Question 7

Mostly not

I support - new green spaces along key walking and cycling routes - plans for a 3.5m landscaped verge between the carriageway and cycleway on primary streets. - small neighbourhood greens and playspaces throughout the development for residents - good cycling and walking links to existing green spaces However, Milton Country Park is already overused The area needs a lot more open space within the development. I support Milton Country Park’s suggestion to expand the amount of green space north of the village with a biodiverse corridor to Waterbeach (including cycleways) which could include a new Sport Lakes facility.

Not at all

Not enough, too linear and over-reliance on existing provision in Milton Country Park and Science Park.

Not at all

Not enough detail on how Milton Country Park access and capacity can be increased. Size is finite and insufficient for this increased number of residents. Same applies to Chesterton Fen. Cowley Triangle – green space cannot compensate for private space loss in high density blocks. Green space cannot compensate for loss of greenbelt caused by relocation of WWTP.

Mostly not

More is needed for the proposed number of new residents. People (adults and children) living in flats need much access to outdoor space - including parks, playgrounds and more wild places

Mostly not

Seems like the plan is to connect and use existing green/public/open spaces, rather than providing *new* spaces relative to the size of the development.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

You need to plan significant green space for this area, rather than expecting existing green spaces to cater for all these additional people. Milton country park is already at capacity. Cap the development to 2000 homes, drastically lower the density and create decent parks, recreation spaces and space for nature.

Not at all

They are far too small for the concentration of homes. Milton Country Park is already at capacity and should not be included in the plans.

Not at all

You must read the research that has just been published. People need wild "awesome" spaces. Tiny bits of grass which are used for dog walking cannot provide anyone with the space they need. You could create a new "country park" the size of Milton Country Park and it would still be overcrowded with the 8000 new people plus their dogs and families. If you chose to leave half of the site undeveloped as "wilderness space" and reduce the size of the population it would go someway towards meeting the needs of the population for their physical and mental health. As more people will be working from home larger green spaces and open countryside will be essential. Cambridgeshire does have important wildlife corridors, sites of special scientific interest, rare dragonflies, herds of wild deer .... You should look to see what can be done to protect these precious spaces before embarking on creating "pocket" spaces where no wildlife can live. The drawings you have produced create an image of an urban desert.

Not at all

Don’t connect to other green spaces. Make them pay and parcel of this development.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

Milton Country Park I already being used to its full capacity. Do you think that all of these people are going to come MCC. It will destroyed. It's being used enough as it is with the running. cycling and swimming. Please consider that this is first and foremost a wild life haven.

Not at all

Milton Country Park I already being used to its full capacity. Do you think that all of these people are going to come MCC. It will destroyed. It's being used enough as it is with the running. cycling and swimming. Please consider that this is first and foremost a wild life haven.

Not at all

These proposed open spaces are very limited in size, they don't have benefits of a proper park. These are just tiny green islands in the concrete jungle. Many many more green open/activity spaces are desperately needed to support wellbeing of the residents.

Neutral

It seems that there are lots of play areas for residents, but there is no large open space. It also seems that active travel routes along the river are likely to become more crowded; closing the level crossing to motor traffic (with alternative road access elsewhere) would open up Fen Road as a pleasant cycle route and free up space for people walking along the towpath.

Not at all

The amount of green space falls below that required by the City's local plan, and is pitifully low when compared to somewhere like Trumpington. The proposed green spaces are mostly long and thin. Visit Jesus Green on even a moderately warm day and you will see that it is pretty backed - there needs to be several spaces on at least that scale. The reliance on Milton Country Park is misleading. Milton Country Park is already at capacity - at the weekend the playground is usually crammed full, and the pathways are busy, especially during the very popular Park Runs. The Wild Place gets booked months in advance for parties etc. There is very little scope for it to absorb large numbers of extra users - and its existing popularity suggests that people do greatly value having a very large, varied space to visit.

Not at all

The homes density of this site means that there is nowhere near enough green spaces to accommodate even a fraction of the people you are planning to cram into this space.

Not at all

Milton Park is a sad place, reclaimed from quarrying for the A14...muddy, restricted use, it does not feel safe. Open space near addenbrookes developments look inadequate for number of occupants. Better to leave this site well alone.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly not

As noted in other parts of my response, I am concerned that the extent of ground level open space being provided is insufficient for a new neighbourhood, in reality a medium sized town, of say 16000 people. The key open spaces identified are mainly narrow linear spaces which follow movement corridors. Too much is made in the comparisons of the apparent scale of the linear park. It will on average be 80m wide and in places only 50m. Likewise, the Cowley Road Triangle is described as 'extensive'. when it will be no more than 70m in its smaller dimension. I have already commented on the need for outdoor sports provision (which has been completely ignored). No attempt has been made to identify potential allotment provision nor to integrate thinking about net gain in biodiversity with the open space offering. The latter will be very difficult to do effectively, given the focus on narrow linear open spaces.

Not at all

Not at all. The local Wildlife Trust have done great work in expanding the biodiversity on Stourbridge common which has enhanced the common, river bank and towpath. Unless a large open biodiverse area is allowed for the proposed 18,000 new residents of East Chesterton, the pressure on these existing historic and fragile edge of city areas will become too much. The people of the proposed new development will need space to run walk, play and be with nature: walking and jogging have greatly increased during lockdown. Token 'green spaces' which are mown grass and basically biodiverse deserts, will not meet the need of people or biodiversity... much more open wild space must be included in the plan and Milton Country park's suggestion of expanding the amount of truly green space to the North of the village to create a wildlife corridor to Waterbeach should be acted on.

Not at all

there is simply not enough greenspace in the plan for the volume of people. Milton country park is already at or over capacity without 20k additional people being told to use it as their back garden. Now more than even, people need access to outdoor space for recreation and exercise and these "pocket parks" just don't cut it. This is even more the case as highly biodiverse greenbelt land used by local communities for recreation and exercise is threatened due to the relocation of the sewage works and will be replaced by comparatively "sterile" and manicured play parks

Not at all

Chesteton Fen is not open space as it is not public access. I don't quite understand where this idea comes from; perhaps Google Maps which shows the area doesn't have any houses on it. The fields are grazed by horses and cattle. There is no public access. There is a path no more than 3m wide alongside the river which is already congested. If you are planning that everyone who lives there should use Milton Country Park, no-one on the planning team has ever visited that park on a summer weekend afternoon. It is full. If money was found to expand Milton Country Park to actually put into vision the rowing lake between Milton and Waterbeach, perhaps the poor benighted Milton residents would head north for recreation deserting the southern end of the park to the residents of this new area, despite the fact that for the very young and very old, it is actually too far for them to go. Is that is what is meant by "increasing capacity"? Or putting in extra benches? Most of Milton Country Park is inaccessible as it's water so you can't walk your dog on it. The paths are quite narrow and the areas to the sides of the paths are supposed to be for wildlife. I guess you could chop all the trees down in the park and grass it all over; that would "increase capacity". Also you need parks in the middle of residential areas (think the Coleridge Recreation Ground) not far-flung on the edges. People don't make a journey to a park. If' it's a 20+ minute walk, they'll get in their car and drive to somewhere nicer for half an hour. Has the coronavirus lockdown not told us even more strongly that people a) need some private open space and b) need open space near their homes. In the "permitted hour of exercise" in March/April, residents of this area would have been lucky to have had 15 minutes in Milton Country Park before trudging back over the A14 and home to avoid falling foul of the rules.

Neutral

Milton Country Park already gets busy. The car park fills and the cafe has long queues at busy times. Are they on board for this huge increase in people wanting to access them? Will you provide additional resources eg an additional cafe and more parking?

Not at all

This plan includes only 10 hectares of public space. This is the size of Jesus Green and equates only to 5.5 sq m per person. Other recent developments in Cambridge have a much higher ratio of space to residents. Nearby open spaces will not accommodate the influx and use by 18,000 more people.

Mostly not

Green spaces and verges alongside transport routes and small neighbourhood greens and play spaces 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. The plan makes provision for just 10 hectares of public space for 8000 homes. For comparison the new development at Trumpington Meadows has 3500 homes and 90 hectares of public space.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly not

No, I'm afraid not. It all reads well but given the number of residents I don't think the open space allocation is sufficient. The experience of Covid 19 has been that getting out into the open is vital to good health and well-being and it won't be easy here. I very much approve of the design requirement for 5m2 pp of private outdoor space and I'd hope that this would be achieved wherever possible by balconies for all apartments, but there is still a need for more accessible open space. How will Chesterton Fen be used? What improvements are proposed? And at what stage in the development will the bridge to CF and the tunnel to Milton Country ParK be provided?