Question 7

Not at all

More green areas..

Not at all

More green areas..

Not at all

Far to dense a dwelling over shadowed by buildings that are far too tall and densely packed presenting a fire safety hazard. Access to fire engines will be limited.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

Milton country park does not count as part of this development! You have far too little green space for the huge number of residents without their own gardens.

Mostly not

Whilst the documentation attempts to convince the readers that the development will include plenty of green space, the high-level figures boasting 10 hectares appear to include the existing green space at the Science Park and the 'public squares' that are most likely to be primarily concrete (as in Eddington, Aura and other new developments in Cambridge). It is positive that the existing green space and lakes at the Science Park, Chesterton Fen and Milton Country Park will be retained and improved, but a more green and open feel must be achieved to the east of Milton Road; the proposed linear park merely landscapes an unavoidable water management feature, and the proposed 'Cowley Triangle' is unimaginative. In essence, this development will only offer 3 additional green spaces, and considering the density proposed for this new development this is vastly insufficient.

Neutral

What is planned seems good, but I would want to see a new larger open green space created, perhaps to extend milton country park south of the a14, and making a corridor between that park and the river. A green bridge over the a14 would also be a nice way to connect the two. New areas of allotments would also be a great way to give outdoor space to the new housing planned.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Mostly not

The lockdown period has shown how much we need outdoor space near our homes for our physical and mental health. It has been a delight to many to discover the lovely countryside on our doorstep. You do not mention Honey Hill as one of your connected open spaces but this genuine countryside with fields wildlife and great peace is very important as a green lung for north cambridge and a place to connect with the real natural world rather than an artificial park. It should be preserved for all to come and enjoy, as envisaged by the National Trust as part of their Wicken Fen Vision, and your paths should connect to it.

Not at all

How about the open spaces surrounding Fen Ditton, Horningsea, Quy, Milton ,Landbeach,Impington and Histon that you will ruin your make way for this development ? How can you justify his?

Mostly yes

Looks really good, particularly the green high street. Is maintenance of the public spaces built into the plan?

Mostly yes

Another issue with living in this area of Cambridge is that we are quite far from substantial green spaces - from Milton Road it is quite a long walk before you reach the river and commons. There appears to be a lot of green space in the plans distributed around the area, and its great that a lot of green space is being integrated with people's every day lives. I think the plans could benefit from having a large, open space somewhere, in addition to the smaller green spaces, (perhaps in the centre of the community/bottom edge where we are further from the river and Milton Country Park.).

Not at all

The Community Forum submission to the Issues and Options consultation on this topic was as follows: Adequacy of provision of open spaces. A widely held view was that in CB1 the provision of green space was completely inadequate. Therefore as well as ‘green arteries’/’a green spine’ running through the area, it was vital that adequate green space should be a requirement. The representative of Milton Country Park also noted that Milton Country Park is at, or over, capacity at peak times so cannot be seen as a reservoir of spare capacity for the new development. It needs investment in extra facilities to accommodate the anticipated growth. There are is a proposal for expansion of the park to the unoccupied area between the railway line and the river and. There is also a proposal for a water sport lake area extending to Waterbeach which would provide a green corridor between several major developments. These should be implemented along with appropriate access for pedestrians and cyclists. Again, the question about the right mix of spaces is rather a loaded one when the problem is that the lack of space is not adequate. As Michael Bond was quoted as saying in the local paper: "I have serious concerns about the level of provision of public open space within the development. This is vital from a social and environmental point of view to make a new community like this truly ‘liveable’. It is particularly important in a development largely of apartments without private gardens that there is open space adjacent, to meet the needs of families and older people. The Covid pandemic has underlined everywhere just how important public open space is for rest and recreation. "The draft plan does show some parks and green areas which look very nice, but set against the proposed 18,000 population of the new development, at 25 hectares these are way below the standard the city council has set for itself in its own Local Plan, which is 39.3 hectares. In its supporting documents it is already indicating that it is unlikely the full amount will be provided on-site. "Taking funding instead from developers for spending on areas of open space outside the development area will not meet the needs of new residents in North East Cambridge. The densely developed residential area of the site is heavily penned in by the A14, the railway line and Milton Road. The proposed bridges and tunnels connecting with adjacent areas, mostly active flood plain and already heavily used - though welcome - aren’t going to relieve the sense of claustrophobia within the development itself. It would have been good to see a really large open area at the heart of the plan. It’s disappointing it really isn’t there. "The North of Cambridge already has the poorest provision of public open space within the city and Chesterton to the west of this development has lost most of its open recreational space to housing and other uses in recent years. Unless this plan for North East Cambridge brings with it its own full share of extra open space, it will compound an already bad situation. It’s important this new development is a truly attractive place for people to live in if it is to be a healthy and successful community." This references Appendix C5:Open Space Topic Paper There is not much I can add to this but, even without the current covid situation, I have grave concerns about how liveable this concrete jungle will be. Planners justify high densities on the grounds of a high quality environment, but this is then continually watered down until it is both dense and poor quality. Comparisons with high quality high density on parts of the continent just don’t seem to be valid. CB1 has been poor in most respects such as architecture, traffic, pollution, community cohesion, crime, green space and cycle provision and this should stand as a terrible reminder of how it can all go wrong where corners are continually cut. The inadequate green space is another reminder that the development appears to be driven by meeting building targets rather than quality. Is Milton Country park being included in the green space for the development? If so it should not be as it is the other side of a very busy motorway type road. This was not clear in the document. The point made by the community forum about Milton Park being at capacity does not seem to have been really acknowledged. Providing more access, and even some facility improvements will not make it bigger.

Mostly not

It is misleading to compare the area of with Parker’s Piece. Then latter has a layout and geometry that encourages ball games at scale, picnics, informal gatherings and more formal events. Almost none of that will be possible in a long thin narrow linear space.

Mostly not

Linear green spaces are a good idea, assuming they are wide enough (which I doubt) and incorporate the brook/drain (which I very much support). 8000 new, mostly garden-less homes, 15 000 or so additional people and only a few strips of new green space and access to the field next to the caravan site? You will need to drastically increase the capacity of desirable green spaces in the vicinity. Double the area of the country park or get the Cambridge rowing lake built.

Not at all

For the number of flats planned with no gardens the amount of public open space proposed seems very inadequate. Surrounding public spaces in Milton and Chesterton are already heavily used so should not be relied on to make up for this. Given the recent lockdown has highlighted the importance of local public outdoor space I think that the amount should be significantly increased. In particular, making sure that there is sufficient unplanted open space for children to use for play/informal sports.

Yes, completely

So excited for the prospect of linking Milton country park to more green space, I love it there!

Mostly not

The planned green space is mostly along narrow strips of land. While this is generally desirable, it is not generally considered as parkland. None of the green spaces appears to be designed to accommodate sports pitches - an essential ingredient for any populous self-contained community.

Mostly not

The planned green space is mostly along narrow strips of land. While this is generally desirable, it is not generally considered as parkland. None of the green spaces appears to be designed to accommodate sports pitches - an essential ingredient for any populous self-contained community.

Not at all

There are no significant open spaces that people will be draw to. The river and Milton Park are already suffering degradation due to over-use. People will need to travel further afield to escape the ghetto since the plan to relocate the sewerage works will eat into the local greenbelt.

Not at all

Chesterton Fen and Milton Country Park are already serving the community in terms of green spaces. Any new housing development should create accordingly new green spaces. Using already used green spaces for all the new housing is not the way forward as these are already heavily used by the existing population. Given that 8,000 new homes are planned and World Health Organization recommends a minimum 9m2 per capita with ideal being 50m2 (see 2018 paper: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/10/2180) . The actual proposed new green spaces are the Cowledy Triangle Park 1.1 hectares and the Linear Park 8.5 hectares, a total of 9.6 hectars. This is is barely reaching the minimal recommended space for just over 10,200 people (1.2 people per household), not at all the 18,500 people expected (2.3 people per household) to be housed! A modern urban design that would be "a healthy district where wellbeing, recreation .. are built into its design" and responds "to the climate and biodiversity emergencies" would achieve a lot more than only 9.6 hectars for 18,500 people. To be in line with modern and current needs especially highlighted by the current pandemic, the 50m2 per person of green urban space should be the aim. This means 92.5 hectar of new green space for the extra 18,500 housed people.

Mostly not

I would be in favour of more green space. My main concern is that the green areas are being squeezed in along roads and between buildings and are not very generous in size or number. It is important that whatever the mix decided upon, the space provided is fully integrated and maintained – in some areas of the city, green spaces have a ‘token’ appearance, left undeveloped to fulfil a quota. Some great cycle lanes have been provided in Green End Road, in East Chesterton, but the green planted areas that divide the road and cycle lanes are overgrown weed beds. A sowing of wild flowers would have been preferable to just leaving these unmaintained. St Matthews Gardens, Cambridge is an example of a well maintained communal green space. In contrast, there are areas of Orchard Park, where the greenery is straggly and strewn with litter. There is no mention of allotment provision in the N/E Cambridge plan. That would address several criteria, i.e.: green space; communal area; biodiversity; health and well being for residents, etc. There will be many flat-dwellers without gardens in the district. Allotments will provide opportunities for residents to maintain their own growing space. Or possibly roof gardens, could be an option. There are long waiting lists for allotment places throughout Cambridge. I think an allotment or several small allotments would greatly enhance the environment of the new district, and add to community cohesion.

Mostly not

More green space for densely populated area

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

As noted previously, we should encourage the use of outdoor gyms, football pitches, basketball courts and so on as well as walking and cycling (which may be less likely to appeal to the teenage generation). Let's think about where people like to congregate and how we encourage good use of the spaces.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

You will need more space, spread out around Milton village.