Question 7

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

No answer given

Not at all

The provision for public open space is ludicrously small. With 10 hectares proposed on a development for 18,000 people, this surely must go against the normal allowance in planning. In the south of Cambridge, Trumpington Meadows has 3,500 homes and 90 hectares of public space – why is the north of Cambridge once again being deprived of decent provision? In this time of Covid19, it has been demonstrated that open space near to home is needed – it shouldn’t be assumed that people living there should have to travel to other areas for recreation and nature.

Mostly not

I love the idea of the linear park, but I don't think this displaces the need for larger areas of open green space within the site itself - the nearby park on Green End Road is a good example of an area which includes playspace, areas for football and basketball and outdoor exercise equipment along with plenty of trees and I'd like to see more spaces of this size. In addition to the green high street and playspaces, I'd also like to see a huge amount of planting wherever possible - green walls and roofs, edible bus stops, tree-lined streets. I think this will be essential to tackle and mitigate against climate change. Schools should also have plenty of green open space for sports and leisure as well as activities such as gardening and Forest School. I would welcome an expansion of Milton Country Park and improvements to existing and green open spaces such as the Halingway towpath by the river but this should be on top of the highest-quality open spaces within the AAP site. I'd also like to see better access for all to the green spaces within the Science Park and a green bridge across Milton Road - I think this whole area needs to be transformed so that it no longer feels like a concreate barrier of motor traffic.

Mostly not

As the population density is too great - the open space areas are not synonymous

Not at all

I am very concerned at the apparent lack of open space in the plans. According to the Cambridge Local Plan (https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/media/6890/local-plan-2018.pdf), the standard for new developments is 2.2 hectares of informal open space per 1000 residents (in addition to other types of open space such as sports facilities). The 18,500 people to be housed in North East Cambridge should therefore have at least 41 hectares of informal open space. However, only 10 hectares of public parks and squares are set out in the plans, which seems at odds with the statement that “our expectation is that all open space requirements will be met on-site”. I note that North East Cambridge will be connected to existing open spaces outside of the development area, notably Milton Country Park and Chesterton Fen, and that access, capacity and biodiversity are to be ‘improved’ at these sites. I question the feasibility of this aim: the plan to improve both biodiversity and access on limited parcels of land seems likely to result in conflict. Milton Country Park in particular is already often at capacity and other developments (particularly Waterbeach New Town) are set to increase visitor pressure. I broadly support Cambridge Sport Lakes’ plans to expand the park to create a strategic green corridor between North Cambridge and Waterbeach (as set out at https://edition.pagesuite.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=e1813ee5-0168-4fb0-acb2-6c6b798ffa26). I agree with Green Party policy which encourages community involvement in food growing, for example allotments and community orchards. The plans for North East Cambridge do not appear to provide much opportunity for residents to grow food. If food growing would be unsafe because of the site’s history as a sewage treatment works, this should be made clear.

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

The green spaces shown are too small for the amount of people proposed. They are just green strips inbewteen Tower Blocks, none of them feel like a park or open space.

Mostly yes

A provide well-lit access path though Bramblefields Nature reserve to Cambridge North would connect the houses off Fen Road including estates at Issac Walton Way, Cheney Way and surrounding are to guided busway. The current access is currently via narrow paths unsuitable for social distancing, shared use or significant increase in foot traffic and though Discovery Way estate. A direct route with associated work to open up Bramblefields to provider a lighter, safer nature reserve would not only provide residents with better access to new facilities but also go some way to deter current anti-social behaviour including drug-use, country line dealing and the occasional motorbike on the footpath. This could be combined with a much needed restoration of the play area which appears neglected and vandalized.

Not at all

I am very concerned at the apparent lack of open space in the plans. According to the Cambridge Local Plan (https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/media/6890/local-plan-2018.pdf), the standard for new developments is 2.2 hectares of informal open space per 1000 residents (in addition to other types of open space such as sports facilities). The 18,500 people to be housed in North East Cambridge should therefore have at least 41 hectares of informal open space. However, only 10 hectares of public parks and squares are set out in the plans, which seems at odds with the statement that “our expectation is that all open space requirements will be met on-site”. I note that North East Cambridge will be connected to existing open spaces outside of the development area, notably Milton Country Park and Chesterton Fen, and that access, capacity and biodiversity are to be ‘improved’ at these sites. I question the feasibility of this aim: the plan to improve both biodiversity and access on limited parcels of land seems likely to result in conflict. Milton Country Park in particular is already often at capacity and other developments (particularly Waterbeach New Town) are set to increase visitor pressure. I broadly support Cambridge Sport Lakes’ plans to expand the park to create a strategic green corridor between North Cambridge and Waterbeach (as set out at https://edition.pagesuite.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=e1813ee5-0168-4fb0-acb2-6c6b798ffa26). I agree with Green Party policy which encourages community involvement in food growing, for example allotments and community orchards. The plans for North East Cambridge do not appear to provide much opportunity for residents to grow food. If food growing would be unsafe because of the site’s history as a sewage treatment works, this should be made clear.

Mostly not

How will the capacity of Milton Country Park be increased? I would say, the more green spaces that can be provided the better. I think that the schools and the early years centres should have green spaces included within those. I don't think the green belt land lost in the relocation of the waste water treatment plant will be made up for with the provision of public open spaces suggested here.

Mostly not

No answer given

Not at all

not enough ground open space for families The idea of a green corridor isn't suitable for them either.

Not at all

See my responses to Q1. There are not enough public spaces, it is too linear, and there is too much reliance on existing overstretched spaces. 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.

Not at all

The small amount of planned open space will in no way compensate for the terrible loss of open space caused by moving the sewage works to green belt land.

Not at all

Your proposals for open space are LAUGHABLE given the urban density proposed. Linear parks are no substitute of real open space. A "green High Street" will not be open space at all given the density of the surrounding areas.

Mostly not

I feel there should be a large park that can be used for community events, such as outdoor performances, and that would have enough space for ball games, dog walking, cycling etc. to happen in the same place. Nun's Way Recreation ground and King's Hedges park are excellent and should have something similar in the new development. I support in addition though the existing proposals for green space and would not want to remove these in favour of a large park.

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.

Not at all

No. Public open spaces which are nationally protected in the form of the greenbelt will be destroyed by the relocation of the sewage works and areas that are already extensively used for leisure and amenity will be lost the scheme relies on green areas outside the development zone. The extent of the high density of housing will not provide significant good quality public open spaces. There is little improvement on the amount of green space already available.

Not at all

The amount of open spaces fall significantly short of the councils own policy requirement, particularly with the already very short supply in the surrounding urban areas.

Mostly yes

We do not think that the open space provision is adequate for the volume of residents that is planned. We are very supportive of the facilities at Milton Country Park and the proposed Cambridge Country Park and Sport Lakes being utilised as part of the solution to this issue.

Mostly not

Green spaces and verges alongside transport routes and small neighbourhood greens are a good idea. However, these do not remove the need for larger areas of open space, for instance an expansion of Milton Country Park..

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

No. I am very concerned at the apparent lack of open space in the plans. According to Cambridge Local Plan the standard for new developments is 2.2 hectares of informal open space per 1000 residents (in addition to other types of open space such as sports facilities). The 18,500 people proposed to be housed in the North East Cambridge site should therefore have at least 41 hectares of informal open space. However, only 10 hectares of public parks and squares are set out in the plans, which seems at odds with the statement in the Local Plan that ‘our expectation is that all open space requirements will be met on-site’.

Mostly not

Given the large scale of the development and the already overstreched open spaces at Milton Country Park and along the river, the development needs to allow for significant extra areas of open space. Cambridge is lucky to have large areas of common land along the river further into town, and additonal areas of greenspace are a large scale are required in and around the development

Not at all

The provision of public space for the number of dwellings is shocking. Given the experience of Covid, access to outdoor space is vital. Trumpington Meadows has 90 hectares of public space for 3500 dwellings in comparison.

Neutral

If, as you say you will, you support the increased space and capacity of Milton Country Park, and improve access to the wider countryside then yes. Without this the size and number of green additions will not meet the needs of new residents and I fear for the health of a community without this green buffer and the recreational opportunities it can provide.

Not at all

Completely wrong. 10 hectares of dedicated green space is not nearly enough, especially post Covid. What little there is is too linear, and too much reliance is placed on the ability of areas such as Milton Country Park, already at capacity, to absorb more use. The Science Park is most unlikely to welcome being treated as a public open space, so more land must now be designated, such as Chesterton Fen. Much more needs to be done on this. The current proposal is wholly inadequate, especially alongside the excessive height and density of buildings, with virtually all proposed accommodation being in flats in multi-storey blocks. This all adds up to a very poor quality of life, and is the antithesis of what should be envisaged. It is shameful and insulting to the ethos of Cambridge and shows deep ignorance.

Mostly yes

Where are the allotments? Given that apartment buildings will not have gardens there will be a major deficit of space where people can get hands on with soil and living things. This is vital for mental health.

Neutral

No answer given