Question 7

Not at all

Your not proposing any new green space! just calming upgrades to existing parks. Furthermore this development will trigger the relocation of the water treatment plan with the possible destruction of green belt and open space. New residents on this scheme will have to travel outside of this development to get to open space. This should not be the case. The development should be lower density and more open green space. the focus is currently on maximising the development footprint.

Mostly not

The provision is woefully inadequate

Mostly not

No answer given

Not at all

Whatever open spaces are planned they cannot compensate for the loss of wide-open Green Belt where the new WWTP is expected to be sited. Milton Country Park is not sufficiently big or open to accommodate so many people and it is already very well used.

Mostly not

Existing green space, such as Milton Country Park and the Milton Community centre, as well as similar resources in Chesterton, are currently heavily used and would become severely overcrowded if the near population more than doubled. Within the development there does not seem to be sufficient space for local football teams, tennis courts etc. and this should be required. A solution with the required scale and vision would be to strongly support Cambridge Sports Lake Trust's plans for a rowing lake between the Cambridge North East development and Waterbeach, which would greatly increase the access to high quality public open space and improve fitness.

Mostly not

The towpath along the Cam is already very busy, Milton Country park is already very busy, more green space are desperately needed. The train line is a noisy eyesore and should go underground or be modernised to make sure there is less noise pollution. The available area could be part of a large park area.

Not at all

There is virtually no open space for a very high density population. The possibilities cited such as Milton Country Park are already at capacity. 10 hectares is not enough for 18,000 residents. All the other new developments around Cambridge have allowed for far more than this.

Not at all

The area around Cambridge station has "public open spaces" which are grassy areas that the residents are not allowed to use. Having a piece of grass to look at is no substitute for having a private green space to sit or play in. Milton Country Park is not sufficiently big or open to meet the needs of so many extra people, as it is already well-used on a daily basis. The current green belt would be diminished by the proposed relocation of the Sewage works. A few grassed areas and a "pocket playground" would not compensate for this.

Mostly not

whilst its great to have milton country park nearby..this is already very busy. The proposed relocation potentially destroys open spaces and green belts elsewhere. Not ok!

Neutral

Green spaces must be accessible to horses and new bridge into Milton Park must also be safe and accessible for horses as well as cyclists and pedestrians.

Mostly not

There is not enough public open spaces planned for the density of housing and office space. Milton Country Park as it currently is cannot be part of the plan for open space for this area as it is already frequently full to capacity. There are also not enough areas with sports pitches planned. The development needs to be self sufficient in providing enough open space as the green space and sports pitches are already very well used in the surrounding areas.

Neutral

There is insufficient detail on what is envisioned. The quantum of green space looks good (and could be supplemented by green roofs) and the small neighbourhood greens and play spaces throughout is great. (Some of these could, for example, be suitable for basketball / netball.) I know of linear parks in other countries which provide fantastic amenity use - with welcome shady spots in hot weather and easy walking in winter. The devil is in the detail: in particular avoiding encroachment by services and access provision as designs translate into actuality. Wise landscape design could ensure there is good opportunity for genuine biodiversity gain in the green areas.

Mostly not

Need greater open spaces. Milton Country Park will be under strain. Doesn’t compare with Trumpington Meadows 3,500 homes and 90 hectares.

Mostly not

There should not be any development on the SW side of the Busway

Mostly not

The onsite mix of public open spaces, as set out in Policy 8 appear to deliver a good mix of different types of urban space, but in terms of the area of space available, it is the Wildlife Trust’s opinion that it is not sufficient. Larger areas of open space will be desired by residents for dog walking, exercise etc and these are not provided on site. The policy says that offsite provision will include Bramblefields LNR, Milton Country Park and Chesterton Fen. We would comment on each of these as follows: Bramblefields LNR is a very small site with a limited range of open space, (much is overgrown with trees and scrub, from which much of its wildlife value stems) and there is no scope here for enlargement of this site. It is used by residents of Chesterton and the local school but seems unlikely to provide a regular destination for residents of NEC. Milton Country Park is at capacity and this AAP should discuss in more detail how that could be overcome, if Milton CP is to be part of the open space provision for NEC. Extending the area of the country park would seem the only way to increase visitor capacity. Whilst the Wildlife Trust is aware of proposals for a new Sports Lake facility between Milton and Waterbeach, these proposals are outside the remit of this AAP, and it is unknown at this stage whether they will be developed, and whether they would provide the right kind of open space and recreation for the residents of NEC, as the proposals seem very focused on lake sports and rowing. Chesterton Fen could be used as part of a green network to link NEC to the wider landscape and provide residents with contact with nature. For example the creation of large ponds or a lake with reedbeds surrounded by a circular walk, hide, occasional viewing platforms, and a cycle route around the perimeter, which links to the River Cam, would certainly provide a more natural open space that cannot be delivered on site. However, the site is still relatively small, and as acknowledged in Policy 8, it is within the floodplain and does sometimes flood, meaning access to the area is likely to be confined to predetermined pathways / boardwalks. Whilst the Wildlife Trust agree that Chesterton Fen can be part of the solution, we cannot currently see how these three sites, as named in the policies, will deliver what is expected of an AAP with ambitions for creating a new city district which is ‘lively, active, low-carbon’. The lack of strategic natural greenspace is likely to displace visitor activity including dog walking and other recreational pursuits to other sites including SSSIs in an around Cambridge. There is also a danger that it will encourage car journeys for these activities. Further, there is already a historic deficit in provision of strategic natural greenspace, from developments between 2000 and 2020, which the Wildlife Trust estimates to be in the order of several hundred hectares (information available on request). As the Context and Objectives section states, the AAP wishes to deliver 8000 new homes. Natural England guidance for SANGS (Suitable Accessible Natural Green Space), which although devised to deal with recreational disturbance to European Protected Sites resulting from housing developments, does represent a useful tool for determining what might need to be delivered, in order for large new housing developments to avoid creating excessive pressure on existing areas of greenspace that are valued for their biodiversity. This guidance recommends 8ha of suitable, accessible natural green space per 1000 new residents. For NEC then, this would equate to 144ha of such green space, to be delivered in order to ensure residents have sufficient space and variety of space to use such that they are not likely to frequently travel to other existing sites for activities such as dog walking and exercise. Without the delivery of a more substantial and ambitious green space, the development of NEC, at the scale proposed, risks putting additional pressure on existing wildlife sites, and this effect is not likely to be solely confined to the city of Cambridge, but could extend to other areas such as Wicken Fen, Fulbourn Fen and Wilbraham Fen, and the woodland SSSIs west of Cambridge, which are already experiencing disturbance and degradation of habitats. Furthermore, requiring residents to drive to access green space seems in contradiction with the stated aim of a low carbon community. Given that Policy 5 (addressed in more detail in Q. 8) states ‘Development shall avoid having any adverse impact on the nature conservation value of….City Wildlife Sites and Country Parks… other areas of natural or semi-natural sites within or adjacent to North East Cambridge’ the Wildlife Trust would query how indirect impacts on such sites can be avoided when so little green space would be delivered from the current policy wording. The Wildlife Trust believe that more new green space is needed, whether this be through a significant extension of Milton Country Park, or a nearby alternative area with significant space, which links, or can be linked sustainably, to the NEC district. This should be reflected in the policy wording to ensure it is taken forward and addressed.

Neutral

No comment

Mostly not

There's a need for larger areas of open space both within and outside the development.

Mostly not

The complete omission of equestrians from the non-motorised user transport and travel sections needs to be corrected. The Peterborough and Cambridgeshire Local Transport/Travel Policy and government Active Transport/Travel Plan both formally state that non-motorised users are walkers, cyclists and equestrians, not just walkers and cyclists. The Greater Cambridge Partnership Greenways initiative is to deliver high quality non-motorised user routes for walkers, cyclists and equestrians. There are many equestrians in and around Cambridge city and its rural surrounds on all sides. Horses live within the city confines and are regularly ridden across, through and around it. Wherever your documents and consultations reference "walker and cyclists", that needs to be amended to "walkers, cyclists and equestrians". Your map 2.1.3 shows Mere Way as a "non-surfaced off road cycle route". This is incorrect. It is a Public Byway and therefore open to walkers, cyclists, equestrians (ridden and driven) and unless there is a wet season closure gate on it, it is also open to motorised traffic too. The Chisholm Trail project underway should be usable by equestrians as well as cyclists and walkers. All three groups are vulnerable and need safe routes across the city. The Genome Trail path from Shelford to Addenbrookes should be open to equestrians. The open spaces need to be open to use by equestrians as well as walkers and cyclists. Your open spaces should include allotment spaces (plenty of them) for householders to rent too.

Mostly not

There should be a much larger provision for internal green space in a development of this capacity, including outdoor sporting facilities. Whilst there is access to nearby Milton park this does not have the area or facilities to support the currently proposed 20,000 additional people on its doorstep.

Mostly not

No answer given

Not at all

Far more open spaces are required. The towpath is already at capacity with cyclists, walkers and joggers all trying to avoid each other. If Milton Country Park is expanded that would help but more public open space is needed within the development for people to walk and children to play. Only 10 hectares of public space makes this a very undesirable place to live which will affect residents' mental health.

Not at all

Milton Country Park is already often very busy, getting crowded when the weather is good. The proposed new open spaces are tiny, given how many people will be living in the area. There is far too little public open space in this proposal.

Not at all

How can you increase biodiversity AND access, while building a new city? Reduce parking space at station and at homes, disallow cars and double the amount of green space while simultaneously reducing traffic!

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

No answer given

Neutral

There is not enough information to provide further comments.

Mostly yes

You need to extend milton country park up to waterbeach to deal with your proposed increase of residents

Mostly not

The amount of public open space seems woefully inadequate compared to the number of households. Your consultation draws comparisons between the size of the Proposed Linear Park and Proposed Cowley Triangle Park (total 9.6 ha) with other small open spaces in Cambridge such as Parker's Piece. However a more meaningful comparison would be with Coldham's common (49 ha), Sheeps Green and Coe Fen (17 ha), Jesus Green etc which other areas of the city benefit from. Milton Country Park is already very well utilised by existing residents / workers in the area and increasing the capacity of Milton Country park will be detrimental to the quality of the space. Access to Chesterton Fen is great for the eastern end of the site, but I note that this seems to fall outside the boundary of the development, so is it guaranteed that it will be made accessible? The western end of the site looks to have no provision AT ALL except for the linear space in the science park. Linear parks are good for biodiversity and should be retained in the plan, but are not of any use for leisure activities such as team sports, and if they are the only space available would lead to contention between those wishing to relax quietly in the green space and those using it for excercise.

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly not

Green spaces and verges alongside transport routes and small neighbourhood greens and playspaces are welcome to help all residents boost their health and wellbeing. However, these do not displace the need for larger areas of open space both within and outside the development – some of this could include an expansion of Milton Country Park which will benefit from better cycling and walking links.