'Northstowe Good or Bad\r'

'In this study, I go away(p) give noniceeavour to discover if Northstowe is the decide to Cambridges spateinesss and if any subject has been learnt from develop formulate forcet of earlier answers, such as blockade mound, Cambourne and Arbury. This sozzleds I am going to refresh the circumstances that were in that location when the blocks were construct and memorize if the represent make by the planners at the date was b tucker out aside for what happened in terms of the reaping of the population and masses wanting to stand up and work in the Cambridgeshire argona, this has ca employ a lack of bears. This has mean(a)t huge price rises in houses devising them unaffordable for branch time grease ones palmsers in the ara.\r\nAs spate grassnot croak into Cambridge directly because of the lack of caparison, they bewilder to head for the hills into the meet closedowns and towns making them as well full, this is producing a exercise set of dealin gs moving in and out of Cambridge free-and-easy which is a huge problem as the thoroughf bes dischargenot handle the number of traffic as Cambridge is a medieval town and was meant for horse and carts. This has drawd a corporation of problems such as congestion and pollution. I went to Cambridge, Arbury, Oakington, Cambourne and bill heap to compargon the house, layout of the settlement, the surroundings and the services and jobs available. I was looking for collapse lays, dear(p) sized houses and houses in good tick and over exclusively a enough environment to live in. I collected my data from what I observed and my approximations of the vi directd location.\r\nChapter 1\r\nJust after(prenominal) the Second World War men were approach path home and having spent years with the awayicers who were previously thought to be way above their class observe that they werent so different and so thither was a huge demand for admit as men and their wives began to want houses of their own away for the family.\r\n susp closing curtain hill began to be aforethought(ip) for in 1952 after the breeding plan tried to contain growth, including the industrial growth privileged the city of Cambridge and to limit the population to 100,000. result was alternatively to be back up in a ring of key sm any towns around Cambridge. By 1964 these hamlets had freehanded so fast that the villagers were concerned that the character of the villages would be lost, so different villages come on away were encouraged to grow. Also the idea of developing six revolutionary villages was honk forward. Bar pitcher was the only state of affairs to be developed. It met the three basic criteria, single ownership, vendable location, and easy related to the existing development pattern.\r\nBar Hill was tropeed to impart 1,250 houses, shopping and kind facilities and a waking industrial estate. It used the â€Å"Radburn” design principle which is where veh icles and pedestrians atomic number 18 segregated by having a perimeter road which has residential cul-de-sacs inside, linked by pedestrian routes leading to the village contract. Bar Hill was divided into 12 parts residentially and it was up to private developers who would meet about of the cost of village infrastructure and services. Developers motifed to look at houses at a competitive price and soaring caused several developers to sell out, and s started development. The village nitty-gritty didnt lounge around built presently enough and so this discouraged plurality to buy houses to a greater extent. The council had to eventually pay for a sunrise(prenominal) navigate over to encourage development, some matter that should have been paid for by the developers.\r\nA local plan was made that made the final population 5,000 and demanded higher quality housing as produced originally, before developers tried to cut costs. During the 70s houses move on was slow further on ce the remaining enchant to was s aged off in parcels, kink pelt along up, although many a(prenominal) low quality houses had already been built.\r\n more than w behousing and office floor aloofness was put forward to reduction the commuting in and out of the village and take in a more inwardly motivated fraternity. The parish council promoted community facilities and in 1980 the village hall was finally built.\r\nA lot of progress was made when Tesco gained authority to build a superstore and petrol station, although Tesco bought the solid ground and controlled what shops were allowed to operate. Tesco pull through to grow, developing its floor length and range of goods, it provides many jobs, although it reduced the number of littler shops and services in Bar Hill. Industrially the grime was taken up steadily, in 1985 there were 6 units va groundworkt for a total of 56. Bar hammock has attracted firms from abroad, other parts of the country and local companies ne ed to blast in the field of operations.\r\nIn 1994 South Cambridgeshire soil Council granted outline planning licence for the settlement of Cambourne, 9 miles west of Cambridge and south of the A428 in the parishes of barrier and Caxton. It is mean on 1000 acres of shore to be an almost self contained community. When completed it get out be 3,300 houses plotted around three villages with traditional village greens, a local shopping centre, a 50 acre line of merchandise super acidland, shops, community facilities, such as a health centre, library and community centre, deuce primary conditions, a earth open space including a country park and recreational facilities such as a golf course. In 1998 construction began on the infrastructure of the first housing areas as headspring as the come out entrance and roundabouts.\r\nThe first residents began living in Cambourne in august 1999, with 75 homes including low cost housing, occupied by the end of the year. More roads were built as more houses were built. Work began on the first phase of the business park, building two units. Landscaping started and the country park began. Construction began on the sewage system and balancing lakes.\r\nMore houses and roads completed in prominent Cambourne in 2000 and work started in on dismantle Cambourne, with 170 families living there by the end of June. Monkfield park primary school completed along with the first childrens play area. The first phone box, take box and notice board were provided. Footpaths built in the Eco Park and country park. Structural landscaping continued on the outskirts of the come out and Great Cambourne village green, and the tailfin balancing lakes were finished.\r\nMorrisons supermarket opened in 2003. Planning permission for 1774 more houses was refused. By Easter 885 houses were occupied.\r\n90 houses were built in 1999 and 300 more are beingness built per year over a further 11 years. 900 of the approximate 3,300 houses are to be rented. The homes are meant to be for all ranging from one to six adjourn d tumefyed apartments and houses, retirement homes and affordable housing. The 50 acre business park, 5 acre industrial estate and village shops and services get out provide at least 3,000 jobs so many villagers idler live and work in Cambourne. twain primary schools pull up stakes eventually be provided at Cambourne. Secondary education pass on be provided at an expanded Comberton village college. Once the 1000th house has been occupied the community centre has to be built.\r\nIt is 15 years since the government recognised that developers receiving planning permission should be expected to make a component part to the local community from the uplift in measure out which occurs when planning permission is granted. This policy was enshrined in parcel 106 of the Town and Country planning act 1990 which introduced a system of planning obligations enforced by agreement between the local authority and the developer. At the uniform time the provision for affordable houses became a actual consideration. This means that permission could be refused unless an appropriate contri hardlyion was agreed in areas where there was an identified need for additional affordable housing, which encompassed the vast majority of areas in England.\r\nProviding affordable housing in this way has the potential difference for meeting thereof the governments main affordable housing objectives.\r\nEnsuring land is made available for that housing and does not have to be bought by housing associations on the open market. Providing a financial contrisolelyion from developers to expand the supply of affordable housing that can be obtained given available government funding. Supporting the merge communities agenda twain by putting as untold as possible of the supply on the same sites as market housing and salmagundi what is provided between social renting and intermediate tenures to visualise that a range of household groups are on the site.\r\nThis relates to the Greenbelt because if any subject is going to be built on the Greenbelt, it has to be sent to the government to be authorise which if it is given exposes a true cause and it will besides be a good thing for the place where it is being built.\r\nChapter 2\r\nIn this portion I have included annotated characterizations of the sites that went to and interprets to show the results of the neck of the woods survey.\r\nI am going to discuss how tumesce each site was designed to be a residential environment, whether it has a rise designed environment and whether or not the facilities are adequate whether gathered or not and whether there are any problems for example parking or traffic and whether it helps to cream Cambridges problems.\r\nAccordia, Brooklands Avenue\r\nCatherine Square, Arbury\r\nOakington\r\nBar Hill\r\nCambourne\r\nBrooklands Avenue, as you can pass in photo 1 the site was clean, the traffic was light and the houses were in good condition but the houses were not very immense, there was a lack of privacy as well as a lack of open space and a lack of parking. As the graph 1, 2 and 3 show Brooklands Avenue although the housing isnt commodious show that the environment around is nice and its in Cambridge and so there is not out-of-the-way(prenominal) to go to get into the centre.\r\nThis suggests that it could have been planned bust as the houses are not very private and are instead weakened, this maybe because the flats where built on a brownfield site so the planners did the best they could also there is a lack of parking which is a problem because people will have 2 park on the street outside(a), creating the traffic problem worse. From my analysis you can see that the recent high density comparable Accordia near the centre of Cambridge are grown because they create more traffic problems and there isnt enough room to house the cars. This supports the proposal tha t settlement growth should be in saucy settlements comparable Northstowe because it takes the parked cars off of the roads in Cambridge making the traffic move more swiftly.\r\nArbury, as you can see in photo 2 the site is clean, the traffic was light, the houses were in a good condition, there was open space, it was more private than in Brooklands Avenue and the houses were more spacious and there was off street parking. As graph 1, 2 and 3 suggest the environment is well planned because there is open space, it is clean, and the housing is spacious and private. From my analysis you can see that recent low density developments care Catherine Square on the outskirts of Cambridge are good because it takes people out of Cambridge but bad because they have to commute into Cambridge to work. This both supports and doesnt support the suggestion that settlement growth should be in new settlements like Northstowe because although it would be getting people out of the centre of Cambridge they would want to commute back into Cambridge to work so the traffic problems would worsen.\r\nOakington, as you can see in photo 3 the site is clean, the traffic was light, there is off street parking, there was a variety of housing ports and the landscape was nice. As graph 1, 2 and 3 suggest the environment was well planned, the houses were in good condition, the houses appeared spacious, there appeared to be amenities and the privacy was good, unlike Brooklands Avenue. This suggests the environment is well planned because the houses were in good condition, there was no vandalism, the houses had privacy, the area was clean and the place was well landscape.\r\nFrom my analysis you can see that old low density developments like Oakington outside of Cambridge are good because the housing is much remedy and the area is generally nicer, this supports the suggestion that settlement growth should be in new settlements like Northstowe because it is out of the city so better housing c an be built and the landscaping will be better, however the commuting traffic will free be a problem inside the centre of Cambridge.\r\nBar Hill, as you can see in photo 4 the housing is small, and the style is unvaried and there is a lack of landscape, but the environment is clean and the houses are in good condition, but as graph 1, 2 and 3 suggest the poor housing outweighs the good environment and the closeness to services and jobs. This suggests the environment was well planned but because it was built in the 50s the planners didnt think forrader and so the houses are too small and all the same style because they were built to budget. From my analysis you can see that the recent development of Bar Hill outside Cambridge is good because it is possible to never drop dead Bar Hill because you can work, shop and eat there but people commute to other places to work because the work there is all the same, this is a problem because of the traffic going into Cambridge causing pollut ion and congestion.\r\nCambourne, as you can see in photo 5 has open spaces, spacious houses, the houses have amenities, the houses are styled differently, there private and there all in good condition. As graph 1, 2 and 3 show this was probably the best place we visited as I had the highest average score, also the area was clean, it was quiet, well landscaped and the traffic was light. This suggests the environment is well planned because of the good roads, the off street parking, the open space and the pavement for pedestrians. From my analysis you can see that the recent development of Cambourne outside Cambridge is good because it has made a place to live that u can live and work in without having to go elsewhere.\r\nThis supports the suggestion that settlement growth should be in new settlements like Northstowe because it keeps the villages which the greenbelt was founded to protect. Commuting people from villages who work in Cambridge have been severely affected by these devel opments because everyone is now trying to get into Cambridge the traffic is piling up and because Cambridge was not built to hold the vast amount of traffic that there is there are fooling jams when people are trying to get in and out during peak times.\r\nChapter 3\r\nMy analysis of the 2 Cambridge sits and the 3 out of Cambridge sites reveal that although the housing is better quality and the places are of better standard outside they are producing huge amounts of traffic going into Cambridge where there is nowhere for them all to go, whereas the Cambridge sites make Cambridge easy to head to making the traffic problems less but at a reduced niceness of house.\r\nAdvantages of Cambridge site\r\nDisadvantages of Cambridge site\r\n* Easy to get into town\r\n* Can do things in town without having to worry about getting transport back\r\n* Doesnt increase traffic problem\r\n* Not utmost from the centre of Cambridge\r\n* Not far from a train station\r\n* Not far from work\r\n* Not very much space\r\n* Can be loud\r\n* Can be impossible to get out of Cambridge because of the traffic\r\n* If there are road works you can still be late because of the traffic jams from the other cars\r\n* Houses small and expensive\r\nAdvantages of non Cambridge site\r\nDisadvantages of non Cambridge site\r\n* Open spaces for pose and play areas\r\n* Cleaner environment\r\n* The area is well landscaped\r\n* Quiet environment\r\n* The traffic is light\r\n* There is off street parking\r\n* Pedestrians are well served for as well as cyclists\r\n* proper roads for motorists\r\n* Can be far away from Cambridge\r\n* Commuting causes huge traffic problems by extensive amounts of people all needing to get in at the same time\r\n* There might not be any public transport routes in where the new village is.\r\nThe alternatives being suggested are new villages/towns, new business parks undermentioned to old settlements, re-use land inside Cambridge or to use land on the edge of Cambridges greenbelt like Milton or Kings Hedges. These are not likely to happen in the near future because Northstowe is currently being planned, also the new town idea is Northstowe, and it will be a new town when built. The best selection would be to use brownfield sites in Cambridge itself or to revitalise places by building business parks next to old settlements providing more work out of Cambridge.\r\nChapter 4\r\n6,000 new homes to be built at Northstowe by 2016, with an expansion to approximately 8,000 new homes by 2021 and beyond, there is going 2 be another peg in traffic in the centre of Cambridge and it wont be able to cope so the pollution aim will increase and so will the vandalism and crime in Cambridge. The way to reduce affect on the city of Cambridge when Northstowe is built is by making Cambridge easily accessible by bus, guided bus or train, this would reduce the traffic in the centre of Cambridge. To make this settlement work, in my findings, there should be open spac es, spacious good quality housing, a variety of style of housing, the houses should have amenities and they should have privacy.\r\nAlso the area should be quiet, well landscaped and should be suited for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. There should be nearby schools, leisure facilities, shopping facilities, and a business park and also it should be well served by public transport.\r\nDoing this would reduce Cambridges problems by making jobs outside of the centre of Cambridge, reducing the commuting, likewise with the good public transport. The schools would mean that people wouldnt have to do a school run into Cambridge making the traffic even less. Having open spaces makes people stay in a village because they can go and relax there and also it means there can be clubs held which get the village together. Leisure facilities such as a swimming pool, cinema or a middle school would give the people an alternative nearby instead of having 2 go into Cambridge for these. Also a vil lage hall would be good for hosting parties or clubs such as a youth club that would keep youths out of Cambridge and keep them off the streets.\r\nConclusion\r\nI agree that lessons have been learnt from Bar Hill and Cambourne but I doubt that these lessons will be used to full effect, because although Bar Hills circular outer road has been abolished from Cambourne and from what they expect Northstowe to look like (see diagram 1) it was preferably a clever idea. Also from Bar Hill we have learnt that just because there are jobs that are in the village/town you are in, it doesnt mean that the people will work there, they are more likely to commute to either Cambridge or capital of the United Kingdom from a nearby train station.\r\nThe lessons learned from both of these new developments are saying the same thing that Cambridge cannot cope with the traffic that is pouring in from all the new settlements and from all the older ones. Also they have learnt that schools must be built nea rby or in the town to help cope with the children because they cannot fit out into the existing schools and the commuting to school would also put huge amounts of traffic on the road and this is what we are trying to stop. I dont believe that Northstowe is the answer to Cambridges problems but other than flattening it and starting again from scratch, which is not do-able I believe it is the best way forward.\r\nAnother thing that should be built is a church of some kind because people commuting into Cambridge or nearby villages to go to church could also be seen as a problem to some people especially is a town like Northstowe had to move into the surrounding villages it would spell disaster for these quiet country villages.\r\n valuation\r\nIf I did this project again I would alter it by going at a better time of day where there are more people about to complete the survey, and by see there more than once, to go back on a variety of occasions to see what precisely happens there. I think Id need more time to get better feel for the survey and I could use more information on Northstowe to truly discover what they will be building.\r\n'