Land South of Branch Road
Consultation report
November 2022
Consultation to date
The first round of consultation launched on Wednesday 5th October 2022. It was publicised through a flyer which was distributed to the village.
We held a public exhibition on date Monday 17th October and a webinar on Wednesday 19th October. There were 70 attendees to the public exhibition and 5 attendees to the webinar. Since being uploaded to the website, the webinar has been watched 3 times.
The consultation period closed on Wednesday 26th October. During the consultation, there were 681 visitors to the website.
Public exhibition feedback
We received wide-ranging feedback from the public exhibition. A summary of this feedback can be found here.
- A lot of people were concerned about the impact of the Retirement Village on the GP Surgery, with comments along the lines of ‘it’s all very well providing a new treatment/consulting room but the lack of GPs is the problem, GP turnover is a problem.
- There was concern at the impact of the scheme on the current GP services and despite the provision of a potential satellite space for GPs within the scheme, the tension seemed to be around the lack of availability of GPs and Social Care generally
Seen as one of the biggest problems, described as being isolating for the elderly and others who do not have cars and will prevent them from accessing vital services.
- Concerns raised over impact of traffic on Long Road, Green End and Branch Road
- There were concerns that parking provision would not be sufficient and there could be a risk of overflow to surrounding roads
- Some concerns raised regarding 3 storey buildings, and about boundary distances to the south towards Hillfield Rd. Their concern was that the boundary screening would be reduced or removed, and their privacy affected. It was discussed that a boundary screening here was desirable to both sides and that the design would ensure this is retained, and if possible be supplemented with evergreen species
- There was mention of the attenuation pond and a potential link with the national trust
- Questions were raised about the path over the pond and risk of falling – some saw this as a bridge
- Residents from The Valley & Normandy Close appreciated the smaller scale near east boundary and wanted to see visuals of the bungalows to understand the half storey difference between the cottages & bungalows. A few residents questioned whether 3-storey buildings are appropriate for Comberton but appreciated that they were located away from the site boundaries
- Conversations around architecture were limited but those who did comment were positive at the imagery shown
- There was some concern that there would be a gated entrance and fencing all around
The sight of the pond & swale brought up flooding for some residents
There were concerns about flooding at the top of Fox’s Way in the winter, and seen as something that will only get worse with the new development
Concerns around lorries on narrow country lanes, impact of dust, noise and vibrations, particular noise concern for those living on boundary
There were criticisms over the loss of agricultural land and concern raised that other parcels would be developed later on
Some attendees were concerned that the IRC would be unaffordable for most
Issues around the terminology raised – Comberton already has a village centre with thriving community activities, the ‘Inspired Village Centre’ should be in synergy with the village hall – e.g., potential outdoor cinema to complement movie nights at the village hall.
One resident raised the issue of noise – i.e. impact of noise from communal activities in VC ground floor on the residential apartments above
The Chairman of the Village Hall Management Committee is keen that the IRC does not conflict with the Village Hall
Many residents feel that the Village Centre of Comberton is the playing fields, bowling club and changing rooms around it
Many of the Normandy Close residents see the benefits of having a more direct route across the scheme
A few residents welcomed the position of the Green End Link as shown – i.e. it shouldn’t go through the existing tree belt for safety and security as well biodiversity and sustainability
Some residents along Hillfield Road / The Valley welcomed the redirection of the permissive routes – whilst they appreciate it is used for dog walking, they didn’t particularly like how school kids sometimes used it
Survey
We had 28 responses to the survey.
+65
50%
46-64
28.6%
32-45
10.7%
25-31
3.6%
18-24
7.1%
Under 18
0%
Prefer not to say
0%
Responses
1. Did you attend our last consultation?
28/28 people answered this question
2. The Village Centre and associated Village Square will create a destination for social gathering and village activities. Do you think this is a positive aspect of these proposals?
28/28 people answered this question
3. Do you think the incorporation of GP treatment and consulting rooms within the Village Centre would be a benefit to Comberton?
28/28 people answered this question
4. Do you think that the retention of the permissive footpaths through the site and improving their legibility is a positive feature of the proposed development?
28/28 people answered this question
5. What do you think of our plans to take design inspiration from the existing architecture seen in Comberton?
27/28 people answered this question
6. Do you agree with our approach to only allow taller buildings in the centre of the site?
25/28 people answered this question
7. We are committed to creating a high-quality landscape led environment with extensive open space and public realm. What do you think of our landscaping proposals?
27/28 people answered this question
8. We are aiming to create a net-zero carbon regulated energy retirement village and are working towards achieving a 20% biodiversity net gain. What do you think about our sustainability proposals?
28/28 people answered this question
9. We are proposing to deliver an age-appropriate wellbeing centre with a swimming pool, gym and fitness studio, alongside communal facilities, such as, a shop, café, restaurant, meeting rooms, and hairdressers. Are there any other facilities you would like to see in our new Integrated Retirement Community?
15/28 people answered this question
- We certainly are in need of a new village shop, something like the co/op. Our village shop has no decent offers, and is very expensive
- Coffee shops to accommodate dogs
- Chiropodist, dentist, physiotherapist, communal gardens
- Your own medical facilities to prevent additional pressure on Comberton Surgery.
- Cottages should have covered secure area for storing mobility aids/scooters & bicycles. Community workshop eg a “man shed”. Plenty of benches seating places around the complex so anyone can talk to passers by, i.e. more friendly
- Building town houses in the centre for over 65’s is a bit puzzling to understand as their mobility is already compromised anyway?
Wider hedgerows + more biodiversity
- Bus to Cambridge and Park and Ride sites – Madingley Road and Trumpington Road, Pharmacy, Cash Point, bakery, Farm Shop/ Monthly Farmers Market, Takeaways – Indian & Fish and Chips shop, Music performances, Comedy club nights
- I hope this application is rejected.
- No.
- No, the whole idea is out of keeping and not needed in Comberton which already has housing especially for Comberton seniors. This proposal is not for Comberton but to fit a completely different community on the outskirts of the village to sell to people who have no local connection. A bad idea inspired by urban thinkers and influenced by American templates. It may have a place in a town but NOT in an existing, sustainable village.
- Comberton already has many facilities and doesn’t need any more
- It is not clear who these facilities might be for and what regulations for use there will be. I am sure they will not be beneficial to Comberton Village because of age restrictions
- As I don’t expect these facilities to be open to me, I have no interest
- If these facilities are restricted to residents, or age restricted, they offer nothing to Comberton except loss of Green Belt Land
10. Do you think the provision of new facilities and services would be a positive addition to Comberton?
28/28 people answered this question
11. Do you support the creation of an Integrated Retirement Community in Comberton?
28/28 people answered this question
11. Do you support the creation of an Integrated Retirement Community in Comberton?
28/28 people answered this question
- I feel the site chosen for this retirement village on the green belt area is not appropriate to the ecology, environment and to the community. Although it may bring facilities and other amenities to the village it all comes at a very high cost to the peaceful village environment. This massive construction will destroy the natural habitat for fauna and flora. This peaceful area will become congested with traffic and noise. This may affect the neighbouring farmland and houses.
- We need that land for agriculture use and to preserve nature instead of yet another building development.
- As a local resident, this is an unwanted development on greenfield land that is part of the Cambridge green belt. It will detract from the countryside and open spaces that make Comberton a nice village, and worsen existing congestion issues.
- The development site is too big! A maximum of 50 properties would be more appropriate. Very concerned that the current bus route through the village is at risk. This could create too many more cars in the village. There would be a loss of agricultural land and my fear is that once one field goes more planning applications will go in!
- Prefer fields and countryside, that’s why we opted to live here.
- South Cambs is already over-developed and Cambridge in particular. We don’t need any more retirement villages. I get at least 1-2 adverts a month for similar ones posted through my door. This would destroy any existing eco system/food crop. Aren’t we meant to be growing more of our own food? This is purely about money and the ‘seductive’ marketing is transparent. This would destroy Comberton as a village.
- Why the ‘Inspired Villages’ retirement village should not go ahead. Ecology: – Building on green belt leads to destruction of endemic fauna and flora and recreating biodiversity is contradictory. The construction itself does not only impact the site but the environment around it. In the area you are building in an area home to hedgehogs, badgers, muntjac deer, hares and a vast variety of birds both migrant and native a few for example: chiff chaffs, yellow hammers, greenfinches, field fares, redwings, jays, tawny and brown owls (which have nested in the field), bullfinches, reed buntings. You cannot say that you can reintroduce biodiversity when at the same time you have driven animals away from their sole habitat Greenfield site – Comberton/Toft has already had construction work done – You are building on the green belt which is meant to prevent urban sprawl. – If this retirement village is essential- why not build on brownfield sites? it will support the brownfield regeneration of towns and cities by allowing vacant and derelict buildings to be repurposed for housing. – By developing on brownfield land, you can protect more green spaces and the Green Belt. – Furthermore, it will also create even more opportunities for construction work compared to the retirement village work, which is needed at our current economic crisis hence saving the livelihood of construction workers and boosting local economy Furthermore, the creation of more facilities, will affect the economic rate of the already current facilities. This will reduce the number of clients/memberships created at the current facilities. Also, the facilities are age appropriate and are meant for the older demographic so why are three story houses being created? These are not accessible for the elderly. To conclude, this project will not unite the community. Far from it, it will drive the community apart. Comberton is made up of all ages and the facilities created are only for the older demographic. This will reduce the interactions created between all ages and reduce the number of relationships made. Furthermore, this project is not at all sustainable. It is destroying the green belt and with an upcoming railway being installed, the large amount of green belt in Comberton is being reduced hugely.
- This is a bad idea that does not belong in a rural community and will potentially change the whole ethos of the village. This kind of development should be confined to new towns like Northstowe. How can planting a 20% population increase, age-specific community development into an existing village be good for anyone except the developers and their pockets?
- This retirement community will not be of any use to me, as I will not benefit from any facilities whatsoever even being retired if you believe it will, you are in dreamland
- May provide a ghetto mentality concern over GP availability for existing residents.
- I don’t believe that the people who live in Comberton will have access to these proposed recreational facilities, if they are even built at all.
- The proposed village will be self contained, an add on facility, which is not in sympathy with a rural village, and not at all integrated. This is a large development which impacts local residents apparently without concern. Comberton village has enjoyed a rural life which will not be enhanced by the building of 200+ properties and a junction which will spoil a round walk and increase traffic around Branch Road and Long Road. The facilities you propose to offer will, in all reality, probably not be available to the rest of the village and the pressure on the local doctor’s surgery is a concern, with the situation today there is no guarantee the proposed surgery room will have a doctor so residents of the new village will turn to the existing surgery if needing to see a doctor. The pressure on local drainage is a real problem which I feel has not been considered or spoken about with those residents with ‘knowledgeable’ information about drainage and flooding which occurs regularly. I also feel that to have a village of older people is detrimental to them, as they cease to integrate with other age groups on a daily basis, leading to loneliness and separation. I have worked in sheltered accommodation integrated into the existing village and this works so much better as it is easier to visit and keep in touch with familes and neighbours without having to travel out and brings security that there is someone on hand to help, a friendly face. Another concern is that this new village is out on a limb for some older people to get to bus services etc. and will not benefit the exisiting local shops, hairdresser etc. as it is self contained. Your plans show the new village centre and amenities being in a very specific area – definitely not giving out the right vibes for any integration. I am not at all against homes for older people, but let them be built in amongst other residents of all ages, not in a complex, in a completely separate area, away from normal life. Also the cost of these proposed properties is obviously going to be attracting people from other areas not, as was intimated, a place for local people to move into. I believe that the main beneficiaries of this proposed village are the developers who have bought up agricultural land, seen the £ signs and are lining their own pockets.
- We need a cycle & footpath from new building in Branch Road down Long Road, because it is very dangerous for cycle & pedestrians walking down road. It is a very long road.
- Well lit cycle paths, well lit footpaths, improvements to Long Road (Dark & Dips on both sides of the road). Footpath full length of Long Road and Branch Road, Bus needs to run into evenings and Saturday and Sundays.
- I would expect a community of elderly people should be a a gated community for security. What happens when residents become very ill and no longer fit e.g. demented. Would they have to sell their house and move out even if they didn’t want to? Very little provision for cars.
- Please increase the southern boundary to allow more privacy for residents of Hillfield Road and your site.
- CONCERNS: Boundary to 38-42 Hillfield Road from the closest cottages is only 10 metres. The upstairs maisonettes and associated rear gardens will be very affected. Suggest increasing boundary, possibly by rotating the cottage pair 10 degrees, suggest good screening. (38 and 40 have cosy outbuildings in these gardens that are regularly used and we don’t want to see straight into the back of these cottages.
- Development of southern boundary is close to maisonettes on Hillfield Road. These have small gardens and bedrooms (ground floor and 1st Floor) at the back and easily overlooked with current proposal. I would like to see these cottages moved further away from the southern boundary (20-30 metres) and good natural screening to maintain privacy for these maisonettes. Also no dormer windows looking south into these maisonettes and gardens.
- This is an utterly cynical proposal that offers nothing to South Cambs except concrete and increased road traffic.
- Support only because any other development would be worse than your proposals. If you can expand the wildlife wooded hedgerow areas to 30 metres, to the southern boundary and 15 meters on the Eastern side this would enhance the wildlife/biodiversity. We are opposed to the closeness/proximity to the field boundary and buildings that are more than 2 storeys high which are our of character with the rural nature of Comberton. If your application is successful id be happy to positively engage with planting etc with your landscape team. Charlie Mitchell +b Sarah Potter and can put them in touch withe the Cambridge Wildlife Trust.
- I particularly like the landscaping with green spaces, woodland belt and orchard – the strong focus on biodiversity and keeping of the green wildlife corridor through the village is of great importance to me and gives me reason to be supportive of this development. Additionally I support keeping taller buildings from northern end and edges of the site together with matching in with existing village architecture. The connection pathways and GP surgery are also a must for me.
- I oppose the 3 storey buildings, there are no 3 storey buildings in Comberton currently. More thought needs to go into the drainage. We do not have enough GP’s to cover extra residents. If this does go ahead then it would make sense for the Greenway Path to be on Branch Road side of Long Road. Long Road will need an upgrade.
We have flooding at the top of Fox’s Way. In the winter this will only get worse with the new homes in the field at the end of Fox’s Way.
It would be nice to try something out like ‘Inspired Living’, say in Exter (have a daughter near there for transport) or somewhere near Cambridge my other daughters.
Summary of survey responses
There are a number of key takeaways from the survey responses. These are detailed:
- Half of all respondents are from the 65+ age bracket – the people who would be eligible to live here.
- Over half of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the opportunity for the Village Centre and associated Village Square to create a destination for social gathering and village activities was a positive aspect of the proposals.
- 57.2% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the retention of the permissive footpaths through the site and improvement of their legibility was a positive feature of the proposed development.
- Only 24% agreed with the approach to only allow taller buildings in the centre of the site.
- The landscaping proposals were rated an average of 4.5/10, with the sustainability proposals rated an average of 4.8/10.
- Shops, cafes, leisure facilities and medical facilities were all suggested as facilites that respondents would like to see in Comberton (on top of those provided in the proposals), however, there was concern that access to these would be restricted for most Comberton residents.
- 32.1% of respondents thought that the provision of new facilities and services would be a positive addition to Comberton.
- Concerns were raised over the scale and location of the development, the loss of greenbelt land, the access to facilities and services, and the impact on privacy, sustainability and drainage. However, there was support for the improvements to connectivity, the landscaping proposals, and the idea of an IRC.
Further Engagement
Following the closing of the first round of public consultation we will continue our engagement with interested parties and key stakeholders in order to ensure that our proposals will maximise benefits for the local community.
0800 193 0884
