Dear Sir,

We are saddened to see that another application has been received to dramatically increase the number of homes on the existing area agreed for housing in Cambourne.
So many mistakes have been made when planning new developments that we really thought that for once this project could show to the whole country that a new development could be planned and built properly. This massive increase if approved would throw all this careful planning and effort by many out of the window.

There was much opposition to the original plans from local communities when permission was sought to build Cambourne, much consultation was carried out to assure existing local communities that building these new villages would be carefully planned to ensure that it would minimise the effect on them.

A limit was placed on the number of homes to 3000 for this reason, a generous 10% was allowed to ensure that good design was allowed to drive the planning process.

Despite this careful planning a number of mistakes have been made, the transport links, even with only 1000 homes built have already become overloaded, the planned improvements to come have only allowed for the current agreed number of homes. The transport assesment used by the application appears to have a number of errors, making assumtions that are very optimistic.

The developers of Cambourne signed a legal agreement to build these 3000 homes and to ensure that adequate facilities were provided; they agreed to provide them, all this was sized for a community of 3000 homes. Schools, Community Centre, play areas, sports facilities, health provision etc.

The planning for 3000 homes was below the limit for a secondary school to be provided, where are they proposing that this is built now we excede that number ?

The developers have tried to justify an increase in densities by quoting a new Government directive PPG3, even cynically calling this proposal "Cambourne Enhanced". They seem to only pick out small parts of this to justify their proposal and ignore much of the advice also given on transport issues and location of these developments. And of course there is no obligation on them as these only affect new applications.

A recent "Examination in Public" went to great lengths to ensure that proper consultation and investigation was carried out to ensure that a policy would be established for the years ahead. Whatever the results of this it would be totally wrong to ignore them.

If permission was granted it would aggravate current residents in Cambourne who were persuaded to buy homes in this new development, they were sold one thing, before that is completed the developer is trying now to change that, despite using this feeling of well being while promoting sales.

The figures presented in the application are to say the least confusing, they appear to be saying that the approved masterplan has somehow been changed to currently allow 3700 homes, while some areas have been allowed to increase, they always indicated there would be an adjustment on other areas to redress the balance. Our trust was abused.

They have already managed to gain profit from building on areas that were not designated for housing ie to build on the land identified as Hodgkinson Land.

The developers have made poor progress in building Cambourne and it looks as if the original 10 year program would become more like 20 years if they get this permission.

We would not wish to see this situation to develop, all because the development consortium are hoping to maximise their profits, trying to "sell" the residents of Cambridgeshire a vision of 'Cambourne Enhanced' without considering the long term needs and quality of life of the residents. Worse still, we would be deeply saddened to see Cambourne turn into nothing more than a giant housing estate with no community spirit and no sense of place.

Developers also have ambitions to build more homes on open land adjacent to the existing footprint, and will no doubt make promises to get permission for that, with the further intent of doing the same as here.

Roger and Pam Hume