces, rejecting proposals for housing and advocating for recreational facilities instead.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the proposed developments in various areas, highlighting the need for affordable housing, healthcare facilities, schools, and open spaces. They stress the importance of not overburdening existing systems and amenities, particularly in villages and areas with limited transport links. The author is cautious about development in rural areas and emphasizes the need to consider transport networks and flooding risks.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests developing a lively city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, supporting the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more healthcare facilities and housing, and promoting Cambourne as a proper town with a new swimming pool. They express concerns about limited development in villages, questioning the definition of ‘good public transport connections’ and advocating for a cycling network. The author warns against uncontrolled development in villages without sustainable infrastructure.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for the inclusion of small flats or studios with shared gardens to accommodate university staff relocating from abroad, who may struggle to afford housing in Cambridge. They express concern about the discomfort of sharing homes with strangers at an older age.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author supports the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, contingent on the relocation of the waste water treatment plant. They also advocate for the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities and housing. The author agrees on the need to limit development in villages to preserve the green belt and suggests utilising underused college sports grounds for development. They emphasise the importance of a fully integrated public transport system and prioritising brownfield sites over greenbelt areas for future development.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author expresses a cautious stance on development in villages, particularly in Fowlmere, advocating for limited development due to the village’s lack of infrastructure. However, they acknowledge the need for new students in the local school to ensure its financial viability. They also highlight concerns that small villages like Fowlmere are often overlooked in planning for Greater Cambridge’s future.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of new housing in Greater Cambridge to be net zero and criticises current developments as subpar. They emphasise the need for improved cycling and public transport options to reduce car usage, expressing a desire for higher quality, smaller developments rather than large-scale projects.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, highlighting concerns about the inadequacy of current infrastructure, particularly regarding water use and sustainability. They argue that the aggressive growth agenda undermines commitments to climate change, biodiversity, and the preservation of green spaces. The author calls for a reevaluation of the local plan, suggesting that it prioritises housing over environmental considerations and fails to address the changing expectations of residents post-pandemic. They advocate for a focus on decarbonisation without further growth.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the proposed developments in various areas, arguing that they prioritize profit over local quality of life and environmental concerns. They express concerns about overdevelopment, the need for improvements at Addenbrookes hospital, and the potential negative impact on the green belt and local amenities. The author advocates for preserving existing spaces rather than allowing further construction.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes any development on green belt land, advocating for the use of brown belt land instead. They express that development should be limited in villages, particularly where green belt is affected, and emphasize the need for improved transport infrastructure before any housing is built. The author also highlights the importance of preserving agricultural land, noting that once it is developed, it is permanently lost.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses disagreement with the need for high-density development in the area east of Milton Road, advocating for construction that is sympathetic to the surroundings and has minimal environmental impact. They oppose development in the southern rural cluster of villages, suggesting that focus should remain on the existing city and nearby areas. The author supports limited development in villages with good public transport connections but emphasizes that the character of local villages should not be compromised for housing needs.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road, emphasizing the need for affordable housing, local businesses, and improved transport links. They highlight the importance of supporting the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional facilities and services for its workforce. The response also calls for better cycling infrastructure and public transport to enhance safety and accessibility in the area. Furthermore, the author stresses the necessity of supporting local businesses and providing community services in villages, while expressing a desire for improved transport networks and affordable housing to reduce commuting times.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author suggests the inclusion of pump tracks and skate parks in the development plans for the villages, indicating a desire for recreational facilities.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author supports the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, contingent on the relocation of the waste water treatment plant. They advocate for the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities, research, and housing, while emphasising the need to maintain open spaces and preserve the Nine Wells site. The author stresses that sustainable water management should be a top priority for Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author supports the East-West Rail project and emphasizes the need for development in Cambourne, particularly regarding housing, jobs, and open spaces. They express concern over the lack of new open spaces in northern Cambridge and the absence of the Science Park North proposal in the Local Plan, which they believe would provide essential employment opportunities and green space. The author argues that the omission of this site is a missed opportunity and questions the rationale behind not including it due to water supply issues, suggesting that the benefits of balanced development outweigh these concerns.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus for healthcare facilities and research but emphasizes the need to limit housing development in villages, particularly those recently affected by flooding, due to inadequate infrastructure.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, emphasising the importance of incorporating green spaces and tree planting in new developments. They express a desire for developments to harmonise with local architecture rather than adopting a uniform design. The response suggests limited development in villages with good transport links and local services, while supporting the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the growth of Cambourne into a proper town.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and Cambourne, highlighting the need for housing, jobs, and facilities. They advocate for a proper town centre in Cambourne and improvements to road layouts and public transport to alleviate traffic issues. The author opposes the Thakeham development, citing concerns over local planning processes and traffic problems.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district with mixed affordable housing, recreational spaces, and improved transport links. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more healthcare facilities and affordable housing. They advocate for moderate housing and better transport links in Cambourne, as well as limited development in the southern rural cluster with a focus on transport connections. The author highlights the importance of free public transport to reduce car dependency.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author advocates for significant housing development across various areas, including Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and surrounding villages, while expressing a strong opinion against limiting development in rural areas. They also suggest additional housing in Shelford and around Trumpington and Gog Magog, and call for a ban on cars in the city.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, suggesting mid-rise housing and ample public open spaces. They also support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities and housing. Furthermore, they envision a fully pedestrianised city centre with enhanced cycle infrastructure and outdoor social spaces, including more trees and outdoor seating areas.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various development proposals in Greater Cambridge, highlighting concerns about the loss of local character, the prioritisation of affluent areas, and inadequate public transport. They criticise the focus on high-income facilities and question the need for development in villages, suggesting that local residents should have a say in planning decisions. The author also mentions the potential for repurposing box store sites but remains sceptical about the overall planning process and its effectiveness by 2041.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author suggests that development in villages should be limited, proposing that only a few sites in villages with good public transport and local services should be considered for new development. They specifically mention Milton, Oakington, and Cottenham as potential locations for development.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author opposes further development in Greater Cambridge, advocating for minimal housing growth and prioritising green spaces and biodiversity. They express concerns about the sustainability of existing developments and suggest focusing on retrofitting current buildings rather than new construction.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses a desire for housing for locals in the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, but opposes the construction of the new rail route in Cambourne and suggests not building on St Matthew’s gardens.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s housing proposals, emphasising the need for realistic planning that considers local infrastructure, such as water supply, roads, public transport, and community services. They highlight the lack of essential services in growing areas like Eddington and stress that not all residents can rely on public transport or cycling, particularly those in villages with limited facilities.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, highlighting the need for more healthcare facilities, research, and housing. They advocate for limited development in villages, suggesting that only a few sites with good public transport and local services should be considered. The author notes that most villages have sufficient open spaces and suggests that local convenience stores and pubs/restaurants would reduce travel needs. They express admiration for the planning process and priorities but admit to lacking familiarity with specific localities for informed comments.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, emphasising the need for a diverse range of affordable housing, ample green spaces, local amenities, and community facilities. They express a desire for developments to be considerate of existing natural environments and to preserve mature trees. The author also suggests limited development in villages, focusing on smaller projects with adequate parking and good public transport access.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the proposed development east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, highlighting the risk of it becoming a commuter area rather than addressing local housing needs. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with appropriate housing and suggest that new communities like Cambourne should be designed with good transport links and climate-friendly living spaces. The author is against significant development in existing villages, advocating for limited development to preserve their character, especially in the green belt. They prioritise development south of Cambridge due to the imbalance of jobs and housing.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author opposes the development of new housing in existing villages, arguing that it does not lead to an increase in open spaces and negatively impacts wildlife and flood defences. They suggest focusing on new communities south of Cambridge and express concern that the projected number of homes needed by 2041 may be too high due to changing work habits. While acknowledging the need for housing near job locations, they believe that some demand can be met outside Greater Cambridge without significant environmental impact. The author supports the general approach of the First Proposals but insists on a cautious stance regarding the release of green belt land for development.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses mixed feelings about various development proposals in Greater Cambridge, suggesting that the area east of Milton Road could become a vibrant city district post-relocation of the waste water treatment plant, and supports the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus for healthcare and housing. However, they raise concerns about the East-West Rail’s impact on Cambourne, advocate for limited development in rural villages, and suggest retaining existing structures in those areas. Overall, the author appears sceptical about the future development of Greater Cambridge.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed development in rural villages, particularly criticizing the plans for Longstanton. They highlight existing issues caused by nearby developments, such as Northstowe, and argue that the council should prioritise the needs of current residents over new housing projects that threaten green spaces.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author suggests that any new housing development should include a community meeting point and advocates for a world-class concert hall in Greater Cambridge, with improved transport links for those outside the city.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the extension of the Science Park, highlighting the need for housing, jobs, and facilities. They advocate for limited development in villages with good transport links and suggest that the extension of the Science Park would enhance local lifestyle and employment opportunities, particularly for younger residents. However, they also indicate a lack of enthusiasm for extensive development in villages unless transport infrastructure is adequate.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses a preference for developing the area east of Milton Road into a vibrant city district with housing, open spaces, and parks, while suggesting that the waste water treatment plant could remain with modern technology. They advocate for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus to include essential open spaces and affordable housing, rather than high-end market options. The author supports the growth of Cambourne with a rail station, IT companies, and affordable housing. They emphasize the need for open spaces, improved transport links, and clean job opportunities in the southern rural cluster of villages, while suggesting limited development in villages with good transport connections. The author highlights the importance of affordable family homes, bungalows, and local amenities in these areas, and envisions Greater Cambridge in 2041 as accessible, safe, green, and not overly developed with high-rise buildings.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author opposes the relocation of the waste water treatment plant and does not support development in Histon and Impington. They also express a concern about avoiding flooding in Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests limited development in the southern rural cluster of villages near the rail line and business parks south of Cambridge, advocating for improved bus services and local facilities for the elderly. They also propose the establishment of infrastructure for a circular economy in Greater Cambridge by including repair facilities, comprehensive recycling, and biomass waste energy generation.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author proposes the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, suggesting flats with communal gardens, secure bike storage, and community food spaces. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with affordable housing and key worker accommodation. The author advocates for limited development in villages, specifically Abington and Babraham, with a focus on improving public transport to Cambridge. They express a desire for new open spaces and better transport connections for surrounding villages, highlighting the importance of maintaining existing green spaces.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes further development in the countryside, arguing that it leads to urban sprawl and loss of the area’s identity. They express a desire to protect green spaces and historical village characteristics, rejecting the notion that building is necessary for job creation. The author believes that the focus should be on maintaining a green and environmentally friendly environment rather than expanding urban areas.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed housing development in Shelford, arguing that the local transport options are inadequate and that the village is already experiencing significant traffic issues. They express a desire to preserve the village’s character and suggest using old factory sites for development instead.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests limited development in the southern rural cluster of villages near the rail line and business parks south of Cambridge, advocating for the re-establishment of train stations. They also believe that all villages, particularly those south of Cambridge, should see some form of development, especially in areas with good public transport connections and local services.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the proposed development east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, suggesting it is an undesirable location for housing due to its proximity to the railway line and A14. They advocate for the area to be used for expanding the Cambridge science park instead, highlighting the need for new employment sites to be accessible via public transport. The author also opposes compact housing developments, arguing that families require more space and that without affordable options, people may move away from the area, increasing commuting. They stress the importance of locating employment sites near public transport to reduce reliance on private cars.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author emphasises the necessity of establishing new drainage and sewage processing systems and a light rail or underground travel system before any housing or light factory units are constructed in various proposed development areas, including North East Cambridge, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They advocate for accountability from water authorities and developers regarding affordability and sustainability, prioritising housing for local people and smaller manufacturing and IT jobs. Additionally, they propose the creation of two new towns with rail links to local cities and stress the importance of infrastructure development, including geothermal energy access, in future planning.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, emphasizing the need for mixed housing, including options for the elderly, and a robust public transport system. They suggest creating open spaces such as parks, community gardens, and areas for peri-urban agriculture. Support is also expressed for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, highlighting the importance of additional healthcare facilities and recreational spaces. The author calls for improved public transport in Cambourne, along with sheltered housing and more green spaces. They recommend limited development in the southern rural cluster to preserve village integrity and express a desire for a vibrant, green Greater Cambridge by 2041, with accessible community facilities and local agriculture.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, emphasising the need for adequate schools, shopping spaces, small business facilities, parking, wide roads, healthcare services, green spaces, and multiple access points. They express a desire for development in villages while ensuring that designs are sympathetic to local aesthetics. Additionally, they raise concerns about the impact of emissions charges on small businesses in Cambridge.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses concern that removing land from the green belt for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus will negatively affect local wildlife and leisure activities for residents. They advocate for minimising housing in this area to preserve open space.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road, emphasising the need for affordable housing and green standards, while expressing concerns about car usage. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more affordable housing for local healthcare workers. The author believes the East-West Rail will benefit Cambourne but criticises the guided bus plan, insisting on prioritising affordable housing. They suggest careful development in the southern rural cluster to protect the green belt and support limited development in villages with good transport links. The author envisions a future with electric vehicle infrastructure, prioritised cycling and walking, and low traffic neighbourhoods in Cambridge.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses strong disapproval of unattractive housing developments, stating that they detract from the beauty of the city and contribute to a depressing landscape. They urge for the approval of more aesthetically pleasing architecture.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, suggesting low-level housing, ample open spaces, local shops, and improved transport links, including cycling and walking routes. They express support for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the potential growth of Cambourne, while also emphasising the need for limited development in villages with good transport connections.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for more healthcare facilities, research, and housing. They suggest the addition of a train station and improved public transport options, including a light rail or tram network, to reduce reliance on cars. The author emphasizes the need for diverse housing options, including affordable family homes and personal green spaces, while expressing concern over previous development plans that threatened existing green spaces. They support Policies 23 and 60, highlighting the importance of retaining green spaces for community wellbeing.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of green spaces and affordable housing in North East Cambridge, particularly after the relocation of the waste water treatment plant. They also support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with a focus on affordable housing and improved transport links, while expressing a desire for community amenities. The author emphasizes the importance of maintaining open spaces in rural areas and suggests that all developments should adhere to energy efficiency standards and promote biodiversity. They call for prioritising non-car transport and propose a ban on cars in Cambridge city centre to address congestion.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author expresses no comments on various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, indicating a strong agreement that development in villages should be limited, with a preference for no new development in these areas. They also emphasise the importance of preserving villages and resisting attempts by developers to bypass the democratic process.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes the expansion of Cambridge for housing or business use, arguing that it contradicts the government’s goal of directing development to less affluent areas of the country.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, advocating for minimal intervention and allowing the free market to dictate housing, jobs, and facilities. They believe that the area is already too busy and that development degrades the quality of life for current residents. The author also suggests that the council should not use taxpayer money for these developments and prefers a return to the conditions of 1991.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed developments around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the southern rural cluster of villages, stating that no additional housing, jobs, facilities, or open spaces should be created. They suggest limited development in villages with good public transport, specifically mentioning Sawston, but overall reject further development. The author also expresses a negative sentiment towards the future transformation of Cambridge into an urban area.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district with three open spaces, schools, GP services, jobs, and a focus on affordable housing. They also support the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with similar provisions. For Cambourne, they propose three open spaces, schools, GP services, jobs, and affordable housing. In the southern rural cluster, they recommend limited development with a focus on affordable housing and business clusters. They advocate for preserving open spaces and cycle routes in villages, suggesting no new development in villages without good transport links. Overall, they do not identify any additional sites for development.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses concern that current developments in Greater Cambridge are proceeding without adequate consideration for essential services such as schools and healthcare facilities. They highlight issues related to parking and the impact on children’s schooling, indicating that the developments are causing significant problems for residents.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the proposed development east of Milton Road, citing existing congestion and the need for green spaces, suggesting the area should be turned into a park or retain the sewage works. They advocate for limited development in villages, specifically naming Grantchester, Madingley, and Girton, and propose the inclusion of cycle routes. The author also calls for a complete ban on petrol cars in the city, stricter traffic measures, and the introduction of electric trams or trolley buses.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes the relocation of the waste water treatment plant due to concerns about the destruction of the green belt and the impact on local wildlife. They also oppose the development around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, citing the loss of trees and green spaces that contribute to air quality. The author expresses uncertainty about the development of Cambourne but is open to limited development in the southern rural cluster of villages if adequate facilities and parks are provided. They suggest that Ramsey could be developed as a second Cambourne with business opportunities, and emphasize the need for sufficient infrastructure to support any new housing or jobs. The author advocates for improvements in air quality in Cambridge.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for urban design in new neighbourhoods that prioritises walking, cycling, and convenience, while opposing cul de sacs and isolated blocks of flats. They emphasise the importance of local parks and suggest that the southern rural cluster should develop larger detached houses and central locations should focus on affordable flats. Additionally, they call for a more efficient public transport system in Cambridge, proposing a centralised bus provider with a consistent pricing scheme.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author supports the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They emphasize the need for good public transport links, affordable housing, local facilities, and sustainable transport options. The author also advocates for the use of brownfield sites before greenfield and stresses the importance of integrating new communities with existing ones.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author opposes the development plans for the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, citing concerns about congestion and the impact on the sewage works. They also express a need for modal filters on dangerous roads near schools to enhance safety for children.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the proposed development east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, citing concerns about mental health, congestion, and environmental impact. They argue against relocating the sewage works due to carbon emissions associated with redevelopment. The author also criticises the lack of development proposals in affluent villages like Grantchester, Newnham, and Trumpington, suggesting these areas should see new housing and business developments. They express a desire for Greater Cambridge to resemble cleaner, less congested cities like Paris and Amsterdam.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road, emphasising the need for green spaces, improved access, and play facilities. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with housing and open spaces for workers, and suggest enhancements to Cambourne’s public architecture, job provision, and transport links. The author expresses caution regarding village developments, favouring small projects within existing boundaries, and stresses the importance of quality public transport, architecture, and climate resilience in future planning.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to several proposed developments, arguing that the current wastewater treatment plant should remain in place, that Addenbrookes requires a train station, and that East-West Rail is impractical. They also oppose the transformation of villages into towns, advocate for the preservation of the green belt, and suggest that all villages should have basic amenities like a pub and shop. Additionally, they propose the Grafton Centre as a potential site for housing and recommend traditional building materials for future developments.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses support for developing the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district, suggesting the inclusion of a supermarket, school, community centre, and emergency service locations. However, they oppose the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for more healthcare facilities and housing only within the existing site, while also suggesting the addition of a pub and shop. The author supports limited development in villages with good transport links, recommending shops, pubs, and community centres, but objects to any expansion into the green belt near the biomedical campus.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author opposes further development in Cambourne, citing an already sufficient number of houses, inadequate infrastructure, and struggling facilities. They express concern over the lack of public transport and the absence of brownfield sites, advocating for the preservation of open spaces. Additionally, they highlight water supply issues related to potential new homes.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the development plans in various areas, particularly highlighting the need for open spaces and the limitations of existing infrastructure, especially around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. They advocate for careful consideration of traffic constraints and the preservation of green spaces, while suggesting community facilities in villages. Overall, the response reflects a cautious approach to development, emphasising the importance of adhering to planning conditions.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, highlighting the need for more healthcare facilities, research, and housing. However, they raise concerns about the sensitivity of the site and the existing green belt land, suggesting that no further extension should occur around the Ninewells development.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author supports the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, advocating for a cycling and walking-friendly environment while acknowledging the need for car travel. They also endorse the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more healthcare facilities and housing, while stressing the importance of conserving the surrounding green belt. The author suggests that satellite settlements like Cambourne can alleviate pressure on Cambridge and reduce urban sprawl. They propose limited development in villages with good transport links and emphasize the need for mixed local amenities. The author expresses a preference for satellite settlements over densification of existing areas to protect garden spaces and biodiversity.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author supports the development of a lively urban area east of Milton Road, including entertainment venues. They advocate for the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with a focus on quality housing and healthcare facilities. They suggest improvements to Cambourne’s high street and endorse limited development in rural villages with good transport links, specifically mentioning Histon and Milton. The author calls for enhancements in public transport and segregated cycleways for Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, arguing that they lead to lifeless, unattractive urban areas that disregard environmental concerns and the character of the region. They criticise specific developments like Eddington, Cambourne, and Northstow for their poor design and negative impact on local communities and landscapes, expressing a desire to halt further construction and preserve rural areas.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses strong concerns about the proposed dense city district in North East Cambridge, advocating for ample natural open spaces, cycle lanes, and public transport links to reduce car dependency. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with a focus on affordable housing for lower-paid workers and safe transport for hospital staff. The author emphasizes the necessity of reliable public transport for Cambourne’s growth and opposes further housing in rural villages due to existing congestion. They highlight the need for local transport solutions for school runs and caution against overdevelopment, raising concerns about water supply and environmental impacts.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author supports the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including the east of Milton Road and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, but raises concerns about flooding risks, encroachment on green land, and the need for adequate transport connections. They advocate for a balanced mix of housing, jobs, and facilities in villages while allowing for individual village identities. The author also emphasizes the importance of local water sources and sustainable development practices.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses a mixed stance on various development proposals in Greater Cambridge, suggesting a lively city district east of Milton Road, support for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with open spaces and limited housing, and a mixture of development in Cambourne. They advocate for limited housing and open spaces in the southern rural cluster of villages and suggest that only a few villages with good transport connections should see new development. The author does not identify any additional sites for development and has no further comments on the future of Greater Cambridge.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge should be developed into a vibrant city district with sustainable, affordable housing, light industrial jobs, and ample open spaces with landscaping and cycle paths. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more healthcare facilities and a mini Science Park, while advocating for limited housing and jobs in Cambourne and the southern rural cluster of villages. The author expresses a strong opposition to the proposals made by Thakeham, deeming them unacceptable.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about overpopulation and the suitability of certain areas for development, particularly criticizing the potential for overcrowding in North East Cambridge and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. They advocate for more retail and leisure facilities in Cambourne to enhance its identity, and suggest that development should be subtle and appropriate to the character of villages, particularly in the west and south. The author also calls for more characterful developments that align with the local identity, opposing bland, mass-produced housing.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road, emphasizing the need for affordable housing, job retention, and ample open spaces, while discouraging car parking to promote sustainable transport. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities and housing for hospital staff and visitors. The author suggests that Cambourne should develop facilities and potentially house the Cambridgeshire County Council to create jobs. They express concern over overdevelopment in well-connected villages, advocating for limited development and the protection of current open spaces. The author is against any new housing in these villages and stresses the importance of preserving green spaces and the greenbelt.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author opposes large developments in the southern rural cluster of villages near Cambridge, expressing a desire to maintain the character and distinctiveness of these villages. They advocate for limited development only in larger villages with good transport links, cautioning against merging villages together and emphasizing the importance of preserving green belt areas.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They emphasise the need for well-designed, environmentally thoughtful housing with gardens, alongside essential facilities such as schools, shops, and healthcare services. The author expresses concern about overcrowding and the impact of new developments on community quality of life, particularly in Petersfield, where they feel current infrastructure is insufficient to support new residents.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed developments around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and nearby villages, particularly Babraham. They highlight concerns about the encroachment of villages, the impact on local wildlife and heritage sites, and the inadequacy of proposed infrastructure to support the developments. The author criticises the notion of limited development in villages with good public transport, suggesting it could lead to excessive building in areas like Babraham, which they believe should remain untouched by large-scale development.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author supports the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, primarily for housing, and advocates for the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more healthcare facilities and housing. They agree with the potential growth of Cambourne, provided there is investment in infrastructure. The author suggests limited development in villages, with a focus on connectivity to Cambridge and modern transport options, while expressing uncertainty about specific sites for development. Overall, they emphasise the need for better connections to the city centre.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author supports the development of various areas in and around Cambridge, including the repurposing of land east of Milton Road, the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with a focus on healthcare and research, and the growth of Cambourne linked to the East-West Rail. They advocate for improved travel infrastructure and suggest limited development in villages, particularly Cherry Hinton, to enhance housing and facilities.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, arguing that they would lead to overdevelopment and loss of natural spaces. They specifically oppose the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, the development of Cambourne, and any further development in rural villages, advocating for limited infill housing only. The author fears that government interests will lead to the area being spoiled and overdeveloped, expressing a desire for much less development than currently planned.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, emphasizing the need for open public parkland to promote physical and mental health, improved road capacity for all transport modes, and support for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. They express concerns about cycling initiatives being elitist and stress the importance of accommodating cars and vans for various community needs, warning against creating a transport desert that could harm the area’s viability.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses a preference for enhancing cycling and bus services rather than imposing restrictions on car and van use. They argue that cycling is not accessible to everyone and that cars are necessary for various everyday activities. The response advocates for improved public transport and cycling infrastructure while also supporting the development of arterial roads to accommodate all forms of transport, including cars, suggesting that electric vehicles will address climate and air quality concerns.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, currently housing a waste water treatment plant, could be transformed into a vibrant city district following the plant’s relocation. They advocate for the expansion of Cambridge Science Park, particularly for associated manufacturing, but oppose development on land owned by Chivers Farm in the Green Belt east of Impington.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author opposes the housing development planned for Great Shelford, arguing that the train connections to Cambridge are inadequate and that the development will lead to increased car use, worsening air quality. They express concern that this development sets a precedent for further erosion of the green belt and contradicts the principles of the Local Plan and previous consultations.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes the development of the last remaining paddock in Melbourn, known as the Horse Field, arguing that it is vital for local wildlife and contributes to the village’s rural character. They highlight the field’s importance as a habitat for various bird species and express concern that building on it would eliminate a cherished community space and disrupt the local ecosystem.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road into a vibrant city district with affordable housing, local shops, and open spaces, while also advocating for the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more healthcare facilities and research spaces. They propose that Cambourne should develop local shops and leisure centres but oppose further development in the southern rural cluster of villages, advocating for the preservation of countryside. The author expresses a general disapproval of singling out specific villages for development and suggests limited housing and facilities in those areas.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, highlighting the need for additional healthcare facilities, research, and housing, as well as leisure and recreational facilities to benefit existing residents.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author criticises the council for prioritising motorists over pedestrians and advocates for a significant reduction in motorised traffic in Greater Cambridge, suggesting that the city should be transformed into a more people-friendly space, drawing on successful examples from Europe.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the development of 100 houses in Shelford, expressing concerns about the impact on local schools and the preservation of the countryside. They also highlight a lack of awareness about the consultation process and question the need for housing aimed at commuters to London.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author supports the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, advocating for green spaces, healthcare facilities, and housing. They emphasise the importance of maintaining open spaces and creating communal hubs, while also highlighting the potential for housing and science parks in Cambourne. Additionally, they stress the need for low carbon transport to foster liveable communities.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and certain villages, suggesting that they should provide a range of facilities such as homes, offices, schools, and open spaces to create self-contained communities. They express support for limited development in the southern rural cluster while emphasising the importance of preserving existing open spaces. The author also highlights the need for housing and facilities in villages with good public transport connections, particularly around train stops like Foxton.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district after relocating the waste water treatment plant. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities and amenities while advocating for the preservation of the green belt. The author recommends limited development in the southern rural cluster, focusing on infill on brownfield sites and improving public transport links. They express a preference for minimal development in villages, again emphasising infill on brownfield sites and public transport improvements. The author believes in optimising existing brownfield sites for housing and business use and stresses the need for better public transport and park and ride facilities to alleviate traffic congestion in Cambridge, suggesting a focus on new towns for development.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the development of parks in various areas, including east of Milton Road and around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, but opposes the East-West Rail project due to its potential negative impact on the countryside. They advocate for limited development to preserve the beauty and tranquility of Cambridge and its surroundings.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the density of development in Cambridge, advocating for the preservation of open spaces and the rural character of areas around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. They suggest that Cambourne should not undergo further large-scale housing development due to existing density. The author also emphasizes the importance of maintaining boundaries between urban and rural areas, supporting limited development in villages while prioritising open spaces. They advocate for the use of brownfield sites for development and express a desire to retain the unique character of Cambridge amidst growing housing and traffic issues.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses a preference for developing housing and parks in various areas, including East of Milton Road, around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They advocate for limited development in villages, specifically mentioning Waterbeach Newtown and Cambourne. The author also argues against new development in Greater Cambridge, suggesting that the pandemic has shifted preferences towards more affordable village living with good transport links, and that heavy development would negatively impact the quality of life and health of residents.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses a preference for limited development in the Greater Cambridge area, advocating for the preservation of green spaces and existing fields. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities and housing but oppose significant development in other areas, including Cambourne and the southern rural cluster of villages. They suggest that each dwelling should have an off-road car charging point and mention the need for play areas and social centres in villages.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed development of 20 new homes on a paddock in Melbourn, citing concerns about existing traffic congestion, strain on local infrastructure and amenities, loss of green space, and negative impacts on wildlife. They urge local authorities to reconsider the project to protect the village’s heritage and environment.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road into a vibrant city district after relocating the waste water treatment plant. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities, research jobs, and housing, including student housing. They express uncertainty about Cambourne’s development but advocate for improved public transport and affordable housing in the southern rural cluster of villages. The author believes that villages near Cambridge should see limited development, focusing on affordable housing, small business opportunities, and community spaces. They envision Greater Cambridge in 2041 as greener, more affordable, and cleaner.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author opposes the removal of Green Belt land for the construction of over 100 dwellings, citing concerns about water supply shortages and traffic congestion at railway crossings. They note that few new residents are likely to use the railway, as many may work locally or commute elsewhere, and highlight that the proposed Cambridge South station is not yet confirmed.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district, emphasising the need for a mix of affordable housing for key workers and their families. They also support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities and housing for NHS staff, while calling for secure jobs with fair wages. Furthermore, they stress the importance of sustainable transport, water conservation, and community-led housing in future developments.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the development plans in various areas, advocating for housing, shops, and schools while opposing further industrial growth. They highlight the need for housing supply to exceed job creation to lower house prices and stress the importance of maintaining village identities and avoiding congestion and pollution. They also call for improved public transport to all villages and sufficient community facilities wherever housing is built.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in the Greater Cambridge area, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages, stating that no housing, jobs, facilities, or open spaces should be created in these locations. They also oppose any development in villages, suggesting that only a few sites should be allocated in areas with good public transport connections and local services. Overall, the response indicates a complete lack of support for new developments in the discussed areas.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district with housing, jobs, facilities, and open spaces, including healthcare facilities and shops around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. They advocate for a balanced city that ensures safe access for all, including disabled individuals, and express concerns about congestion and the impact of development on local hills.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the density of proposed developments in various areas, including the need to preserve green spaces and biodiversity. They advocate for local services and facilities in new developments while highlighting the importance of public transport access. The author is also worried about the encroachment into the Green Belt and suggests a cautious approach to development in villages, considering the needs of those without transport options. They mention the potential for sustainable farming and peatland restoration but feel uncertain about specific development proposals.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the proposed development in Shelford, arguing that it will not lead to increased train usage for commuting to Cambridge and will instead exacerbate existing issues such as traffic congestion and pressure on local schools. They claim that the development will harm the environment, contribute to pollution, and undermine the community, asserting that it does not justify the removal of land from the green belt.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author advocates for environmentally friendly development in North East Cambridge, emphasising the need for sustainable features such as solar panels and cycle paths. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but express concerns about the East West Rail’s limited service to surrounding villages and the congestion on existing transport routes. The author opposes development in rural areas except on brownfield sites and stresses the importance of considering existing residents’ needs, particularly regarding water supply and environmental impacts.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author opposes the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, citing concerns over high carbon emissions, loss of green fields, and unsustainable infrastructure. They advocate for preserving green areas and limiting development in villages, suggesting that local businesses should be encouraged instead of large superstores. The author expresses a desire for more green spaces and a halt to housing developments that encroach on greenfields.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses concern about excessive overdevelopment in Greater Cambridge, highlighting a lack of consideration for green spaces, which they find very troubling.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the potential negative impacts of various developments in Greater Cambridge, including the risk of opportunistic landlords taking over, the need for infrastructure to support growth, and the importance of maintaining the character of Cambridge. They advocate for limited development in villages, suggest a new bypass to alleviate traffic pressure, and highlight the need for more GP surgeries and council housing. Overall, the response reflects a critical view of unchecked development and calls for a more balanced approach.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed development in Great Shelford, arguing that it is on green belt land without sufficient justification. They believe the development would primarily attract London commuters rather than serving local needs and suggest that the council should focus on improving transport links to more affordable villages outside the green belt instead. The author expresses concern about the ongoing encroachment of development into the green belt and the impact on local villages.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for more healthcare facilities, research, and housing, while suggesting the need for recreational spaces for staff. They express caution regarding development in villages, recommending it be limited to areas with good public transport and sustainable water tables. The author also calls for managed woodlands and open meadows to enhance biodiversity and critiques the aesthetic of new housing developments, arguing for designs that complement their surroundings.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, emphasising the need for diverse and affordable housing, improved healthcare facilities, and enhanced job opportunities. They highlight the importance of green spaces, biodiversity, and sustainable transport options, such as bike storage and electric charging points. The response also calls for better recycling practices and a focus on creating a vibrant, healthy community with zero carbon emissions.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus as a small town with essential facilities, including green spaces and a GP service, to enhance the wellbeing of staff and patients. They also highlight the need for improved active transport links between existing villages and Cambridge, while not commenting on Cambourne.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author suggests retaining the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge as a green space due to nearby development at the Waterbeach site. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with a focus on healthcare facilities, including respite care for dementia and special needs clients, as well as accommodation for families of seriously ill patients. The author does not provide comments on potential developments in Cambourne or the southern rural cluster of villages, and they do not identify any additional sites for housing or business use.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of co-housing schemes across various locations, including the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, the southern rural cluster of villages, and other villages with good public transport connections. They suggest that all sites should be considered for co-housing, emphasising the importance of communal living and integration into community life.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district with low-rise housing and communal spaces. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with community and cohousing options. They advocate for linked green spaces and a variety of community housing in the southern rural cluster but express no views on development in Cambourne or villages. Additionally, they emphasize the importance of air quality standards, cycle pathways, and green spaces for Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author advocates for the inclusion of more community-led housing projects, specifically co-housing initiatives, in various proposed developments across North East Cambridge, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They also support limited development in villages with good public transport connections and suggest a cycling link from the Wilbrahams to Newmarket Road to enhance connectivity to Cambridge.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author supports the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including the east of Milton Road for a vibrant city district, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus for healthcare and housing, and Cambourne for town development with schools and sports facilities. They advocate for community-led, environmentally friendly development in the southern rural cluster and suggest limited development in villages with good transport links, specifically mentioning Barton. The author also emphasizes the need for affordable housing in Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of self-contained communities in various areas, including North East Cambridge, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They emphasise the need for essential facilities such as shops, schools, and healthcare services, while supporting limited development in villages to maintain local amenities. The author also expresses a strong desire for Greater Cambridge to be very close to carbon neutral by 2041.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, currently housing a waste water treatment plant, could be transformed into a vibrant and densely populated city district, prioritising green open spaces after the plant’s relocation.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author opposes the relocation of the wastewater treatment plant, arguing it is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer money. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus for healthcare and research, emphasising the need for a mixed demographic and improved transport. The author views the East-West Rail link positively for Cambourne’s development but warns against overdevelopment in rural areas, advocating for the preservation of open spaces. They express concern about the quality of housing developments around Addenbrookes and stress the importance of ultra-high-speed broadband and energy-efficient homes in future developments.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author expresses opposition to the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, citing concerns about its sustainability and the need for a review of its development. They also criticise the East-West Rail project as inadequate infrastructure that does not align with the area’s vision. The author questions the rationale behind limiting development in villages, suggesting that they should contribute to housing and facilities. Additionally, they advocate for improved public transport, prioritising cycling and walking, and call for a halt to urban sprawl that encroaches on green belt land.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge could be developed into a vibrant city district with housing, a sports complex, schools, and community spaces, while also advocating for improved public transport. They express a desire for more innovative and characterful developments, contrasting them with existing faceless homes around Addenbrookes. The author also notes a lack of familiarity with Cambourne and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, describing the latter as soulless.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed development in Great Shelford, citing concerns about the impact on the green belt, the potential for increased traffic congestion, and the lack of public transport usage by current residents. They also criticise the council’s poor communication regarding the development.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of green spaces, active transport networks, and community building in various areas, including North East Cambridge, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and nearby villages. They express concerns about potential environmental impacts, particularly regarding local habitats and flooding, and suggest a low-density approach with access to allotments for food production. They also support limited development in villages with good public transport connections.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the proposed development in North East Cambridge, questioning the terms ‘lively and dense’ and suggesting that density is unattractive and detrimental to wellbeing. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more open spaces for health benefits. The author believes Cambourne is already overdeveloped and advocates for limited development in villages to preserve their character, suggesting improved public transport instead. They raise concerns about water supply and environmental issues, urging that villages should remain unchanged.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, emphasizing the need for well-divided living and working areas with attractive landscaping. They advocate for the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities and housing, while stressing the importance of preserving local wildlife and enhancing green spaces. The author supports the growth of Cambourne with careful planning for the East-West Rail route and calls for limited development in rural villages, prioritising local consultation. They highlight the necessity for improved public transport in Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district, contingent on the relocation of the waste water treatment plant. They advocate for the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus to include more healthcare facilities, research, and affordable housing. Additionally, they emphasize the need for essential services such as GP and dental provision, as well as school facilities, to be scaled up in Cambourne as it grows into a proper town.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses skepticism about dense housing, suggesting it often fails to work well. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with appropriate housing and open spaces. They view the East-West Rail as an opportunity for Cambourne to grow, advocating for housing for all ages and some industry. They believe limited development in villages should consider age demographics and public transport access, naming specific villages for potential development. The author also calls for better roads and more local shops in Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses a strong need for more special needs schools in Greater Cambridge, highlighting the severe impact on their daughter’s mental health due to the lack of available places. They mention a significant funding deficit and the crisis situation that families face in securing placements for children with special educational needs. The author advocates for the development of these facilities across various proposed development areas, including Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district after the relocation of the waste water treatment plant. They also advocate for the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities, research, and housing, while suggesting improved transport links. Furthermore, they propose changing the zoning of the Camfields resource centre and oil depot to mixed use, including a cafe/restaurant to enhance local amenities and accessibility to green spaces.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author opposes the development of additional housing in the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambourne, citing concerns about insufficient staffing at the hospital and the strain on local services such as doctors, pharmacies, and schools. They express frustration with the current housing situation, highlighting issues of congestion, inadequate parking, and small garden spaces. The author believes that villages should not see new development and calls for better transport links instead. They also mention that housing in Cambridge is becoming unaffordable due to the construction of small houses in cramped spaces.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author advocates for high-quality development in various areas, emphasising the need for green spaces, trees, and improved public transport. They express concerns about the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus into green belt land and suggest alternative locations for development. The author also highlights the importance of maintaining the character of villages and ensuring that any development enhances the quality of life for residents.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of green spaces and community facilities in proposed developments in North East Cambridge, around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster. They emphasise the importance of integrating growing spaces, native plantings, and community kitchens to enhance wellbeing, biodiversity, and climate resilience. However, they express concerns about the encroachment on countryside land and the need for careful planning to balance housing, farming, and environmental considerations.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author does not express a clear opinion on whether the development should proceed but emphasises the necessity of including growing spaces in any new housing. They advocate for allotments, community gardens, and agro-ecological methods to enhance wellbeing, biodiversity, and climate change mitigation. The response highlights the importance of food growing in community spaces and public parks, promoting a sense of community and local food production. The author envisions a future where agro-ecology is central to food growing, contributing to biodiversity and net zero goals in Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses the need for adequate infrastructure and services, such as healthcare facilities and schools, to support new developments in North East Cambridge and around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. They advocate for open spaces and safe cycling and walking routes. In Cambourne, they suggest that existing open spaces are sufficient but highlight the need for improved local services if the population increases. The author opposes large-scale developments in villages to maintain their rural character and emphasizes the need for improved infrastructure in these areas, citing issues with oversubscribed schools and inadequate healthcare services.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, including high-density housing, the East-West Rail project, and any further development in villages. They advocate for preserving the character of villages and suggest focusing on redeveloping brownfield sites in Cambridge instead. The author believes a pause in further development would be beneficial.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the proposed policy direction regarding community, sports, and leisure facilities, highlighting its alignment with national planning guidelines and the importance of protecting existing valued facilities.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in the Greater Cambridge area, citing concerns over the impact on wildlife, infrastructure, and public services. They advocate for prioritising affordable housing for NHS staff and suggest focusing on brownfield sites rather than greenbelt land. The response highlights the need for improved public transport and infrastructure to support any new developments, particularly in rural areas.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author advocates for prioritising nature and parkland over development in various areas, including the site east of Milton Road, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They express a strong opposition to any new development in villages and suggest that more incentives are needed to reduce car usage due to increasing traffic in Cambridge.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, emphasising the need for green spaces, schools, allotments, wildlife sites, and improved public transport services. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and suggest that Cambourne should grow into a proper town with similar amenities. The author expresses a desire for limited development in villages, specifically mentioning Sawston, and highlights the importance of cycling and better bus services in the future.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They suggest a mix of housing, improved public transport, parks, schools, shops, playgrounds, sports facilities, and community centres, while emphasising the importance of sustainability and environmental friendliness for the future of Greater Cambridge.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the pressure on existing green spaces and the need for adequate public transport and water supply in proposed developments. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but highlight the importance of preserving local green networks. The author advocates for limited housing development in villages to maintain their character and stresses the need for good transport links. They also warn against overwhelming external green spaces with visitors and hope for improved public transport and a balance between housing and green spaces by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses uncertainty about specific developments but emphasises the need for new areas to have a proper centre that includes small businesses and shops, rather than relying solely on supermarkets. They advocate for the inclusion of proper green spaces, including wilder areas, in all proposed developments. The author also stresses the importance of limiting development in villages to protect rural areas and suggests that only those with good transport links should see any new development. They are particularly opposed to the Thakeham Property Developers’ proposals, viewing them as contrary to sustainable development goals.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, emphasizing the need for affordable office space for start-ups, accessible open spaces within a 5-minute walk, and improved cycling and running facilities. They also support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities and housing, and highlight the importance of open spaces and cycling provisions in Cambourne and the southern rural cluster of villages. The author suggests encouraging brownfield development in villages with good transport links, particularly in Histon and Impington.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author suggests that development in villages should be very limited, proposing that only a few sites in villages with good public transport and local services should be considered for new development. They specifically mention Melbourn, Foxton, and Harston as potential locations for development.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed developments in various areas, citing concerns over environmental impact, water shortages, and the need for affordable housing. They argue against relocating the wastewater treatment plant, increasing job numbers, and the East-West Rail project, while advocating for more country parks and limited growth in Cambridge. The author also highlights the importance of accessible retirement homes and the need for public transport improvements.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses opposition to the continuous development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, citing concerns about internal communication and the potential loss of green belt land for open spaces. They suggest that improvements to access and efficient rebuilding could provide necessary facilities. The author is unfamiliar with Cambourne and lacks knowledge to comment on village developments, but emphasizes the need for new developments to include shops, recreational facilities, and green spaces. They advocate for a green city prioritising health, environmental improvements, and affordable housing by 2041.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes the housing allocation in Shelford/Stapleford, arguing that the train station will not promote car-less commuting due to limited train services and existing traffic issues. They express concern that development will harm the green belt, erode the character of the villages, and worsen traffic and pollution problems.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author expresses a cautious approach to development in various areas, advocating for limited housing in villages and supporting the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with a focus on affordable housing and quality outdoor spaces. They suggest that the area east of Milton Road could become a vibrant city district post-relocation of the waste water treatment plant, but they oppose significant development in small villages to maintain their character.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, arguing that they contribute to climate change and biodiversity loss. They criticise the relocation of the waste water treatment plant to greenbelt land, the promotion of unsustainable growth around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and the potential for diesel-powered East-West Rail. The author advocates for redeveloping empty shops in the city centre as affordable housing instead of building new homes in villages, and stresses the need for improved public transport and sustainable agricultural practices to combat climate change and biodiversity crises.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author advocates for an excellent, affordable, and preferably publicly run transport system in Greater Cambridge by 2041, with a strong emphasis on prioritising cycling provisions.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses a lack of qualification to comment on the development of the area east of Milton Road and Cambourne, while supporting the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but opposing the enclosure of the Ninewells Estate. They advocate for very limited development in villages to maintain their character, suggesting specific villages for potential development but emphasising the importance of open spaces.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to development in various areas, advocating for the preservation of green spaces and natural habitats. They highlight the urgent need for open spaces, woodland planting, and natural flood defences, while opposing any new housing or facilities in villages and other locations. The response emphasizes the importance of addressing climate change and protecting local ecosystems.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed development east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge due to concerns about relocating the sewage works to green belt land, which they believe contradicts climate change goals and biodiversity preservation. They argue that the omission of this information in consultations misleads public opinion. The author also expresses a preference for limited development in villages, prioritising open spaces over retail and office spaces, and advocates for affordable, energy-efficient housing with ample green spaces. They question the need for more office space post-Covid and stress the importance of preserving the character of Cambridge.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses a preference for developing green housing, educational facilities, and leisure spaces in North East Cambridge, while opposing further development at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus due to its natural beauty. They suggest limited housing in Cambourne to protect the environment and advocate for minimal development in the southern rural cluster to maintain rural quality of life. They support development in Waterbeach and Northstowe with a focus on transport links and green housing, and suggest potential development areas near Newmarket. The author emphasizes the importance of protecting green spaces and wildlife diversity for personal well-being.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses a cautious approach to development in Greater Cambridge, advocating for limited and well-considered growth that prioritises local consultation and community needs. They support the development of healthcare facilities at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but stress the importance of including care homes. Concerns are raised about the East-West Rail development potentially harming greenfield sites and local quality of life. The author emphasises the need for affordable housing and community engagement in planning processes, while also highlighting the importance of sustainable water and energy resources.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, citing concerns about the need for a suitable location for the waste water treatment plant, the risk of flooding in proposed housing areas, inadequate infrastructure, and the preservation of village character. They advocate for limited development in villages and express a desire for Cambridge to remain affordable for residents.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road into a vibrant city district with a bridge over the railway to Fen Road. They advocate for extensive off-road cycle ways connecting Cambourne to Cambridge and nearby villages, and propose limited development in the southern rural cluster with similar cycling infrastructure. The author also emphasizes the need for restricted motor traffic permeability, high-quality cycle ways with priority at junctions, and circular bus routes throughout the town.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author strongly advocates for the preservation and expansion of open spaces in Greater Cambridge, suggesting that all proposed developments should provide 100% open space. They express concerns about the sufficiency of existing green areas and oppose any reduction in open space. Additionally, they challenge the notion of necessary growth, arguing for a net zero change in built land and a sustainable reduction in resource use.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for more healthcare facilities, research positions, and housing. They also see potential for Cambourne to develop into a proper town with good shopping facilities and schools for young people.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for more healthcare facilities, research, and housing, alongside increased public amenities and green spaces. They strongly agree with limiting development in rural villages, suggesting that growth should focus on urbanised areas with existing infrastructure. The response highlights the need for improved public transport and sustainable initiatives like community orchards. The author envisions a more sustainable and well-connected Greater Cambridge by 2041, with accessible green spaces for the community.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the proposed developments in various areas, arguing against the relocation of the waste treatment plant, the need for new housing without adequate infrastructure, and the potential negative impacts on climate change and local wellbeing. They express concerns about the loss of green spaces and the influence of developers on planning decisions, highlighting the importance of preserving the environment and addressing infrastructure needs before considering new developments.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author opposes new housing developments until existing infrastructure is fully addressed, including roads, schools, and healthcare facilities. They express concerns about the environmental impact of new construction on climate change and advocate for the renovation of existing buildings instead. Additionally, they highlight the need to protect the Green Belt and question the rationale behind relocating the Waste Treatment site, arguing it is unnecessary and detrimental to the environment.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages, emphasising the importance of food growing opportunities, community centres, and sustainable practices. They envision a biodiverse and well-connected Greater Cambridge by 2041, with a focus on energy efficiency and zero food waste.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses a neutral stance on various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, indicating no strong preference for housing or facilities in certain areas, while suggesting limited development in villages to maintain their character. They highlight the need for more local jobs in Cambourne and advocate for better management of wildlife areas, particularly near Coldhams Lane, to enhance biodiversity. The author appreciates the city’s efforts in planting trees but notes concerns about the loss of wildlife in specific locations.
+Stance: NEUTRAL
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed developments in various areas, emphasising the need to protect and enhance green spaces and biodiversity over growth. They advocate for minimal development, particularly around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages, insisting that infrastructure and community facilities must accompany any housing. The author believes that the focus should be on rewilding and environmental preservation rather than simply pursuing growth.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge could be developed into a vibrant city district after relocating the waste water treatment plant. They advocate for the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more healthcare facilities and housing, while emphasising the need for increased tree planting. However, they provide no suggestions for Cambourne, the southern rural cluster of villages, or specific villages for development, citing a lack of knowledge. The author also calls for improved cycle path infrastructure, efficient public transport, and measures to reduce road traffic in central Cambridge.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, emphasising the need for green spaces, affordable housing, and improved public transport. They suggest creating car-free streets, wildlife corridors, and community facilities around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and other locations, while expressing caution about development in villages to maintain community cohesion.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the development plans for various areas in Greater Cambridge, advocating for more open spaces and cautioning against over-concentration of facilities in specific locations like the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. They highlight the need for preserving the character of existing villages and the Green Belt, while also questioning the necessity of certain transport links. Overall, the response reflects a desire to maintain quality of life and environmental integrity rather than prioritising extensive development.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed development in Greater Cambridge, particularly in Great Shelford, citing concerns about urban sprawl, increased congestion, and inadequate infrastructure. They advocate for the creation of a new village with its own facilities instead of adding more housing to existing areas, which they believe would exacerbate traffic issues and negatively impact the community.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus for housing, jobs, and facilities. They advocate for local employment opportunities in Cambourne while maintaining green spaces. They suggest limited, small-scale development in the southern rural cluster of villages, focusing on brownfield or infill sites, and recommend new development only in villages with good public transport connections.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of green spaces that are friendly to wildlife and improved public transport across various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge. They express a desire for carbon neutrality and affordable public transport options, while also questioning the assumptions behind the development proposals.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed developments in various areas, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They criticise the density of proposed developments, express scepticism about the delivery of promised facilities, and advocate for farming and open spaces instead of urbanisation. Additionally, they suggest that the name of Greater Cambridge should be changed, indicating a lack of faith in the current planning process.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author supports the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, contingent on the relocation of the waste water treatment plant. They advocate for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus to expand with healthcare facilities, research, and affordable housing, emphasising green spaces and health-oriented amenities. However, they express concern that further development in the southern rural cluster could lead to urban sprawl. They suggest limited development in villages with good transport links, advocating for affordable housing and maintaining existing green spaces. The author envisions a Greater Cambridge in 2041 that is less crowded, aesthetically pleasing, and harmoniously developed with a strong green belt.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for housing primarily for low-paid workers, public spaces, and facilities to reduce the need for travel. They express concerns about flooding and the need for recreational spaces. They suggest limited development in the southern rural cluster to support the biomedical campus and emphasize the importance of avoiding water shortages and ensuring that new homes are not in flood-prone areas, while also providing essential amenities.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road into a vibrant city district with community spaces, schools, local shops, and a transport hub, while supporting the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities and housing. They propose parkland and a transport hub for Cambourne, advocate for limited development in the southern rural cluster, and express uncertainty about specific village developments. Additionally, they highlight the importance of air quality, water quality, carbon-free transport, and a pedestrianised city centre for Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for the inclusion of skateboarding facilities in various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, highlighting the need for well-lit and accessible spaces for the skateboarding community. They suggest these facilities should be integrated into the development plans for areas such as the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the southern rural cluster of villages.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses opposition to the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, arguing that it is already large enough and should not encroach on the countryside. They also suggest Coldhams Common as a potential site for development and express concern that Greater Cambridge is becoming like Peterborough or Milton Keynes, warning that planners will regret their decisions when resources become scarce.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concern about the proposed development of over 20 houses on The Paddock, The Moor, Moor Lane, Melbourn, citing issues such as increased traffic, safety risks for students, and a decline in local wildlife. They highlight the strain on existing amenities and advocate for careful site selection for new housing to avoid exacerbating environmental and infrastructure pressures.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, highlighting issues such as the potential loss of green belt land, the impact on local wildlife, and the lack of cohesive planning in existing developments. They specifically mention the need for careful consideration of housing and infrastructure in areas like the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambourne, while advocating for limited development in rural villages to preserve their character. The author also notes a shift towards remote working and the importance of utilising brownfield sites over green belt land.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, emphasising the need for healthcare facilities, research, and housing while respecting rural aspects and enhancing nature pathways. They advocate for intrinsic amenities in housing developments to foster community access and well-being.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for improved transport services, including better bus and train connections, to support the development of various areas such as North East Cambridge, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They express a need for affordable and reliable transport options to encourage public transport use over cars. Additionally, they agree on limiting development in villages like Histon due to overdevelopment concerns.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for more affordable housing and improved transport links in areas like Trumpington and Harston. They highlight the need for better job opportunities for young people in the southern rural cluster and suggest limited development in villages with good transport connections. The author specifically mentions Melbourn as a key area for affordable housing and business development, aiming to create a thriving local hub while preserving the green belt around Cambridge. They express a desire for young people to remain in the Cambridge area.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed developments in various areas, arguing that they would lead to the loss of the unique character of villages and increase pollution. They believe that villages should remain as they are, with limited development only in areas with adequate infrastructure and public transport. The author is concerned about the capacity of local services and the impact of urbanisation on the environment and community.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author supports the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They suggest the inclusion of playgrounds, integrated public transport, affordable housing, green spaces, and improved access to services and safety measures for all community members.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the development proposals in various areas, highlighting the need for adequate transport links, significant affordable housing, and safe spaces for children. They oppose development in certain villages due to potential damage to character and inadequate infrastructure. The author also questions the calculation of the proposed number of new homes in the Greater Cambridge area.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various facilities, particularly skateparks, across multiple areas including North East Cambridge, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They also suggest expanding green spaces and cycle lanes in Histon and Impington, and envision a green city prioritising cycling and walking by 2041.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of the area east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and Cambourne into vibrant, mixed-use neighbourhoods that promote ‘15-minute neighbourhoods’ to reduce car dependency. They emphasise the importance of integrating cycling infrastructure, ensuring accessibility for all, and creating safe, welcoming parks and public spaces that encourage community interaction. The response highlights the need for sustainable transport connections and reducing car space to enhance green spaces.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for developments that prioritise sustainable transport, creating ‘15-minute neighbourhoods’ where residents can access jobs, education, and amenities without relying on cars. They emphasise the importance of integrating cycling infrastructure, reducing road space for cars to enhance green spaces, and ensuring parks are accessible and designed to foster community interaction. The response calls for a mix of uses in new developments and highlights the need for safe walking and cycling routes, particularly for children.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for reducing land allocated to car parking and roads in favour of increasing green spaces with trees and plantings, which would help absorb carbon and enhance the environment. They emphasise the importance of inclusive transport for health and wellbeing, highlighting the need for accessible walking and cycling infrastructure for all users, including those with mobility issues. The response also stresses that new developments should be safe, clean, and well-maintained, with secure and attractive cycle parking.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses significant concern regarding the proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, particularly emphasizing the need for ample green spaces and biodiversity protection. They advocate for hedgehog highways in housing developments and express worry about the impact of construction on local wildlife. The author is against further development in Cambourne and other villages, citing overdevelopment and a desire to maintain the character of these areas. They highlight the importance of biodiversity and express discontent with the current state of the Waterbeach site, which has seen a loss of wildlife and greenery due to development.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes the plans for ‘Cambridge Science Park North’ due to concerns about the loss of access to rural landscapes for residents, which they believe is essential for social well-being. They suggest that any development on greenfield sites should maintain existing hedgerows and vegetation, and where these do not exist, new tree planting should be required.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for the inclusion of public research facilities, adequate parking, leisure, nursery, and housing facilities. However, they strongly oppose the idea of increasing the population and housing by 40% over the next 40 years, arguing that it would detract from the character of Cambridge as a small university city and that growth should be limited to maintain the independent nature of new builds.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author argues that the proposed development in North East Cambridge is premature and inappropriate, as the decision regarding the relocation of the sewage works is pending until 2023. They suggest that the development should not be included in the Local Plan due to the uncertainty surrounding the sewage works’ relocation.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author believes that the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge is premature due to the uncertainty surrounding the relocation of the sewage works. They express uncertainty regarding the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages, and do not have a view on new development in villages.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author expresses mixed feelings about various development proposals in Greater Cambridge. They support the idea of developing the area east of Milton Road into a vibrant city district but raise concerns about the current state of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, particularly regarding its architecture and parking issues. They see potential for Cambourne to develop with the East-West Rail but highlight the need for infrastructure improvements in the southern rural cluster of villages. The author is cautious about further development in villages, stressing the importance of adequate supporting infrastructure and opposing large-scale developments that may be imposed by the government.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author argues that the proposed NECAAP development is premature and inappropriate, as the relocation of the sewage works is uncertain and will not be decided until 2023. They suggest that development should not be included in the Local Plan until there is a guarantee that the project can proceed.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses opposition to the development of the area east of Milton Road, advocating for the retention of the current waste water treatment plant and existing industrial units for local jobs. They also argue against further development in Cambridge and Cambourne due to insufficient natural resources, suggesting that any development in villages should be based on local requests and include good cycle ways. Overall, the author prefers to maintain the current character of Greater Cambridge.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge could be developed into a vibrant city district after relocating the waste water treatment plant, proposing the inclusion of schools and medical centres. They also recommend developing more on the south side of Cambridge with improved transport links, rather than focusing on the north side. Additionally, they envision Greater Cambridge in 2041 as greener with frequent, affordable public transport and more accessible country parks.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author discusses the potential for development in various areas of Greater Cambridge, including the need for housing, jobs, and facilities. They express support for creating a local community near Milton Road and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, while raising concerns about the sustainability of further expansion without affordable housing. They suggest that Cambourne could develop into a vibrant community with a central feature, advocate for limited development in rural villages, and highlight the need for affordable homes in Histon and Cottenham. The author also notes the importance of modifying existing housing to meet green targets and warns of potential social isolation if development does not keep pace with demand.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the relocation of the wastewater treatment plant, arguing it is unnecessary and environmentally damaging. They express concerns about the loss of agricultural land and the need for wildlife and green spaces for human health. The author also critiques the lack of community facilities in Cambourne and insists that development should only occur on brownfield sites, advocating for the preservation of greenbelt areas. They call for a diverse ecosystem with ample green spaces and trees in Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the relocation of the waste water treatment plant due to the high costs and environmental impact, particularly the loss of green belt land and the carbon footprint of constructing a new facility. They support housing development for staff at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and suggest improvements to facilities and transport in Cambourne. The author believes that housing needs should be reassessed in light of changes brought by Covid and Brexit, advocating for limited development in villages with good transport links. They express concern over plans to build on green belt land, particularly in relation to the sewage works, deeming it unjustifiable.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses opposition to the proposed development of housing and facilities south of Addenbrookes, citing concerns about flooding and environmental impact. They highlight existing flooding issues in nearby developments and the ecological significance of the area, which supports diverse bird species.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes the NECAAP development due to its premature nature and the uncertainty surrounding the relocation of the sewage works. They express concerns about preserving natural areas in Cambourne and advocate for limited development in villages, suggesting a need for a more balanced approach to development across the UK. Additionally, they do not support a significant increase in development by 2041.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed development plans for the area east of Milton Road and the southern rural cluster of villages, citing concerns over water supply, climate change, ecosystem damage, and inadequate infrastructure. They argue against relocating the waste water treatment plant to the green belt and highlight the existing water stress in the region, as well as the inadequacy of the local sewage system. The response emphasizes the need for careful consideration of environmental impacts and infrastructure before proceeding with development.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author opposes the Draft Local Plan, arguing it does not adhere to a ‘brownfield first’ approach and is inconsistent with national policy. They express concerns about increased carbon emissions from greenfield development and advocate for the use of existing brownfield sites. The response highlights the need for sustainable development practices, including reducing embodied carbon emissions from construction materials. The author calls for new developments to meet carbon neutrality requirements and improve infrastructure to support growth.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, arguing that relocating the sewage works is unnecessary and that including this site in the plan is premature. They suggest that there are better alternatives for housing available at the Marshalls site, while also emphasizing the need to protect Green Belt land.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the relocation of the sewage works, arguing it is unnecessary and environmentally misleading. They advocate for limited development in rural areas and express a desire to maintain the character of Cambridge, opposing overdevelopment driven by greed.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author suggests that Cambourne should develop a swimming pool and small units for long-term rental aimed at small businesses with flexible terms. They also propose similar developments for the southern rural cluster of villages and mention Cambridge North Science Park II in Impington as a potential site for housing or business use.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author argues that the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge is premature and inappropriate due to the uncertainty surrounding the relocation of the current waste water treatment plant. They express doubt about the project’s significance and its eligibility for funding, suggesting that it should not be included in the Local Plan.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district, contingent on the relocation of the waste water treatment plant. They emphasise the importance of creating more walking routes to the countryside, protecting existing routes, and maintaining green buffers around natural reserves. Additionally, they support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with enhanced healthcare facilities and improved walking access in the surrounding area.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the local authority’s plans to enhance energy requirements for net zero buildings and introduce circular economy statements. They highlight the importance of addressing embodied carbon, particularly with a 2030 timeline in mind, and suggest including mechanisms for future targets in the local plan. The author also supports the proposal for new developments to adhere to a green infrastructure standard, emphasising that clear targets will aid both developers and planners in the planning process.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed development of twenty new houses on the last remaining horse field in Melbourn, citing concerns about the impact on local traffic and the existing development in the area.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes the relocation of the water treatment plant and the further extension of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, citing concerns over inadequate water supply, national food security, climate change, ecosystem damage, carbon emissions from construction, lack of public transport integration, and a democratic deficit in the planning process. They also express strong objections to the growth proposed in the new Draft Local Plan.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author calls for a review of the NECAAP proposal to accommodate changing work habits post-pandemic, advocating for high-density housing and office space near the city centre instead of rural areas. They express concern that the current plan may lead to vacant properties and unnecessary relocation of the wastewater treatment plant. Additionally, the author supports limited development in villages, suggesting that small infill sites could enhance communities. They also highlight the issue of student and foreign investor-owned properties driving up local housing prices, advocating for limits on such ownership to prevent further exacerbation of the housing crisis.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author supports the development of housing and facilities in North East Cambridge and around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, particularly for key workers, while advocating for open spaces for recreation. They express caution regarding limited development in rural areas and villages, emphasizing the need for adequate infrastructure and the potential impact on local character and traffic. Concerns are raised about a proposed development by Trinity College in Impington, fearing it could lead to urban sprawl and affect the village’s character.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC) with a focus on healthcare facilities, research, and housing, while suggesting that development should be limited to currently allocated sites and the Cambridge East site. They envision Greater Cambridge in 2041 as a place with a high quality of life, featuring accessible green spaces that support wildlife.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge should be developed into a vibrant city district with affordable housing and community facilities. However, they oppose housing development around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for the area to be reserved for campus expansion due to concerns about traffic and housing affordability. Additionally, they highlight the need for better communication regarding local planning initiatives.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author strongly objects to the planning application for 20 new houses on Moor Lane in Melbourn, citing concerns about the loss of rural land rich in wildlife and the negative impact on the village’s character. They argue that the development contradicts the local plan’s aims to protect the environment and local character.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author argues that environmental issues, including biodiversity and sustainability, should take precedence over socio-economic concerns in planning for Greater Cambridge’s future. They express skepticism about current proposals, suggesting that they do not adequately prioritise environmental considerations and warn against short-term solutions that could exacerbate the climate crisis. The author calls for a significant shift in focus to ensure that environmental impacts are the primary consideration in all decision-making processes.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses a desire to protect rural areas and villages, specifically opposing any further housing development in Melbourn.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes any new development in the southern rural cluster of villages near Cambridge, arguing that it would destroy the rural character of these areas and lead to increased traffic on inadequate roads. They express skepticism about the reliability of alternative transport options like trains and reject the idea of developing housing or facilities in these villages, including a specific objection to a proposed housing development between Mingle Lane and Hinton Way, which they believe would further harm the rural environment.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, contingent on the relocation of the waste water treatment plant. They advocate for the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more healthcare facilities and specialist jobs, alongside improved public transport and local services. They suggest that Cambourne should develop entertainment facilities and better bus transport. However, they oppose any development in the southern rural cluster of villages, advocating for the preservation of rural sites and limiting development to city areas with good transport links.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, contingent on the relocation of the waste water treatment plant. They suggest enhancing footpaths and cycle links in villages to promote safer cycling and walking. The response emphasises the need for reduced car dependency, improved quality of life through traffic management, and the incorporation of high-quality cycle paths in new developments. Additionally, they call for new buildings to adhere to Passive House principles and include renewable energy sources to minimise carbon footprints.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the relocation of the wastewater treatment plant, arguing it is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer money. They are against the development of a dense city district due to concerns about mental health and the impracticality of three-storey homes. The author supports the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but insists that housing for staff should be nearby. They advocate for limited development in villages, emphasizing the need for open spaces and essential services. The author also suggests potential sites for housing and business expansion but criticizes the lack of mention of the wastewater treatment plant relocation in the Local Plan.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes any further development in the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages, citing concerns about sustainability and growth.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses a lack of familiarity with the area east of Milton Road but supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, suggesting it should remain within its allocated sites and include facilities for employees and visitors. They advocate for enhanced, shared, accessible, and sustainable open spaces that do not compromise existing green belt and biodiversity.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author opposes further building in the village, expressing a desire to preserve its current state.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the proposed development in North East Cambridge, arguing that the sewage works should remain in its current location due to its historical significance and the negative impact of relocation on local communities and the environment. They express concerns about overdevelopment in Cambourne and the southern rural cluster, advocating for the preservation of open spaces and the Green Belt. The author criticises the current development trends in Cambridge, lamenting the loss of its historical character and architectural integrity.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including a lively city district east of Milton Road, enhanced facilities around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and growth in Cambourne. They suggest the inclusion of housing, jobs, healthcare facilities, parks, and green spaces. The author also emphasizes the need for limited development in villages, with a focus on public transport and local services, and expresses a vision for safer streets and pedestrianised zones by 2041.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes further building on The Moor in Melbourn, citing insufficient local facilities and traffic issues. They argue that the area cannot handle more traffic and that the last paddock in the village should remain undeveloped to protect green spaces.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for a development in North East Cambridge that prioritises green spaces, carbon-neutral housing, and integrated community facilities, while expressing concerns about car dependency and the need for effective public transport. They also support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with a focus on transport integration and managing traffic impacts. The author suggests that Cambourne should evolve into a more connected town, and emphasizes the importance of infrastructure in any village developments. Overall, they call for a shift towards sustainable, people-friendly developments with ample green spaces and inclusive transport options.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the Draft Local Plan, citing concerns over inadequate water supply, potential harm to national food security, insufficient measures to combat climate change, and likely damage to ecosystems. They also criticise the carbon emissions from construction, lack of an integrated public transport system, and the undermining of government policies. Additionally, they reject the idea of development in villages and suggest that the area east of Milton Road should prioritise green space over development.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, emphasising the need for improved infrastructure before housing is built to accommodate increased traffic. They advocate for the inclusion of community facilities in new developments and express concerns about overdevelopment in Cambridge, highlighting the importance of planning for future needs and maintaining the character of villages. The author calls for a proactive approach to infrastructure planning and community integration.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses concern that rapid housing development without adequate and sustainable infrastructure can harm communities and distress current residents, urging careful consideration of housing locations.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus due to concerns about the impact on green belt land, local biodiversity, and existing infrastructure. They highlight the presence of endangered species and inadequate water supply in the area, arguing that the proposed development contradicts the Greater Cambridge local plan.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author expresses strong concerns about the ecological impact of the proposed expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus into the Green Belt, particularly regarding habitat loss and insufficient mitigations. They also highlight the need for more affordable housing but stress that growth must be managed carefully to avoid negative effects on the environment and quality of life.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the development proposals in various areas, emphasising the need for social and affordable housing while also highlighting the importance of protecting existing green spaces. They note that new housing will likely increase car usage, which should be managed, especially with the rise of electric vehicles. The author is cautious about expanding Cambourne and suggests that development in villages should be limited unless there are local employment opportunities to prevent exacerbating commuting issues.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about further development in South Cambridgeshire, arguing that it primarily benefits developers rather than residents. They highlight the need for improved infrastructure, such as public transport and broadband, without additional development. While acknowledging the necessity for housing, they caution against overdevelopment driven by employment opportunities and projects like EWR and the Ox Cam Arc, which they believe strain existing infrastructure. The author advocates for careful planning that considers commuting, pollution, and the rural character of South Cambridgeshire, suggesting that growth should not come at the expense of local communities’ needs and views.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the current development plans in North East Cambridge, stating that they do not provide adequate green space for residents. They oppose further development at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, citing overdevelopment and increased transport needs. The author advocates for green space in Cambourne and raises concerns about insufficient water supplies and the loss of farmland in the southern rural cluster, which could lead to increased carbon emissions.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road into a vibrant city district with schools, playgrounds, cafes, and independent shops, while supporting the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more healthcare facilities and wildlife areas. They express caution about further housing developments in Melbourn due to existing pressures, advocating for community amenities and proper maintenance by the council. The author also calls for safer roads, lower speed limits, and better active travel options, while emphasising the importance of community input in development decisions.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road, emphasising the importance of trees and open spaces. They also support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, urging against the use of space for car parks and advocating for the preservation of green fields and wildlife. The author envisions a green and enjoyable Cambridge in 2041.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road, emphasising the need for trees and open spaces. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with a focus on dense research buildings, efficient land use, and the preservation of surrounding wildlife. The author also calls for new school facilities and affordable housing in Cambourne, and stresses the importance of maintaining green spaces in the southern rural cluster. Additionally, they express a desire for Cambridge to remain compact and dynamic, with reduced car access and improved infrastructure for bikes and electric vehicles.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about potential overdevelopment in North East Cambridge, advocating for the relocation of the waste water treatment plant before any development occurs. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but suggest that the industry should be distributed more widely. The author believes that the character of southern rural villages should be preserved and that development should be limited, as further development could harm these areas. They also advocate for stronger protection of the green belt to prevent urban sprawl and suggest that new towns should include local employment opportunities to avoid becoming dormitory towns.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes the planned housing development on fields in Melbourn, arguing that it will result in a loss of green space and negatively impact the character of the village.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus for healthcare and housing but raises concerns about the need for sufficient disabled parking and the preservation of small open spaces for wildlife. They express caution regarding limited development in villages, highlighting traffic congestion and inadequate public transport. The author advocates for more council housing, additional doctors’ surgeries, and wildlife areas in villages. They oppose the proposed development of 20 houses on The Moor due to its impact on local wildlife and traffic issues, emphasizing the need for more healthcare facilities to meet current demands.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author discusses various development proposals in Greater Cambridge, advocating for significant shopping facilities to alleviate pressure on the town centre, improved road access to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and the inclusion of spiritual provisions in new developments. They express concerns about water supply issues in the southern rural cluster and emphasize the need for affordable housing and infill building in villages. The author also suggests the compulsory purchase of a site for social housing and calls for an efficient bus service and adequate water supply by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses opposition to the development of a dense city district near Milton Road, citing concerns about living conditions. They also question the compatibility of housing with open spaces around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and oppose the transformation of rural villages into larger urban areas, fearing a loss of green space. The author believes that development in villages should be limited and that the character of Greater Cambridge should be preserved, avoiding a crowded metropolis.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to new developments in various areas, citing concerns over inadequate water supply and the potential strain on local ecosystems. They advocate for minimal development to preserve the character of villages and emphasize the importance of education and healthcare while rejecting additional housing or business sites. The author hopes for a well-organised public transport system and prioritisation of pedestrians and cyclists, while also expressing concern about overdevelopment in Greater Cambridge.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, contingent on the relocation of the waste water treatment plant. They advocate for the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, emphasising the importance of maintaining green spaces for patient wellbeing. The author sees potential in Cambourne’s growth due to the East-West Rail, linking it to job opportunities. However, they oppose further development in villages, stressing the need to preserve their character and history, and suggest that new developments should be limited to areas with good transport links. They do not propose any additional sites for development and request the publication of the questionnaire results.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of green and open spaces, childcare facilities, and essential shops in various areas including North East Cambridge, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and surrounding villages. They emphasise the importance of public transport and minimising carbon emissions, while expressing a desire for Cambridge to become a leading ESG city by 2041. The author also disagrees with limiting development in villages, suggesting that there is potential for growth in these areas.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses opposition to the development proposals in various areas, arguing against relocating the sewage works, the removal of Green Belt land for research and development, and the limited benefits of East-West Rail for certain villages. They advocate for improved public transport before considering development in villages and suggest more industry around Sawston. The author also criticises the current state of Greater Cambridge, attributing its decline to greedy developers and insufficient planning controls.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road, emphasising the need for environmentally friendly housing, community facilities, and job opportunities for young people. They express concerns about the impact of developments near nature reserves, particularly regarding the Ninewells natural spring. The author suggests that Cambourne should have a significant business district and supports limited development in villages with good transport links. They also propose the inclusion of solar farms around the city for sustainability.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge and around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, emphasising the importance of creating ‘15-minute neighbourhoods’ that reduce car dependency. They stress the need for mixed-use developments that allow easy access to housing, jobs, and amenities by cycling, and call for integration with cycling infrastructure. The response also highlights the necessity of reducing road space to enhance green spaces and ensure parks are accessible and safe for children. Similar principles are applied to the potential growth of Cambourne, focusing on sustainable transport and community integration.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of ‘15-minute neighbourhoods’ that reduce car dependency by ensuring access to jobs, education, shops, services, and leisure amenities within a short walking or cycling distance. They emphasize the need for mixed-use developments, accessible cycling infrastructure, and sustainable transport connections. The response highlights the importance of integrating parks with safe walking and cycling routes, ensuring they are welcoming and accessible to the community, particularly for children. The author suggests limiting development to areas near railway stations to promote sustainable transport.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of ‘15-minute neighbourhoods’ that reduce car dependency by ensuring access to jobs, education, and amenities within a short distance. They emphasise the importance of integrating cycling infrastructure, reducing car parking space in favour of green areas, and ensuring that parks are accessible and safe. The response also highlights the need for sustainable transport planning and mixed-use developments that promote inclusivity and accessibility for all community members.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed high-density development in North East Cambridge, citing concerns about noise pollution from the A14, negative impacts on local parks, and insufficient open space for residents. They advocate for the protection and expansion of Nine Wells nature reserve and express a need for limits on population growth in Greater Cambridge to preserve its character and environment. The author also highlights the importance of finding sustainable water sources to support biodiversity and address climate change.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, arguing against additional housing in already built-up areas like the Cambridge Biomedical Campus due to traffic issues. They highlight the need for improved infrastructure, such as healthcare facilities and public transport, particularly in the southern rural cluster of villages. The author advocates for the protection of green spaces and the development of community areas to avoid creating isolated communities.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and Cambourne, highlighting the need for adequate housing, healthcare facilities, transport links, and open spaces to support job opportunities. They suggest limited development in southern villages, focusing on job creation, and do not propose any additional sites for development.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author opposes further development in the southern rural cluster of villages, expressing concerns that they are becoming overdeveloped and losing their rural character. They agree that development in villages should be minimal and suggest that any new housing should be accompanied by adequate local services, such as schools and healthcare facilities, to prevent existing services from becoming overstretched. The author envisions a balance between a green city and rural life, advocating for the protection of green spaces.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses a preference for developing the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a lively city district with affordable housing and parks, but strongly disagrees with further development around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, suggesting no additional housing or facilities should be created there. They also oppose development in the southern rural cluster of villages, advocate for more brownfield sites in Cambridge, and suggest that Greater Cambridge should focus on increasing housing in the city while reducing office and student accommodation, promoting a more pedestrian-friendly environment.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the proposed development in North East Cambridge, stating that it would necessitate car use unless adequate facilities such as schools, healthcare, and public transport are provided. They oppose further development at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for the preservation of existing green spaces. The author suggests that any development in the southern rural cluster should include essential services for the community. They are against any new development in villages, and propose that office developments near the station should be converted to low-cost housing. Finally, they believe that Greater Cambridge should not expand beyond its current size to maintain a pleasant living environment.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses a strong preference for open spaces and houses with gardens rather than blocks of flats in various proposed developments, including the area east of Milton Road, around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and in Cambourne. They oppose the East-West Rail project and suggest that no new development should occur in villages. The author emphasizes the importance of maintaining Cambridge’s character and ensuring adequate space between the city and villages, while also advocating for good local transport without compromising the countryside.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, arguing that they threaten greenbelt areas and do not adequately address social and environmental needs. They advocate for prioritising housing for NHS and lower-income biomedical staff around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and call for more green spaces and communal facilities in villages. The author is sceptical about the effectiveness of proposed public transport models and criticises the overall agenda for expansion as unsustainable and ideologically driven, contributing to social and economic disparities.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed housing development at the end of the Moor in Melbourn, citing concerns about dangerous parking, congestion, and the impact on local residents, particularly children and the elderly. They highlight existing infrastructure issues and the need for double yellow lines due to the proximity of community facilities.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the development of the area east of Milton Road due to concerns about transparency, green belt invasion, and the prioritisation of profit over quality of life. They express support for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus development but advocate for limitations. The author agrees with the principle of limited development in villages but notes inconsistencies with other proposals. They highlight the need for innovative responses to pressing issues such as water quality and homelessness, while expressing dissatisfaction with current planning approaches.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district with facilities for start-up businesses, workshops, shared office spaces, and affordable housing for younger people. They advocate for open spaces for markets and green areas. Additionally, they express a preference for limited development in villages, specifically those with good public transport connections, and raise concerns about the destruction of the green belt, prioritising environmental protection and biodiversity over medical research.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a model city and interconnected villages that prioritise safe active travel routes and accessible public transport. They emphasise the need for low carbon lifestyles that enhance mental and physical health, and call for inclusive communities for all ages and abilities.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about over-densification in North East Cambridge and advocates for re-wilded areas. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, emphasising the need for affordable housing for healthcare workers and cautioning against developers evading penalties. The author is in favour of the East-West Rail project, suggesting the creation of business parks and community spaces in Cambourne. They stress the importance of limiting development on greenfield sites and renovating older buildings instead of demolishing them. The author believes that compact building may lead to unplanned high-density expansion, harming wildlife and biodiversity, and argues for a controlled and sustainable growth approach.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author discusses various development proposals in Greater Cambridge, advocating for the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road after relocating the sewage treatment plant, while emphasising the need for housing and transport links. They oppose development in the green belt south of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, suggesting preservation of biodiversity and creation of parkland instead. The author calls for reassessment of facilities and transport needs in Cambourne post-COVID, criticises rural development without adequate transport links, and supports distributed development in villages with good public transport. They propose land between Girton and Arbury for potential development and stress the importance of adapting planning to post-COVID realities, urging for visionary thinking.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author proposes the development of various facilities and amenities in North East Cambridge, around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. Key suggestions include skate parks, community growing spaces, affordable housing, affordable rent for small businesses, and a changing art space. The author expresses a preference for limited development in villages with good public transport connections, suggesting no new development in some areas.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author supports high-density development east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, advocating for a car-free environment with excellent public transport. They oppose additional jobs in this area and call for more open space. Regarding the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, they reject any housing, emphasising the need for medical and research facilities along with open space. The author expresses no opinion on Cambourne’s expansion or development in villages, and they criticise the proposed housing buffer, advocating for 40% affordable housing and concerns about water sufficiency. Overall, they support the broad aims of the plan with some reservations.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author discusses the potential development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, advocating for a lively city district east of Milton Road with essential facilities, support for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with healthcare and recreational spaces, and cautious development in Cambourne and the southern rural cluster of villages. They express a preference for limited housing development in villages and emphasize the need for adequate infrastructure in Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to any major developments in the area, believing that Cambridge is already at capacity. They specifically reject the idea of developing the area east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages, stating that infrastructure improvements must precede any new housing or business developments. The author hopes that Greater Cambridge will not grow significantly by 2041.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author supports the development of a dense city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, suggesting mid-rise housing, leisure, education facilities, and green spaces to connect with Milton Country Park and the River Cam. They advocate for limited development in villages with good public transport, emphasizing the need for sustainable transport routes. The author envisions Greater Cambridge as a low carbon living space with resilient buildings, prioritising walking and cycling, reducing car parking, and fostering community cohesion through diverse housing and meeting places.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed development in Oakington, arguing that it is unnecessary given the nearby Northstowe development and the potential negative impact on flood plains and green belt land. They express a strong need for open spaces and biodiversity preservation, cautioning against building on land that has flooded in the past. The author also highlights the inadequacies of public transport and electric vehicle infrastructure, advocating for improvements to reduce car usage and promote cleaner air. Additionally, they call for greater social equity and involvement from local colleges in supporting disadvantaged communities.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road and around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, emphasising the creation of ‘15-minute neighbourhoods’ where residents can access jobs, education, and amenities within 15 minutes by active travel. They stress the importance of sustainable transport, accessible cycling infrastructure, and the integration of green spaces with safe walking and cycling routes. The response also highlights the need for a mix of housing and employment opportunities to reduce commuting. Additionally, they suggest limiting development in villages unless supported by public transport or active travel options.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for a significant shift towards sustainable transport in new developments, prioritising walking, cycling, and public transport over private car use. They emphasise the need for developments to be designed around dense walking and cycling networks, with schools and housing located on quieter streets. The response highlights the importance of mixed-use developments to meet everyday needs within walking or cycling distance, while also calling for reduced car parking in favour of green spaces. Accessibility for all, including those with mobility issues, is stressed as vital for health and wellbeing. The author also insists on the importance of safe, clean, and well-maintained environments, particularly regarding cycling infrastructure.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for the inclusion of more healthcare facilities, research, and housing. However, they emphasise the importance of preserving the green belt around the site and suggest that development should be adjusted to utilise currently developed areas instead.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, emphasising the need for improved public transport to reduce car usage. They advocate for the development of housing, jobs, and facilities in various areas, including Cambourne and the southern rural cluster, while stressing the importance of accessibility via public transport, walking, and cycling. The author also highlights the necessity of maintaining village facilities and expresses a vision for Greater Cambridge in 2041 that includes net zero carbon emissions, increased biodiversity, and reduced reliance on private cars.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various facilities and housing in Greater Cambridge, including a skatepark in North East Cambridge, a horticultural therapy garden at Addenbrookes, and affordable housing in villages. They express a need for free sports facilities in new developments and suggest Foxton as a potential site for housing. Overall, the response highlights the importance of community amenities and affordable housing in the region’s development.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author suggests that there should be no housing development in smaller villages but indicates that Sawston could accommodate some development. They also propose that development should be limited in villages, recommending Sawston and possibly Babraham for new development due to their public transport connections and local services.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the impact of new developments on traffic, pollution, and housing affordability in the Greater Cambridge area. They highlight the need for careful planning to accommodate commuting patterns and family structures, particularly in relation to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambourne. The response suggests that developments should consider the needs of families and the transient nature of some communities, while also addressing the potential for increased housing prices and the importance of maintaining green spaces.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the impact of significant development on villages, arguing that their original purpose related to the rural economy is being undermined. They highlight issues with accessibility and the need for a review of designs in light of villages becoming commuter dormitories. The author questions the feasibility of these villages functioning as self-contained communities and criticises the neglect of the economic influence of London in planning. They advocate for flexibility in strategic plans to address future uncertainties, particularly regarding climate change, and stress the importance of stringent regulations to ensure developments meet necessary environmental standards. Additionally, they support points raised in a referenced letter.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses strong concerns regarding the proposed development, highlighting the need for consideration of water usage, travel infrastructure, and the requirement for all housing to meet zero carbon standards. They point out existing issues with low water levels and over-abstraction of the chalk aquifer, and they stress that no building should occur until these problems are adequately addressed.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author is strongly opposed to the proposed development in North East Cambridge, arguing that it relies on the relocation of the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to a greenbelt site, which they believe is environmentally damaging and disregards public opinion. They express frustration over the local government’s failure to consider the carbon emissions associated with the relocation and the wishes of the community. The author also suggests that if greenbelt land must be used, it should be for housing rather than the WWTP. They call for more attention to local needs in future developments and criticize the local plan for being misleading and ignoring significant environmental costs.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed developments in various areas, citing concerns about density, lack of green space, inadequate infrastructure, and the need for additional healthcare facilities. They argue that existing services are already overstretched and that development should be more evenly distributed, particularly in market towns rather than concentrated in certain areas. The author also emphasizes the need for more protection for natural resources and suggests a reevaluation of commercial building needs post-pandemic.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author suggests the inclusion of a skate park in the new meadows development, indicating a desire for recreational facilities in Greater Cambridge.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for more healthcare facilities, research, and housing, as well as additional restaurants and shops for workers. They express support for limited development in the southern rural cluster but oppose the plan for 3,500 houses in Babraham. The author also promotes public transport on dedicated lanes and warns against building new towns without adequate facilities, which would lead to increased car usage.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of affordable housing and good quality flats in various areas, including the east of Milton Road, around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and in local villages. They emphasize the need for community hubs, schools, and healthcare facilities, while opposing luxury housing. Additionally, they call for improved public transport services and measures to ensure sustainability, such as water neutrality for new housing and increased nature reserves.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses the need for improved infrastructure to support new businesses and suggests that the Cambridge Biomedical Campus should accommodate more healthcare facilities, research, and housing, particularly for first-time buyers and the elderly. They highlight the importance of assessing the current working population before developing Cambourne and the southern rural cluster of villages, advocating for limited development in villages with good transport links. The author supports the idea of providing affordable single-storey accommodation for long-term residents and first-time buyers in villages and suggests development along the A428. They also stress the necessity for significant road improvements to manage population growth and vehicle use.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, emphasising the importance of a 15-minute neighbourhood that includes essential amenities and a better housing-to-jobs ratio. They stress the need for active travel infrastructure, with segregated cycling routes and reduced car access. Additionally, they express concerns about the Cambridge Biomedical Campus’s previous failures in active travel provision and call for accountability before supporting further expansion. The author envisions a future with reduced car usage, increased active travel, and significant retrofitting of existing buildings to meet emissions goals.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road into a vibrant city district with a football pitch, enhancing the wildlife area around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and constructing new housing in Cambourne that resembles traditional houses. They advise against ribbon developments in the southern rural cluster and recommend limited development in villages with good transport links, specifically mentioning Foxton for new sports and parks. The author also highlights the need to address current traffic gridlock in Greater Cambridge.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the need for further healthcare facilities at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, suggesting that existing planned investments may suffice for the next few decades. They advocate for the development of healthcare facilities in the East of the city to reduce travel burdens for patients and staff, and highlight the potential for improved transport links. The author also questions the environmental impact of expanding the campus and suggests alternative locations for development, arguing against the use of Greenbelt land for new research facilities that may not be necessary.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed development on Greenbelt land due to concerns about the impact on biodiversity, the affordability of housing for key workers, and the potential for increased flooding and traffic congestion. They argue that existing green spaces are under-utilised and that the development would disrupt the natural landscape and existing communities.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses opposition to the further release of Greenbelt land and the expansion of the Biomedical Campus, citing insufficient evidence for such developments. They advocate for limited development in villages, suggesting that some could benefit from the restoration of local shops and facilities to enhance community life.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, emphasising the need for open parks, community facilities, and good transport links. They stress that new neighbourhoods should not be merely dormitories but vibrant places to live. Additionally, they highlight the importance of prioritising the environment, local wildlife, low carbon footprints for buildings, and infrastructure that supports sustainable lifestyles.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author opposes the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, arguing that instead of new buildings, there should be improvements to existing facilities, such as more footpaths and amenities for workers. They express a desire for better pedestrian connectivity, reduced traffic, and a 20 mph speed limit across all roads in Cambridge.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the proposed developments in various areas, highlighting insufficient open space, reliance on existing facilities, and a car-centric approach to transport. They advocate for more open spaces, safe cycling infrastructure, and a reduction in the emphasis on high-density housing and executive homes, suggesting a focus on community-oriented spaces and wildlife habitats instead.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, emphasising the need for rapid transit connections to the centre of Cambridge and the rail station. They suggest that this infrastructure is essential for the proposed developments in North East Cambridge, around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages, while also expressing caution about limited development in villages without good transport links.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to further development in Melbourn, citing existing pressures from previous developments. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities and housing for doctors, and suggest that parks and local facilities should receive better funding. They also indicate that the area east of Milton Road could be developed into a vibrant city district after the relocation of the waste water treatment plant, but do not provide specific suggestions for Cambourne or the southern rural cluster of villages.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, emphasising the need for fast and reliable public transport and affordable housing, particularly around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambourne. They express a desire for limited development in villages, contingent on good public transport connections, and highlight the importance of reducing car dependency in the region’s future planning.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road into a vibrant city district with housing, jobs, and facilities, while supporting the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more healthcare and housing. They advocate for the growth of Cambourne into a proper town with parks and schools, but stress that rural villages should maintain their character and limit development. They recommend focusing development on existing urban areas and brownfield sites with good transport links, and express a vision for Greater Cambridge to be smart, sustainable, and nearing carbon neutrality by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, suggesting the inclusion of shops, cafes, and small open spaces. They also advocate for the growth of Cambourne into a proper town with medical facilities, sports, shops, and leisure options. However, they emphasise the need to maintain the village character in the southern rural cluster and are cautious about development in villages, agreeing that they should retain their identity. The author raises concerns about water availability for future developments and the impact of water extraction on local ecosystems.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge could be transformed into a vibrant city district, contingent upon the relocation of the waste water treatment plant. They advocate for a diverse mix of smaller, independent shops and cafes/restaurants, rather than just chain stores, citing Mill Road as a successful example of a well-populated non-chain area.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the proposed expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, arguing that it would negatively impact local residents’ quality of life, wildlife, and access to green spaces. They advocate for more green spaces and community facilities to support mental health and community connection.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author discusses various development opportunities in Greater Cambridge, advocating for a lively city district east of Milton Road with a mix of retail and formal park facilities. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus for healthcare and research, suggest low-density housing with green spaces in Cambourne, and express concerns about traffic issues in the southern rural cluster of villages. The author recommends limited development in villages with good transport links, emphasizing the need for connectivity and the preservation of existing open spaces. They also highlight the importance of wild areas for relaxation and the need for public transport links to these spaces.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses a desire to preserve the rural character of areas while supporting limited development in specific locations such as the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambourne. They advocate for more leisure and healthcare facilities in Cambourne but oppose further development in already overdeveloped areas. The author is cautious about significant development in villages, suggesting only a small number of homes and essential facilities. They also express concerns about proposed transport developments that may not align with resident needs.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses opposition to the development of the area east of Milton Road, arguing that relocating the sewage works to create a brownfield site is inappropriate and questioning the green belt implications. They advocate for affordable and social housing around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but oppose any new development in villages, citing the importance of the green belt surrounding Cambridge.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road, emphasising higher density housing with larger apartments and ample green spaces, while discouraging terraced and detached housing. They suggest creating a 15-minute neighbourhood to reduce car dependency and improve cycling connections. Support is also expressed for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, highlighting the need for more healthcare facilities and public green spaces. The author calls for careful planning around Cambourne to enhance public transport and cycling infrastructure. They recommend limited development in rural areas to avoid car dependency and congestion, and suggest prioritising public transport in village developments. Overall, the response promotes sustainable, accessible, and community-focused development across Greater Cambridge.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and Cambourne, advocating for housing, jobs, and facilities that cater to local needs. They highlight the importance of staff accommodation near workplaces and suggest that Cambourne should develop as a standalone town to reduce commuting. The author is cautious about further development in villages, suggesting limited growth in areas with good transport links, and emphasizes the need to preserve the historical centre of Cambridge while minimizing long-distance commuting.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the proposed development on the fields south of the Ninewells development, citing concerns about wildlife, flooding, and the negative impact of previous developments. They suggest that brownfield sites would be more suitable for development. The author does not provide comments on other proposed developments or areas.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to further development in Melbourn, citing concerns over the loss of wildlife and green spaces due to previous housing projects. They argue that the unique village character and landscape have been compromised and that additional development would worsen the situation. The author suggests that existing industrial areas should be utilized to meet local housing needs instead of encroaching on the village’s quality of life.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the aims of the South Cambridgeshire Council, particularly regarding climate change, biodiversity, and social inclusion. They advocate for the development of various areas, including the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambourne, with a focus on social housing, improved public transport, and active transport routes. However, they raise concerns about the proposed growth due to water supply issues and the need for a sustainable economy. The author envisions a future Greater Cambridge that prioritises equality, health, and reduced reliance on private cars, emphasising the importance of transport planning and high standards for new developments.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author discusses the potential development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, including the east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They advocate for improved transport connections, such as light rail and East-West Rail, to support housing and job growth. However, they express strong opposition to the East West Rail proposals, arguing that it would undermine local objectives and negatively impact residents. The author also highlights the need for solutions to commuting congestion and suggests free bus rides and green cycle routes.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the proposed development in North East Cambridge, emphasizing the need for the relocation of the waste water treatment plant and improvements to sewage management to protect the Cam river. They advocate for reduced road and parking space to create more green areas and safe walking and cycling routes. The author stresses the importance of sustainable transport connections and adequate water supply, while suggesting a reduction in building heights without compromising green spaces. They critique the Darwin Green project for its delays and amendments, and argue against excessive housing developments in Cambridge, fearing it will lose its cultural heritage. The response calls for a shift towards sustainable transport, mixed-use developments, and inclusive communities, while reducing car dependency and enhancing green spaces.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the quality of new housing and advocates for more affordable homes that are not left empty by investors. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with a focus on affordable housing for healthcare staff, childcare, and green spaces. However, they oppose any new development in villages, suggesting that Greater Cambridge should be smaller in the future.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, emphasising the need for minimal car parking and adherence to cycling-friendly street design. They support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but highlight the current inadequacies for cyclists, calling for improvements before further development. In Cambourne, they stress the necessity for proper facilities and cycling routes to reduce car dependency. They propose replacing an underused car park on Riverside with housing and suggest that future developments should prioritise cycling and walking, with limited car parking to encourage affordable housing options.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposed developments in various areas due to concerns about traffic congestion and the current overpopulation, particularly emphasizing the need for increased hospital capacity before any new developments can proceed. They express support for expanding healthcare facilities but are against further housing or job developments until these issues are addressed.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author opposes the proposal to replace a fully functioning waste management plant with a new facility on greenbelt land, arguing that it contradicts the goal of creating a greener Cambridge.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses a mixed view on various development proposals in Greater Cambridge. They support the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road but oppose the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus into green belt land, citing concerns over wildlife habitat and flooding. They advocate for community facilities and public transport links in Cambourne and limited development in villages with good transport connections. The author calls for heavy investment in active travel infrastructure, public transport, and sustainable features in new developments, while also emphasizing the protection of the green belt.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author supports the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road, linking housing and job facilities to science parks. However, they oppose further housing and job development around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus due to concerns about traffic and the preservation of green spaces. They advocate for growth in Cambourne with housing, jobs, and a transport hub, but strongly disagree with development in the southern rural cluster of villages, citing the importance of protecting nature reserves and village character. They suggest limited development in villages with good transport connections, specifically mentioning Milton and Cambourne, and recommend social housing and recreational facilities.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge should be developed into a vibrant city district after relocating the waste water treatment plant. They advocate for the inclusion of a GP surgery, local green spaces, improved walking and cycling connectivity, and the creation of neighbourhoods that allow residents to access essentials locally to reduce car traffic. Additionally, they emphasize the need for cycle parking that accommodates non-standard cycles and highlight the importance of security and accessibility in design.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the adequacy and maintenance of roads in relation to proposed developments in various areas, including North East Cambridge, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster. They argue against further housing development due to existing congestion and stress the need for improved road conditions, particularly for those who rely on cars for medical and other essential purposes. Additionally, they highlight the neglect of road maintenance and the need for budget allocation to address these issues.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author proposes the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district, suggesting a maximum of 3000 new homes with half the area designated as green open space, prioritising nature. They advocate for a maximum building height of four storeys, the creation of 1500 new jobs, and the establishment of community facilities. Additionally, they recommend a nature reserve for every 10 new homes and adequate cycling infrastructure. The response emphasises the importance of active travel and minimising private parking.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses a need for more development in the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, supports limited expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus for research facilities only, sees potential for improvement in Cambourne, believes the southern rural cluster is already too crowded, advocates for limited development in villages with good transport links, emphasizes the importance of preserving open spaces, and suggests the inclusion of electric charge points for the future.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author argues that the proposed NECAAP development is premature and inappropriate, as the decision regarding the relocation of the sewage works is pending until 2023. They suggest that development in North East Cambridge should not be included in the Local Plan due to the uncertainty of its feasibility.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the development plans for various areas in Greater Cambridge, particularly regarding the potential negative impacts on green spaces and local infrastructure. They advocate for careful consideration of housing and job creation in relation to transport and environmental sustainability, emphasising the need for reliable public transport and active travel options. The response highlights the importance of maintaining the character of existing communities while addressing housing needs and ensuring that developments enhance local amenities and wellbeing.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC) due to negative impacts on local communities, including increased anti-social behaviour, lack of infrastructure, and safety concerns. They highlight issues such as illegal parking, littering, and threats to residents, and call for better planning and community engagement before further development occurs.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district with green spaces, small shops, and co-housing, while opposing large supermarkets and advocating for improved transport services. They also support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities, research, and housing. However, they express uncertainty regarding development in Cambourne and the southern rural cluster of villages, indicating a cautious approach to development in villages with limited public transport and services.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author suggests developing the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district with local offices, community apartments, shops, eateries, schools, parks, and permeable surfaces for drainage. They advocate for supporting the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with amenities, better transport links, and nature connections. The author expresses uncertainty about Cambourne and limited development in villages, while promoting shared office spaces for local businesses. They emphasise the need for sustainable development and policies that align with biodiversity and climate change goals for Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for high-density housing and mixed-use developments in North East Cambridge, suggesting residential towers above retail and leisure facilities to enhance vibrancy and public green spaces. They call for a diverse range of housing and jobs in Cambourne, particularly 2-bed flats for smaller families and newcomers. The author opposes significant development in villages, recommending a cap on unit numbers, and suggests that development should focus on towns. They also emphasise the need for more public green spaces, biodiversity, and active travel, while discouraging car-based developments.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses strong concerns regarding development in Greater Cambridge, advocating for minimal new housing and prioritising green spaces, sustainable practices, and improved transport infrastructure. They highlight the need for a net zero carbon strategy and a focus on biodiversity, indicating that current plans are insufficient to address climate and environmental crises.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge into a vibrant city district, contingent on the relocation of the waste water treatment plant. They emphasise the need for local amenities such as shops, schools, recreational areas, and office/light industrial spaces to minimise car travel. Additionally, they advocate for the inclusion of new secondary schools and the use of ground source heat pumps and renewable electricity generation to reduce carbon emissions.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus for healthcare facilities, research, and affordable housing for NHS staff, while advocating for multi-user paths. However, they oppose the proposed development in Great Shelford due to concerns about green belt preservation, traffic, and the impact on local schools. They suggest small housing increases on brownfield sites in villages and emphasize the importance of public spaces for well-being. The author calls for sustainable solutions regarding water supply and environmental care before significant growth in Greater Cambridge.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a low-carbon, walkable city district east of Milton Road, emphasising the need for quality shops, services, schools, healthcare facilities, and green spaces. They highlight the importance of sports and community spaces, as well as the need for better transport links and services around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. The author also supports the idea of 15-minute neighbourhoods in Cambourne and the southern rural cluster, promoting walkability and active travel links for residents.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author supports the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, contingent on the relocation of the waste water treatment plant. They advocate for the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with additional healthcare facilities and family housing. However, they express concerns about overdevelopment in villages, emphasising the need to protect the green belt and maintain the unique character of villages. They suggest improving transport connections on the southern side of Cambridge and highlight the importance of open spaces for nature and wellbeing.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author discusses potential developments in various areas, suggesting that the east of Milton Road could become a vibrant city district with dense housing and amenities due to its proximity to transport links. They express concern about the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus into greenbelt land and advocate for maintaining these areas. The author supports the growth of Cambourne into a proper town with necessary facilities and emphasizes careful consideration for development in rural villages to preserve their character. They suggest Sawston for expansion but oppose development in Stapleford due to its location and environmental concerns. Overall, the author believes no additional sites should be developed as there is already sufficient land under consideration.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of affordable housing and starter homes across various areas, including East of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They emphasise the need for smaller homes with gardens, local amenities, and improved public transport to support carbon neutrality and community connectivity. The response highlights the importance of creating inclusive spaces that cater to diverse income levels, rather than focusing on luxury developments.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses opposition to relocating the fully functional sewerage works to a greenfield site, citing unnecessary expense. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with a focus on healthcare facilities and modern transport infrastructure, including cycleways. The author advocates for more than limited development in the area south of Cambridge to Royston, highlighting existing rail links. They suggest specific villages for limited development and propose that transport issues in Cambridge cannot be resolved by a no car parking policy, advocating instead for a fully functional metro system.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of various areas in Greater Cambridge, emphasising the importance of the 15-minute neighbourhood concept to ensure that housing, jobs, facilities, and open spaces are accessible without reliance on cars. They stress the need for well-connected cycling networks and adherence to Local Transport Note (LTN) 1/20, while minimising car storage to maximise community space. The response highlights the necessity of integrating these elements into developments across multiple locations, including North East Cambridge, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for new developments to be designed with a focus on cycling and public transport, promoting a 15-minute neighbourhood concept that reduces reliance on cars. They emphasise the need for community resources to be accessible without car dependency and suggest that developments should be close to existing population centres. The response highlights the importance of creating human-scale neighbourhoods that prioritise sustainable transport options over private car use.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses a cautious approach to development in North East Cambridge, suggesting limited housing and opposing the relocation of the waste treatment plant. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambourne, provided it is well-planned. The author advocates for limited development in villages with good transport links and raises concerns about excessive growth in North Cambridge, suggesting Coton as a potential site for development. Overall, they wish for Greater Cambridge to remain unspoilt by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about overdevelopment in Greater Cambridge, particularly around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the East-West Rail proposals. They advocate for improved public transport, cycling infrastructure, and limited development in villages, emphasising the need for a balance between growth and the wellbeing of residents. The author highlights the dangers faced by cyclists and the prioritisation of cars in traffic systems, calling for changes to support safer cycling and public transport options.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author envisions Greater Cambridge as a forward-looking city that addresses climate change, leveraging the skills of its residents and the direction of its development to create a sustainable environment for the 21st century.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author opposes the relocation of the sewage works to Horningsea and expresses a desire for Greater Cambridge to remain more rural, rejecting the idea of creating more jobs and homes. They find the proposed vision for the area to be crowded and unpleasant.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author suggests that the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge could be developed into a vibrant city district after relocating the waste water treatment plant. They advocate for the inclusion of schools, improved parking, and better public transport. Additionally, they support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with more healthcare facilities, research, and housing, reiterating the need for schools, parking, and enhanced public transport in that area.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road with ample green space, such as a park the size of two football pitches, to support community activities. They suggest facilities like a swimming pool and sports hall in Cambourne, while emphasising the need for small-scale development in rural areas to maintain their character. The author expresses concern over the rising prices of family homes and the need for more spacious housing to alleviate social issues. They propose a 25m swimming pool in Northstowe and a re-wilded landscape park around Longstanton.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author supports the development of a lively city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, advocating for affordable housing, job opportunities, and green recreational facilities, along with safe transport routes. They also fully support the expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, provided it remains within the campus area and includes a new travel hub to alleviate traffic. The author expresses opposition to routing East-West Rail to Cambourne, suggesting it should go north via Northstowe. They emphasize the need for affordable housing and green spaces in the southern rural cluster of villages, advocating for limited development in villages with good transport links. The author envisions Greater Cambridge in 2041 as pollution and congestion-free, environmentally friendly, and with a strong focus on public transport and safe recreational areas.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author opposes the development of the area east of Milton Road, arguing that relocating the waste water treatment plant is a waste of resources and harmful to the environment. They also oppose additional housing and facilities in the villages, citing poor public transport and concerns about losing the villages’ character.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, advocating for additional healthcare facilities, research, and housing. They emphasise the need for easy access to essential services for both new and existing residents, including leisure and community facilities. However, they express concern about the expectation of continuous growth, warning that it could harm the city and region, particularly in light of the climate emergency and limited resources. The author opposes building on the greenbelt and suggests that growth should be distributed more evenly across the country.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses a preference for development in Cambourne due to its potential for growth with minimal impact on Cambridge’s busy roads. However, they believe there is already too much development in the southern rural cluster of villages and emphasise the importance of green spaces for Greater Cambridge by 2041.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author advocates for limited new housing development across various areas in Greater Cambridge, emphasising the importance of maintaining large green spaces and promoting non-polluting activities such as research. They express a desire for careful and selective development that enhances the area’s appeal while ensuring environmental sustainability.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, particularly regarding the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, where they believe new open spaces are unnecessary and that the focus should be on protecting existing biodiversity. They support appropriate housing in the southern rural cluster of villages but are cautious about excessive development, fearing it may lead to a lack of community and accessibility issues. Overall, the author is discouraged by the rapid pace of development and the challenges it poses for transport and community cohesion.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author emphasises the importance of including Grantchester Meadows in Greater Cambridge’s green infrastructure to connect various natural areas and enhance biodiversity. They express concern over the exclusion of Grantchester from the Western Cambridge Green Infrastructure Buffer Zone and advocate for collaboration with local organisations to preserve the meadows. The response highlights the need for improved public transport, litter management, and the establishment of carbon stores and pollinator corridors. Additionally, the author opposes the East West Rail Southern approach due to its potential environmental impact and calls for better energy infrastructure in rural communities.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about overdevelopment in Cambridge, advocating for the protection of green spaces, particularly around Nine Wells, and suggesting that development should focus on brownfield sites rather than green belt areas. They support the development of healthcare facilities and housing around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but emphasize the need for improved access for ambulances. The author also suggests that Cambourne should develop as a proper town while limiting development in villages to areas with good public transport connections.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses opposition to the expansion plans for Cambourne, arguing that such developments would undermine the original vision and create significant issues in the rural environment. They advocate for modest proposals regarding the future of Greater Cambridge.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author expresses an inability to provide detailed comments on specific development proposals in various areas, including Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne, and the southern rural cluster of villages. They highlight the need for a balanced and definitive overall development plan. The author also raises concerns about the uncertainty surrounding the East West Rail and OxCam Arc initiatives, which could significantly impact future planning and housing numbers in Greater Cambridge. They acknowledge the effort put into the Greater Cambridge Local Plan but emphasize the importance of understanding the outcomes of these major initiatives before making concrete plans.
+Stance: NEUTRAL
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses strong concerns about the sustainability of the OxCam Arc transformational scenario and questions the sustainability of the incremental scenario as well. They highlight water management as a key issue and express uncertainty about the future landscape and resource management until final proposals are known. The author wishes to support the Local Plan but cannot due to uncertainties surrounding East West Rail and the OxCam Arc, as well as concerns about local planning authority bypassing.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to various proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, advocating for the preservation of existing rural areas and green belts. They argue against any new housing or facilities in specific locations, citing concerns over infrastructure and environmental impact. The response highlights a desire to maintain the character of villages and protect natural habitats.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author opposes the development of a dense city district east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, arguing that it contradicts the suburban character of the area and that the site is not a significant brownfield as it is currently occupied by commercial buildings. They express concerns about the environmental impact of relocating the wastewater treatment plant, the potential harm to the Green Belt, and the lack of necessity for such a move. The author also calls for improved public transport to Addenbrookes and opposes any new development in villages due to inadequate local services. They advocate for the preservation of the Green Belt around Cambridge.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author opposes further development at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, citing concerns about damage to the existing area, increased flooding, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems. They also highlight the lack of local amenities, which necessitates driving, thus increasing carbon emissions. Additionally, they suggest that new developments should include adequate parking and local shops, bars, and restaurants to reduce the need for residents to travel elsewhere for these services.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses a strong preference for limited development in the Greater Cambridge area, advocating for the preservation of rural character in villages and suggesting that existing facilities are sufficient. They support the development of family housing and community facilities in urban areas but oppose further expansion in rural settings, emphasising the need for playgrounds for children. Additionally, they criticise unnecessary infrastructure projects like new busways.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests that community and stakeholder involvement in developing the Plan should be active and meaningful, rather than superficial. They propose local participatory workshops, soliciting opinions at various events, and inviting online comments. The author, representing a major landowner, requests more detailed information to provide meaningful feedback and expresses interest in updates regarding the Regulation 18 Issues and Options document.
+Stance: NEUTRAL
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The response indicates that the relevant data is provided in a separate spreadsheet for the Call for Sites.
+Stance: NEUTRAL
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author raises concerns about the planning process for new developments, particularly regarding cross-boundary infrastructure issues with Uttlesford District and the need for better representation of environmental organisations. They express a desire for improved public transport and a more efficient planning system to meet the ambitious target of 41,000 new homes in the next 20 years. The author also highlights confusion caused by multiple authorities involved in planning and stresses the importance of prioritising rail over road in the Oxford-Cambridge arc to address climate change and protect green spaces.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author raises several concerns regarding the proposed vision for Greater Cambridge, particularly focusing on wealth inequality, transport issues, and the environmental impact of mass development. They express strong opposition to the current plans, arguing that they favour developers over the local community and fail to address the needs of the indigenous population. The author calls for a more balanced approach that considers social inclusion and the growing economic inequality in the area, rather than prioritising growth at any cost.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The response indicates that data regarding green sites is provided in a separate spreadsheet, implying a need for further review or consideration of this information.
+Stance: NEUTRAL
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author suggests aligning planning with the 2050 climate emergency goals, advocating for immediate action to address the climate crisis. They recommend incorporating short, medium, and long-term planning, with an emphasis on the urgency of improving public transport. The author believes that a 2050 end date should not prevent consideration of shorter-term planning needs and that revisions to the plan should be possible if necessary.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for a comprehensive approach to achieving net zero carbon by 2050, emphasising the need for sustainable transport, energy-efficient housing, and the creation of green spaces. They express concerns about rapid growth in Cambridge and suggest limiting development while prioritising public transport and cycling infrastructure. The response highlights the importance of biodiversity, community facilities, and local business support, while also calling for stricter guidelines for developers and investment in renewable energy. Overall, the author stresses the necessity of significant lifestyle changes and realistic planning to meet climate goals.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for significant changes to transport and infrastructure in Cambridge, emphasising the need to reduce car dependency and promote cycling and public transport. They propose the development of safe cycleways, electric buses, and a light rail system, while also calling for carbon-neutral building standards and eco-friendly housing. The response highlights the importance of addressing climate change and biodiversity loss, suggesting various measures to enhance green spaces and promote renewable energy. The author expresses concerns about economic growth’s impact on the environment and calls for a focus on sustainability and community involvement in planning.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for a range of measures to promote carbon-neutral travel, energy-efficient housing, and sustainable practices in Greater Cambridge. They suggest improving cycling infrastructure, building energy-efficient homes closer to workplaces, and encouraging plant-based diets. The author emphasizes the urgency of achieving carbon neutrality by 2025, rather than 2050, and calls for immediate action on public transport, tree planting, and wildlife protection. They also propose regulations for energy efficiency in new builds and incentives for sustainable energy sources, while cautioning against centralising services in Cambridge to reduce transport needs.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for significant changes to transport and urban planning in Cambridge, emphasising the need for a car-free city centre, improved cycling facilities, and enhanced public transport. They suggest removing retail from central areas, closing multi-storey car parks, and promoting active travel. The response also highlights the importance of affordable housing, electric vehicle infrastructure, and addressing agricultural emissions to achieve net zero carbon. Overall, the author expresses a strong desire to reduce car dependency and improve the environment and public health.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the current planning application, arguing that it fails to adequately address climate change and environmental concerns. They advocate for significant reductions in car commuting, increased public transport, and the use of renewable energy in new developments. The response highlights the need for better insulation in homes, tree planting, and the promotion of a plant-based diet. The author criticizes the ongoing construction in greenbelt areas and calls for stricter regulations on housing to ensure sustainability and carbon neutrality. They also suggest empowering villages to create their own carbon reduction plans.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author advocates for a comprehensive approach to urban planning in Cambridge, emphasising the need for a London-style transport system with tariffs for cars, affordable public transport, and significant investment in zero carbon developments. They propose measures to enhance public transport accessibility, reduce car dependency, and ensure developers are held accountable for environmental promises. The response highlights the importance of sustainable practices, including carbon offsetting, improved cycling infrastructure, and the creation of green spaces. The author calls for prioritising climate change initiatives and innovative public transport solutions, while also addressing the need for adequate water supply and biodiversity restoration.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for improvements in public transport, sustainable building practices, and increased green spaces to enhance the quality of life in Cambridge. They stress the importance of using renewable energy, efficient building materials, and high insulation standards. The response highlights the need for better bus services, walking routes, and tree planting, while also calling for a reduction in car usage in the city centre. The author expresses concerns about air quality and traffic congestion in specific areas, suggesting measures like banning woodburners and improving park and ride facilities. Overall, they prioritise climate change initiatives and the development of carbon-neutral communities.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for all new homes to be carbon neutral, emphasizing the need for immediate action in planning permissions. They stress the importance of energy-efficient building practices, rainwater harvesting, and robust electric infrastructure for future demands. The response highlights the necessity of thorough building inspections to ensure compliance. The author also calls for prioritising green spaces for both mental health and wildlife, improving public transport, and developing proper cycle routes. They propose a shift to electric or hydrogen vehicles in urban areas by 2030 and support for renewable energy production and zero carbon homes.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns regarding the development’s impact on the unique character of the area, suggesting that it may not align with the aim of creating great places. They also raise issues related to infrastructure, indicating that the current plans may not adequately address the needs of the community.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author advocates for improved protection and enhancement of green spaces and biodiversity in the Greater Cambridge area. They highlight the negative impacts of piecemeal development on local wildlife and call for better management of existing natural sites, such as the Mill Road Cemetery. The response suggests initiatives like community forestry, rewilding, and the creation of biodiverse woodlands, while also emphasizing the need for better connectivity across local authority boundaries and collaboration with other organisations. The author stresses the importance of maintaining and enhancing natural habitats to support wildlife and mitigate climate risks.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author strongly advocates for maximising biodiversity in development plans, emphasising the need for significant net gains in biodiversity, tree planting, and the establishment of nature reserves. They express concerns about air quality in central Cambridge and suggest improvements to public transport and pedestrianisation. The response highlights the importance of incorporating wildlife-friendly features in public spaces and new developments, and calls for thorough assessments of biodiversity before any development. The author opposes the removal of trees for transport systems and insists on mandatory biodiversity considerations in planning permissions. They also suggest working with local farmers to promote biodiversity-friendly practices.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author strongly advocates for stricter planning regulations to protect and enhance green spaces in Greater Cambridge. They propose refusing planning permission for developments that reduce garden areas, ensuring new residential projects include green spaces and ponds, and promoting tree planting and maintenance. The response highlights the need for accessible green spaces, biodiversity plans for new builds, and the preservation of existing parks and natural areas. The author also suggests rewilding initiatives and better funding for recreational spaces, while expressing concerns about the current low tree cover in the area.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for the preservation of mature trees and the inclusion of gardens in new developments, emphasising the need for communal green spaces for both people and wildlife. They propose various initiatives such as a hedge planting programme, living green roofs, and the creation of green corridors to enhance biodiversity. The response highlights the importance of sustainable water management, the restoration of natural ecosystems, and the need for strict planning regulations to protect the countryside and greenbelt. The author also calls for increased access to green spaces to improve public health and wellbeing, and suggests that the Local Plan should address ecological concerns related to the River Cam. Overall, the response is focused on enhancing biodiversity, protecting natural habitats, and ensuring that new developments contribute positively to the environment.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses strong concerns regarding the proposed development, particularly emphasizing the need to protect biodiversity along rivers, create diverse green spaces, and ensure safe transport for pedestrians and cyclists. They argue for prioritising local ecological consultants in planning and maintaining green spaces, and highlight the importance of retaining rural spaces in village developments. The response critiques the current planning approach, especially in Cambourne, and calls for improved connectivity for wildlife and people, as well as sustainable water management practices.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author suggests various measures to adapt to climate change, including considering health impacts, reducing waste incineration, utilising local energy sources, and creating flood management systems. They advocate for long-term planning beyond 2040, enhancing local food security, and protecting green spaces. The response also includes ideas for reducing vehicle use and pollution, as well as promoting remote work.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author raises several concerns regarding the planning application, particularly focusing on the need for a carbon-neutral Greater Cambridge, the importance of sustainable transport, and the risks of flooding due to climate change. They suggest implementing ground heat pumps, modern boilers, and water reservoirs for rainwater collection. The author also emphasizes the necessity of energy-efficient housing and expresses skepticism about the impact of population growth on climate change, advocating for lower density development. They find the council’s objectives commendable but lacking in specificity, urging for adherence to modern building standards.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for a comprehensive approach to improving green spaces in Greater Cambridge, emphasizing the need for a balance between natural habitats and public access. They express concerns about the current neglect of natural spaces and the lack of public consultation in developments. The response highlights the importance of protecting existing green spaces, particularly in high-density areas like Arbury, and suggests innovative ideas such as creating a forested corridor around the city. The author calls for better management of green spaces, community involvement, and the integration of biodiversity into new developments.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author raises several concerns and suggestions regarding climate action and sustainability in Greater Cambridge. They highlight the need for a review of local conservation rules that hinder energy conservation measures, advocate for affordable and reliable public transport, and suggest the implementation of recycling collection points. The author also emphasizes the importance of reducing meat consumption, promoting plant-based diets, and improving recycling clarity. They express concerns about the environmental impact of wood-burning stoves and call for stricter regulations. Overall, the response reflects a strong desire for proactive measures to address climate change and improve community wellbeing.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the inadequacies of Stagecoach’s public transport in Cambridge, particularly regarding its carbon footprint and reliability, suggesting that the Greater Cambridge Partnership should address these issues. They advocate for prioritising climate change measures, retrofitting housing to reduce energy consumption, and encouraging local industries to invest in green initiatives. Additionally, they call for increased investment in tree planting and energy-efficient retrofitting of existing buildings.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author emphasises the need for clear criteria and legal enforcement to achieve biodiversity net gain in new developments. They advocate for reducing car parking space in favour of green areas, creating wildlife corridors, and implementing features like green roofs and vertical gardens. The response highlights concerns about light pollution and the importance of community composting, while also calling for accountability from developers to ensure biodiversity measures are genuinely implemented.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author raises concerns about the planning of new developments, emphasising the need for safe and inclusive communities. They highlight past failures in achieving these objectives and stress the importance of integrating affordable housing into existing neighbourhoods. The response advocates for energy-efficient housing, improved infrastructure, and the necessity of creating community spaces. The author also calls for a focus on the needs of current residents, particularly vulnerable groups, and suggests that development should not compromise the quality of life for existing communities. They express a desire for more community engagement and facilities, particularly in Abbey.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author calls for an increase in affordable housing and energy-efficient designs, expressing concern over the types of houses being built, particularly the prevalence of large, expensive homes. Additionally, they raise issues regarding the maintenance of public spaces and the potential for drug-related problems, referencing a specific area near the Beehive Centre.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the current planning practices in Greater Cambridge, arguing that they do not promote good growth, wellbeing, or social inclusion. They advocate for community resources, consultation with transport providers, and the inclusion of community spaces in new developments. The author criticizes the lack of affordable housing and the prioritization of profit over social responsibility, calling for mixed housing options and low-rise buildings. They emphasize the need for adequate infrastructure, community engagement, and educational opportunities to foster a cohesive community. The response highlights the importance of maintaining green spaces and ensuring that developments do not lead to isolation.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for increased affordable housing for key workers and improvements to homes in deprived areas. They emphasise the importance of community engagement activities for physical and mental wellbeing, and suggest measures to tackle pollution and improve air quality. The response highlights the need to protect green spaces, include places of worship in new developments, and provide essential facilities like youth clubs and health hubs. The author calls for better public transport, parking facilities, and a variety of community activities, while also stressing the importance of creating attractive housing options for diverse communities. Overall, the response seeks a holistic approach to community development that prioritises social equality and accessibility.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses strong concerns about the current state of skateparks in Cambridge, advocating for their repair and the creation of more facilities for children. They oppose growth-focused development, suggesting that new housing should only be built on brownfield sites in central Cambridge to avoid social exclusion. The response emphasizes the need for mixed housing types, including affordable options, and calls for improved community infrastructure such as healthcare facilities, schools, and recreational spaces. The author also highlights the importance of cycling routes, air quality improvements, and addressing existing housing quality before new developments. Overall, the response advocates for a more inclusive and health-focused approach to community planning.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author strongly supports increasing tree cover and enhancing green spaces in the area, advocating for more tree planting along roads and in new developments. They express concerns about the destruction of existing mature trees and emphasize the importance of preserving them. The response also highlights the need for collaboration with landowners to promote tree planting and improve biodiversity. There are several comments regarding the wording of survey questions, indicating a desire for clarity and accuracy in communication.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author suggests transforming a green open space between Cheney Way and Mays Way into a small woodland area to enhance biodiversity while still accommodating families and dog walkers. They express concern over the busway project, which will remove a significant number of trees along the boundary of St Neots Rd and the A428, questioning its compatibility with the need for more trees and the impact on local residents’ quality of life due to increased noise and visual pollution.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author expresses significant concerns regarding the state of pavements and roads in Cambridge, highlighting safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists. They advocate for reducing car dependency by limiting car provisions in new developments and protecting heritage by avoiding development in villages. The author calls for sympathetic architectural designs, self-build opportunities, affordable housing, and improved transport networks. They stress the importance of maintaining the city’s skyline, enhancing local heritage, and ensuring that new developments harmonise with their surroundings. The response also emphasizes the need for higher building standards, conservation efforts, and environmentally friendly features in new constructions.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses significant concerns regarding the quality and design of recent developments in Cambridge and surrounding areas, highlighting a lack of consultation with local residents and poor integration of new projects with existing public spaces. They advocate for better design standards, more green spaces, and a focus on sustainability in new buildings. The response also calls for a balance between new housing development and the preservation of the area’s unique character, urging that any new projects should enhance the environment and community. Overall, the author seeks a more thoughtful approach to urban planning that prioritises aesthetics, community needs, and environmental sustainability.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses a lack of confidence in current architectural designs, criticising them for being trend-driven and often impractical. They advocate for preserving existing structures and promoting neighbourhood forums, while opposing bland developments and calling for aesthetically pleasing designs with ample green space. The author also stresses the importance of maintaining sightlines and views, and insists that the council should reject subpar designs.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for new developments to support healthy lifestyles by promoting mixed-use areas that integrate housing with essential services, community facilities, and green spaces. They emphasise the importance of social interaction, access to healthy food, and safe transport options for cycling and walking. The response highlights the need for recreational areas, sports facilities, and community hubs to foster well-being and social inclusion. Additionally, the author supports the development of a new swimming pool and encourages the inclusion of cafes and shops in new communities.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for significant improvements in air quality through various measures, including reducing car dependency, enhancing public transport, and promoting cycling. They suggest implementing a congestion charge, limiting parking for cars, and encouraging the use of electric vehicles. The response highlights the need for better urban planning to create communities that reduce the need for car travel and improve air quality. Additionally, the author raises concerns about pollution from wood-burning stoves and idling buses, and calls for more green spaces and tree planting.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author suggests reducing road traffic and increasing footfall in Mill Road by showcasing the history of Romsey through wall paintings and mosaics, which could attract visitors and support local businesses while implementing measures to decrease through traffic.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author suggests implementing high-quality design standards and style guides for new developments, advocating for mixed-use neighbourhoods that integrate residential, retail, and community facilities. They emphasise the importance of connectivity, pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, and maintaining a balance between new developments and existing heritage architecture. The author calls for strict criteria for developers regarding energy efficiency and innovative design, while also highlighting the need for well-qualified planners to ensure good design practices. They express concern over developments that do not fit the character of their surroundings and suggest competitions to select the best designs.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author emphasises the need for greater community involvement in development decisions, criticising the current opaque consultation process. They suggest establishing clear guidelines for objections, encouraging neighbourhood plans, and creating accessible information points. The response advocates for more meaningful consultations, particularly regarding developments on green spaces, and calls for diverse housing options and the construction of more council houses. The author expresses concern over the rapid growth in Cambridge without adequate resident input, highlighting the importance of affordable housing and infrastructure for families.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for the use of local labour and companies in developments and suggests involving local communities in the planning process to ensure their needs are met.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author suggests a need for various types of business and industrial spaces, including technology and science hubs, sustainable businesses, and co-working spaces. They express concern about existing sites being underutilised and advocate for small start-up spaces close to residential areas to reduce commuting. The response also highlights the importance of flexible, connected hubs in neighbourhoods and villages.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for a diverse job market in Cambridge, emphasizing the need for more small businesses, practical skills jobs, and flexible working options, particularly for those unable to work full-time. They suggest consulting young people about their job preferences and highlight the importance of part-time roles, social enterprises, and green technology jobs. The response also calls for more opportunities in the arts, public sector, and supply chain companies to reduce transport distances.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author discusses the importance of strategically locating employment spaces, particularly near transport corridors and existing business parks, to support various types of businesses. They advocate for co-working spaces in villages and emphasize the need for good public transport links to business parks for all employees. The response highlights the necessity of integrating housing, especially affordable options, with employment spaces and suggests that new business parks should be developed away from the city centre to foster startups. Additionally, the author supports the idea of connected flexible hubs in neighbourhoods to reduce travel requirements.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed development, arguing that it will exacerbate existing infrastructure issues, harm the environment, and lead to unsustainable growth. They advocate for prioritising residential developments for key workers, improving public transport, and reassessing the council’s economic growth objectives. The response highlights the need for sustainable planning that considers the local population’s needs and the impact on the environment.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the imbalance between job growth and housing availability in Greater Cambridge, suggesting that new offices should be developed alongside housing to ensure residents can live and work in the same area. They advocate for environmentally sustainable economic growth and the need for job opportunities outside the city centre, particularly in sectors like tourism and public services. The author also highlights the importance of broadband access for remote work and criticises the current growth targets as incompatible with sustainable development principles, arguing that Cambridge’s capacity for growth is limited and that climate change and biodiversity targets cannot be met under the proposed plans.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author discusses the need for flexibility in planning to support local shopping and community initiatives, suggesting innovative financing for village shops and post offices. They advocate for a diverse range of uses in development to prevent an overemphasis on retail and fast consumer goods, while supporting small businesses and ensuring leisure, culture, and housing are included. The response calls for adaptive land use to meet changing societal needs without harming the environment, and expresses a need for better management of tourist groups in central Cambridge.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for the protection and enhancement of historic buildings and landscapes in Cambridge, suggesting the establishment of a citizens’ body to raise awareness and appreciation for non-listed sites. They express concern over the presence of unsightly traders and stress the need to preserve the unique character of Cambridge’s historic centre and Conservation Areas by limiting development and ensuring high design standards. The author opposes further building in the greenbelt and countryside, favouring the development of brownfield sites instead.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses significant concerns about the current state of tourism in Cambridge, arguing that the city is overwhelmed by visitors and that existing management practices are inadequate. They suggest implementing a tourist tax to generate funds for public transit and civic improvements, capping visitor numbers, and restricting large tour buses in the city centre. The author also advocates for protecting the greenbelt, developing low-cost hotels outside the city, and ensuring that tourism benefits local residents rather than detracting from their quality of life. Overall, the response highlights the need for better management of tourism to balance the interests of visitors and local communities.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author discusses the importance of protecting small neighbourhood business units in residential areas for their contribution to local character, while also suggesting that if industrial spaces are low density and unproductive, they should be repurposed for sustainable housing. The author believes that industrial areas in central Cambridge should not be protected if they hinder housing and office development, advocating for a focus on greenbelt and countryside protection instead.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author advocates for a diverse range of housing options, including more bungalows for older people, Dutch-inspired courtyard homes, eco-homes, and sustainable council housing. They express concerns about current developments being unattractive and not meeting community needs, particularly for vulnerable groups. The response highlights the importance of integrating people with disabilities and providing affordable housing solutions, including support for the homeless.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author emphasises the importance of high-quality housing design that harmonises with local architecture, advocating for individuality and beauty in new developments. They stress the need for sufficient indoor space, private gardens, and energy-efficient standards, while also highlighting the importance of accessibility and affordability. The response calls for minimum standards for energy efficiency and encourages innovative green technologies. The author suggests allowing self-build opportunities to enhance housing diversity and quality, and insists on prioritising brownfield development that promotes sustainable transport. They also mention the need for improved water quality in Cambridge.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for a housing strategy that prioritises locations with good public transport links, encourages high-quality, carbon-neutral homes, and focuses on affordable housing for local residents. They express concerns about the current planning system leading to poorly located developments and stress the importance of integrating social housing with private housing. The response also highlights the need for green spaces, community facilities, and the preservation of the countryside, while opposing the sale of council houses and excessive overseas property investment.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed development, arguing that it will lead to increased traffic, loss of local villages, and environmental damage. They advocate for more affordable housing closer to Cambridge, the need for community land trusts, and the promotion of Tiny Homes as a sustainable housing option. The author also emphasizes the importance of high energy efficiency standards for new homes and suggests innovative solutions like rainwater catchment systems and living roofs to mitigate environmental impact.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the conversion of family homes into flats, arguing that this trend is detrimental to community stability and contributes to a transient population. They advocate for more family homes and bungalows to support community ties and address the housing crisis, particularly for older residents. The response highlights the need for affordable housing, regulation of rental properties, and the importance of infrastructure development alongside new housing. The author also calls for measures to limit investor control over housing and to ensure that new developments include necessary amenities.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed development, arguing that it will harm the environment and increase congestion. They advocate for building on brownfield sites instead of greenbelt land, prioritising affordable housing for local residents, and ensuring that new developments are environmentally friendly. The response highlights the need for better use of existing housing resources, restrictions on foreign property investors, and support for local communities in planning. The author also calls for a focus on diverse housing options and improved facilities for all residents, including gypsy/roma/travelling communities.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author emphasises the need for both councils to maintain a 40% affordable housing requirement in developments of 11 homes or more, advocating for better resources to challenge developers’ viability claims. They stress the importance of environmental mitigation through increased planting for wildlife and highlight the necessity of a consistent 5-year housing land supply to prevent developer monopolies that alienate residents. While acknowledging the urgent need for new homes, the author criticises recent developments for being overly luxurious and calls for a significant proportion of genuinely affordable housing.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author emphasises the need for infrastructure improvements in Greater Cambridge that prioritise sustainable transport options such as rail and cycling, while also addressing pollution concerns. They advocate for the integration of housing and jobs to reduce travel times, the promotion of electric vehicles, and the establishment of electric school buses. The response supports the idea of requiring new developments to achieve a minimum of 40% bicycle trips and stresses the importance of robust methodologies for calculating infrastructure needs. The author expresses concern over the lack of sixth form education in Cottenham and the potential impact of new housing on recreational spaces and drainage infrastructure.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author expresses significant concerns regarding the planning application, particularly focusing on the need for improved transport links, infrastructure, and sustainable development in the areas east of Cambridge. They highlight the inadequacies of current transport options, the potential underfunding of eastern areas, and the necessity for developments to prioritize sustainable transport and community facilities. The author advocates for a shift away from car-centric planning towards more pedestrian and cyclist-friendly infrastructure, while also calling for immediate action rather than prolonged discussions.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong concerns regarding the lack of infrastructure to support new housing developments, particularly in relation to transport, public services, and environmental considerations. They highlight the urgent need for improved public transport options, safe cycling routes, and adequate educational facilities for sixth form students. The response criticises the planning of housing without ensuring necessary infrastructure is in place first, and calls for better maintenance of existing transport facilities. Overall, the author advocates for a more integrated approach to development that prioritises infrastructure before housing.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong concerns regarding the proposed development, particularly focusing on the need for improved public transport and infrastructure to support the growing population. They argue against new, disruptive transport projects and advocate for better connections between villages and major roads to alleviate traffic issues. The response highlights the necessity for infrastructure to be integral to development plans, with a call for developers to contribute to local infrastructure costs. The author also criticises the lack of effective transport options and the potential negative impact of new housing developments on local traffic and community quality of life. They stress the importance of prioritising walking and cycling infrastructure and making public transport a more attractive option.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong concerns regarding the proposed development, insisting that it should not proceed until essential infrastructure, such as water and zero-carbon electricity supplies, is guaranteed. They advocate for a car-free city, improved public transport, and increased green infrastructure, including tree canopy cover and green walls. The response highlights the need for reliable public transport and interconnectivity, as well as ambitious targets for biodiversity and climate change mitigation. The author also suggests innovative solutions for transport and urban planning, emphasising the importance of prioritising environmental needs over vehicular access.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author raises several concerns regarding infrastructure and community facilities in Cambourne, Bar Hill, and Papworth Everard. They advocate for safe pedestrian and cycle routes in Cambourne, sports facilities in Bar Hill, and social spaces in Papworth Everard. The need for additional GP surgeries and improved public transport is emphasized, particularly in relation to the Northstowe development. The author argues that healthcare facilities should be included in planning from the outset and expresses urgency regarding water shortages and traffic emissions before approving new developments.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the proposed developments in Orchard Park, Waterbeach, and Northstowe, arguing that the housing should be mixed and located near essential services. They highlight the inadequacy of the current infrastructure and water supply for the anticipated housing growth, suggesting that development should focus on existing urban areas rather than expanding into the countryside. The author also raises issues about the affordability of housing and the potential for job growth to outpace housing availability, advocating for a more measured approach to development.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author emphasises the need for prioritising public transport and high-quality cycling and pedestrian routes in new infrastructure planning. They advocate for eco-friendly designs that anticipate flooding, local energy generation, and the timely provision of schools and services alongside housing developments, while also stressing the importance of water and energy efficiency.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author advocates for improved sustainable transport options in South Cambridgeshire, highlighting the need for better connections to rail stations, increased bus services, safe cycling infrastructure, and improved footpaths. They suggest using the river for eco-friendly transport and emphasize the importance of enforcing speed limits for safety. The author also calls for enhancements to the rail service and the establishment of more cycle routes.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author proposes significant improvements to public transport in Greater Cambridge, including more frequent bus services, new train stations, and better connectivity between transport modes. They suggest creating new bus routes and stations to reduce reliance on cars, enhance accessibility, and support electric vehicles. The response highlights the need for a more efficient public transport system to cater to various communities and improve overall travel experience.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses significant concerns regarding the current state of public transport and cycling infrastructure in Greater Cambridge, particularly highlighting issues with the park and ride system at Trumpington, the need for more frequent and affordable public transport options for rural residents, and the inadequacy of cycle lanes. They advocate for prioritising buses and cycles over cars, improving the reliability and efficiency of public transport, and ensuring better maintenance of existing routes. The response calls for a more integrated transport system that is user-friendly and cost-effective, while also addressing safety issues for cyclists.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for significant improvements to public transport in Greater Cambridge, highlighting the need for reliable, frequent, and affordable services to reduce car usage and traffic congestion. They suggest introducing demand-responsive transport, enhancing rural routes, and improving cycling and walking paths. The response also calls for better integration of transport systems and subsidies for public transport to make it more accessible and appealing to residents.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the development on Green Belt land, arguing that it is essential for wildlife, mental health, and climate change mitigation. They advocate for higher density mixed-use developments closer to existing transport links and express concerns about urban sprawl and the long-term consequences of sacrificing Green Belt areas. The response highlights the importance of preserving the Green Belt for conservation and recreation, and suggests that alternative sustainable sites should be considered instead.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses a need for additional Gypsy, Traveller, and caravan sites, suggesting that they should be pleasant and not interfere with other priorities. They advocate for transit sites, family-run sites, and professional services for Travellers. The author also calls for more public and private sites, a dedicated council representative for Travellers, and a supportive approach to their needs, particularly in education and healthcare.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about new housing developments in villages, advocating for a presumption against further building in areas lacking rail links or effective bus services. They support small, proportionate developments to maintain local services and highlight the need for improved public transport in Cottenham. The response emphasizes the importance of local input in housing decisions and the potential strain on existing facilities from new developments. The author also calls for safeguarding wildlife corridors and ensuring higher quality housing in villages, while warning against the influence of regional corporations in housing decisions.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author invites comments and ideas regarding the planning application, indicating an openness to feedback and suggestions.
+Stance: NEUTRAL
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed development, citing concerns about the sustainability of housing in rural areas, the need for infrastructure improvements, and the protection of green belt land. They advocate for new developments to be located near existing facilities and public transport, and suggest that higher density mixed-use developments are preferable. The author also highlights the importance of climate change mitigation and biodiversity, and criticizes the current approach to planning as detrimental to local communities.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author advocates for a compact Cambridge to prevent urban sprawl and promote active transport, which would enhance air quality and residents’ quality of life. They support denser development in Cambridge, with a focus on public transport and cycling infrastructure, while opposing dispersal into villages due to inadequate infrastructure. The author stresses the importance of protecting green spaces and suggests that any development should be accompanied by improvements in public transport and housing diversity. They also highlight the need for energy-efficient homes and a reduction in car use, while expressing concerns about wealthy landlords and the irreversible impact of building on greenbelt land.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses strong concerns about the impact of new developments on Cambridge’s beauty and green spaces, advocating for sensitive densification and the preservation of surrounding landscapes. They support the need for community facilities like a sports centre and supermarket in South Cambridgeshire, while highlighting issues with current housing developments and infrastructure, particularly in Whittlesford. The author calls for improved public transport and cycling routes, and expresses a desire for more aesthetically pleasing housing options. They oppose unnecessary developments that compromise the countryside and advocate for enhancing existing settlements instead.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 5
+TODO
+The author expresses a preference for expanding existing settlements rather than creating new, characterless developments. They advocate for the use of brownfield sites for housing to address the urgent need for affordable homes in Cambridge, while also emphasizing the importance of preserving the green belt and the rural landscape. The response highlights the need for improved transport options to support diverse employment locations and suggests that developments should be denser and more vertical to accommodate more people without encroaching on green spaces. The author is concerned about the influence of local opposition on housing development and stresses the importance of coordinated housing strategies alongside transport improvements.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed development around the edge of Cambridge, citing concerns about the loss of countryside and biodiversity, increased congestion, and social exclusion. They advocate for the use of brownfield land and suggest that any future developments should be low density and sustainable, particularly within the Green Belt. The author also highlights the potential negative impact on local villages, particularly Teversham, and expresses a desire to maintain the distinct character of South Cambridgeshire.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The author expresses mixed feelings about the creation of new settlements in Cambridgeshire. They highlight concerns regarding the slow progress of existing developments like Northstowe, the need for adequate infrastructure and amenities, and the potential negative impact on biodiversity and transport. While they see the potential for new towns to enhance local communities, they stress that these should be well-planned and integrated with existing transport routes. The author also suggests that current villages need better infrastructure before new settlements are considered.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to developing in the Green Belt around Cambridge, arguing that it would lead to urban sprawl and destroy the unique character of the area. They highlight the importance of the Green Belt for wildlife and the countryside, and suggest that any development should be done sympathetically, possibly through the creation of garden towns. The author believes that the Green Belt should remain intact to preserve the identity of villages and the natural environment.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concern about increased congestion in central Cambridge, which negatively impacts those living further out. They acknowledge the potential benefits for workers at Addenbrooke’s but strongly oppose any development on the green belt.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses strong opposition to the proposed growth of villages, citing concerns about maintaining the rural character, increased congestion, and the potential loss of community. They argue that development should only occur where it aligns with local needs and infrastructure, and emphasize the importance of preserving biodiversity and green spaces. The response highlights the negative impact of previous developments and the need for sustainable growth that does not compromise the quality of life for current residents.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author supports the proposed development as a sustainable approach that enhances local amenities and community life, while reducing transport burdens and preventing urban sprawl. They advocate for development in villages with existing employment opportunities and good public transport links.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author suggests a policy to prevent overdevelopment by considering factors like density, traffic, and drainage. They advocate for designating a section of Newmarket Road as a Local Centre to protect local shops and services from industrial-scale developments that threaten community character. The response also highlights the need for better food system considerations in the Local Plan, more bus shelters with seating, clearer consultation processes, and the continuation of existing Protected Open Space designations. Additionally, the author points out issues with the consultation website’s usability and the lack of attention to light and air pollution.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses strong concerns regarding the planning application, advocating for stricter conservation policies for Victorian housing and opposing new business developments in Cambridge due to their impact on housing and services. They argue that the climate and ecological crisis should take precedence over economic growth, criticising the prioritisation of growth in the local plan. The author calls for a focus on ‘green growth’, a review of the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway plans, and higher carbon reduction targets. They also suggest integrating climate justice into the local plan and improving the sustainability appraisal process.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author raises significant concerns regarding the proposed development plans, questioning the compatibility of economic corridors with climate emergency declarations and the lack of consultation on housing developments linked to the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway. They argue that the plan should not proceed until these issues are addressed and emphasize the need for clear identification and quantification of constraints related to water, electricity, and other resources. The author calls for interim carbon reduction targets and highlights the potential unintended consequences of development on the environment and community wellbeing. They advocate for halting further development until necessary infrastructure is established.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The response from Fen Drayton Parish Council addresses several concerns regarding housing plans, transport integration, and community engagement. They express a desire to maintain existing planning constraints, advocate for improved transport hubs and facilities, and highlight issues of ageism in demographic representations. The council also suggests the need for pedestrian footways in Great Abington, calls for tree planting along the M11 for environmental benefits, and emphasizes the necessity of a public swimming pool in Cambourne. Additionally, they raise concerns about parking availability in Cambridge and the sustainability of small villages due to potential loss of bus services.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author discusses the importance of developing transport corridors to support new developments while ensuring that public transport is efficient, affordable, and integrated. They express concerns about the potential negative impact on local wildlife and the character of villages, advocating for sustainable development that includes green spaces and improved cycling and walking routes. The author also highlights the need for better train services and public transport options to reduce car dependency and improve accessibility for all residents, including the elderly and those without vehicles. However, there are reservations about excessive development and the impact on local communities.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author supports the development of housing in South Cambridgeshire villages with good public transport links to Cambridge and London, highlighting the need for improved train services and additional rural buses. They suggest opening Six Mile Bottom as an unmanned train station to enhance accessibility and propose building along transport corridors to utilise existing infrastructure.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 9
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the densification of Cambridge, arguing that it leads to overcrowding, loss of green spaces, and negatively impacts community well-being. While they support modest infilling and better use of existing spaces, they oppose high-rise developments and emphasize the need for preserving gardens and improving infrastructure. They highlight the importance of human scale in developments and the detrimental effects of pollution on health. Overall, the author believes that further densification should not be pursued, as it compromises the quality of life for residents.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes the proposed development due to concerns about its impact on the character of Cambridge, the loss of green spaces, and the potential for increased traffic congestion. They argue that the development does not meet the needs for family homes and that densification compromises the quality of life and biodiversity. The author suggests that new housing should be located in nearby towns or less attractive areas, and they advocate for careful consideration of the environment in any development plans.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses support for the development of high-rise buildings in Cambridge, arguing that it would accommodate more residents and businesses, thereby boosting economic growth and reducing pressure on surrounding infrastructure. They advocate for utilising underutilised sites and relocating industrial businesses to make way for residential housing. However, they also caution against excessive development that could compromise the city’s character. The author highlights the need for a mix of housing types to meet diverse community needs and suggests that the current housing situation is unaffordable and overcrowded. They call for an update to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment before further decisions on densification are made.
+Stance: MIXED
+Constructiveness: 6
+TODO
+The author raises concerns about the housing targets in the 2018 Local Plans and questions whether they have been increased in the new proposals. They express strong support for Policy 67, which protects Open Space, but are worried about its validity being challenged by developers. The author criticises the lack of community infrastructure in new housing developments and highlights the need for local amenities for families. They also express frustration with the planning process, noting that important feedback was dismissed in the past. Additionally, they advocate for prioritising homes for local residents and express dissatisfaction with the impact of new developments on rural areas and biodiversity.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the development of the area east of Milton Road in North East Cambridge, stating that it will worsen traffic congestion and contribute to overdevelopment in the city. They suggest that if new developments are necessary, they should be located away from Cambridge to prevent further overcrowding.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author expresses skepticism about the proposed development in North East Cambridge, suggesting it may lead to overpopulation. They support the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but emphasize the need for housing specifically for workers, indicating a narrow focus on community housing needs.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author expresses concern about the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, particularly regarding the enclosure of the Ninewells estate, which was promised to remain a soft fringe to Cambridge. They highlight the unique landscape and biodiversity of the area, including endangered bird species, and the flooding risks associated with building on green belt land. The author is alarmed by the proposal to build an additional 48,800 homes in the next 20 years, citing the negative impacts of past expansions, such as congestion and threats to water supplies, and advocates for retaining the character of Greater Cambridge without unchecked development.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, emphasizing the need for additional healthcare facilities, research, and housing. However, they express concerns about the lack of infrastructure planning, which has led to negative impacts such as pollution, noise, and antisocial behavior in the surrounding areas. They highlight the importance of addressing these issues and ensuring adequate services, such as health and youth services, are in place before further expansion occurs. The author calls for prioritizing the development of healthcare facilities, particularly children’s and cancer hospitals, before other developments like housing and offices.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author expresses concerns about the proposed developments in Greater Cambridge, particularly emphasizing a preference for very limited development in rural areas and villages. They specifically mention the need to preserve the identity of Cambridge and avoid ruining local villages. The author supports the development of healthcare and research facilities around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus but suggests only a small number of houses and open spaces. Overall, the response indicates a cautious approach to development, advocating for careful consideration of the area’s character and identity.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The response emphasizes the need for developments in Greater Cambridge to focus on low or zero carbon emissions, promote active travel over private car use, adhere to LTN 20/1 for cycle routes, and ensure homes are highly insulated and utilize renewable energy. The author supports the development of a vibrant city district east of Milton Road, the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, and Cambourne as a model for sustainable living. They also advocate for limited development in villages with good public transport connections, particularly near Greenways routes, while aiming for a 15-minute city suitable for the 21st century.
+Stance: SUPPORT
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The response emphasizes the need for housing that is affordable for key workers, particularly around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. It advocates for the protection of natural spaces in the southern rural cluster while expressing concerns that the current plans may lead to a decrease in quality of life for existing residents. The author highlights a disconnect between the goals of reducing climate impacts and the proposed developments, suggesting that the plans do not adequately address the need for affordable housing.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The response highlights concerns about the over-allocation of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, which is leading to increased traffic and high rental demand in the area. It suggests that the southern rural cluster of villages should develop small shops and community hubs to minimize travel to central Cambridge. The response advocates for limited development in villages with good public transport connections and emphasizes the need for updated planning that reflects post-COVID trends, particularly regarding housing and job needs, as current projections are based on outdated data.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author supports the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus for healthcare facilities and housing but insists on preserving the green belt. They express that any development in the southern rural cluster of villages should be very limited and only in areas with existing good transport links, cautioning against using future transport improvements as justification for extensive building. The author critiques the proposed travel hub near Babraham, arguing it will not benefit local residents and will harm the green belt, suggesting instead to improve existing transport routes or restore the old railway from Haverhill. They emphasize the importance of maintaining open spaces and the village lifestyle.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+TODO
+The response raises concerns about proposed developments on floodplains, particularly the relocation of the waste water treatment plant to an area of natural beauty. It argues that Cambridge does not need additional homes for people moving from London, especially as many are working from home. The response suggests that Cambourne is already a town and requires more facilities such as a swimming pool, youth activities, and retail options to reduce traffic to Cambridge. It also emphasizes the need for hedgehog highways in new developments and more bus routes and facilities for young people.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 7
+TODO
+The author suggests that the waste water treatment plant should remain in its current location rather than being relocated, advocating for the use of funds to enhance local facilities and green spaces instead. They express concerns about existing traffic congestion and pollution, particularly opposing the construction of high-rise buildings near the A14. Additionally, they mention the need for limited public transport options, such as a bus service a few times a day.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 4
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes further housing developments in Cambourne and Highfields Caldecote, arguing that these areas have already received more than their fair share of development. They express concern that the proposed East-West Rail would harm local rural villages and do not believe it would reduce car dependency. The author emphasizes the need for more facilities, such as healthcare services and recreational amenities, rather than additional housing. They advocate for prioritizing open spaces and nature, criticizing the unattractiveness and high cost of current housing developments. Overall, they feel that the character of the area is being destroyed by ongoing developments.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 2
+TODO
+The author strongly opposes further development in green belt areas, particularly around Addenbrookes, arguing that such actions should not be permitted. They advocate for utilizing brownfield sites and redeveloping run-down areas in Cambridge instead of allowing new housing developments that contribute to traffic congestion and strain local resources. The author highlights the need for regeneration of existing neighborhoods and emphasizes the importance of preserving green spaces like the Gogg Hills. They express concern over the council’s tendency to prioritize developer interests over community needs and call for a focus on improving the quality of life in Cambridge.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The author expresses disappointment over the limited public engagement regarding the proposal for 100 houses, noting that a local demonstration was poorly publicized and that many residents were unaware of the plans. They emphasize the potential negative impact on the distinct identities of Great Shelford and Stapleford, arguing that the development would contribute to urban sprawl and contradict the purpose of the green belt. The author also criticizes the assumption that residents would use public transport for commuting, stating that they prefer to drive due to convenience and concerns about public transport during the pandemic.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 8
+TODO
+The response discusses the potential for development in the Greater Cambridge area, particularly emphasizing the need for housing, jobs, and facilities around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the area east of Milton Road. It expresses a belief that Cambourne should evolve into a proper town due to the East-West Rail project. However, there is a strong sentiment against further urbanization, with the author lamenting the loss of the original village character of Cambourne and expressing concern over the merging of rural areas into Cambridge, suggesting that the rural landscape is being compromised.
+Stance: OPPOSE
+Constructiveness: 3
+