Question 7

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

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 The plan makes provision for just 10 hectares of public space (around the same size as Jesus Green). For 18,000 people to share, this equates to 5.5m2 per person, a horribly small amount. For comparison, the new development at Trumpington Meadows has 3,500 homes and 90 hectares of public space. The plan assumes that as an alternative to space on the site, people will be able to use neighbouring open spaces such as the Stourbridge Common, the towpath, and Milton Country Park. All of these spaces are already well used, and the representative from MCP who sat on the Community Forum reported that MCP is already at capacity and cannot accommodate more visitors. 1 hectare of new, high quality nature-rich green space must be provided for every 40 dwellings, in line with the provisions at the Trumpington Meadows development. Some of this could include an expansion of Milton Country Park which must also benefit from better cycling and walking links.

Mostly not

I like the idea of green spaces being included at the sides of the carriageways (e.g. to separate cycleways / footways). Playspaces throughout are also a good idea. However, this part of the city already lacks green space - in particular we lack access to it. The river is wonderful but the towpath is already overwhelmed by the number of walkers and cyclists; this prevents more vulnerable people using it. If you were to commit to alternative motor vehicle access between Chesterton Fen and the rest of the city (by closing the rail crossing on Fen Road), then you would open up Fen Road as a quiet, safe route for walkers and cyclists to access the Chisholm Trail, Stourbridge Common and the city along the river. There is also a suggestion that NECAAP could include a biodiverse corridor to Waterbeach which would include active travel routes to the new sport lakes facility.

Not at all

This is simply outrageous. Simply not enough open space both shared and individually allocated. The open space for the housing is totally inadequate for the type of building you are proposing. What sort of future is this for young families? No gardens and forced to rely on open space not near their homes. Parents of young children need gardens, yes a trip to the park is a nice feature but it cannot compensate for open space outside the kitchen window where children can play unsupervised. You are attempting to mitigate this shortfall by 'borrowing' open space from nearby which is not acceptable. Open space should be on site and not outsourced by section 106 payments that are often in the past squandered in upgrades to existing facilities that should be properly maintained in the first instance from revenue funds. In any event the nearby opens spaces proposed are poor and in one instance a threatening environment. Milton County park is to be blunt, grotty. A muddy area round abandoned pits. Near a major road with constant noise. The local authority have outsourced the management and handed it over to a volunteer group and site is litter strewn mess. As for Chesterton Fen this idea was clearly conjured up by people who are not from Cambridge or they would know local people avoid this area due to the high levels of crime. No increase in biodiversity is going to change the fact that this area is subject to dreadful levels of anti social behaviour including physical threats against anyone who dares to complain, as the residents of Fen Road and East Chesterton constantly testify in the local paper.

Not at all

This is simply outrageous. Simply not enough open space both shared and individually allocated. The open space for the housing is totally inadequate for the type of building you are proposing. What sort of future is this for young families? No gardens and forced to rely on open space not near their homes. Parents of young children need gardens, yes a trip to the park is a nice feature but it cannot compensate for open space outside the kitchen window where children can play unsupervised. You are attempting to mitigate this shortfall by 'borrowing' open space from nearby which is not acceptable. Open space should be on site and not outsourced by section 106 payments that are often in the past squandered in upgrades to existing facilities that should be properly maintained in the first instance from revenue funds. In any event the nearby opens spaces proposed are poor and in one instance a threatening environment. Milton County park is to be blunt, grotty. A muddy area round abandoned pits. Near a major road with constant noise. The local authority have outsourced the management and handed it over to a volunteer group and site is litter strewn mess. As for Chesterton Fen this idea was clearly conjured up by people who are not from Cambridge or they would know local people avoid this area due to the high levels of crime. No increase in biodiversity is going to change the fact that this area is subject to dreadful levels of anti social behaviour including physical threats against anyone who dares to complain, as the residents of Fen Road and East Chesterton constantly testify in the local paper.

Mostly not

Camcycle supports new green spaces along key walking and cycling routes and plans for a 3.5m landscaped verge (this should be the minimum) between the carriageway and cycleway on primary streets. We also support small neighbourhood greens and playspaces throughout the development so that every resident is able to access a green space area on foot and those without individual gardens have such places nearby to benefit their physical and mental health. Better cycling and walking links to existing green spaces will help residents of all ages and abilities connect with the natural world and boost their wellbeing; however spaces in this area of the city, such as Milton Country Park, are already overstretched. We agree with Cambridge Past, Present and Future that there is need for a significant large open space within the development and 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. We also note 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

This is a key concern for me. The planned 10 hectares of green space seems woefully inadequate for 18,500 people and is much lower than what is required by the Cambridge Local Plan. I am also very concerned at the apparent assumption that Milton Country Park will be able to take on extra visitors. As a resident of Milton and near-daily visitor to the Park I know how heavily it is used already and how overcrowded it can become at peak times. I support Cambridge Sport Lakes’ plans to expand the park to create a strategic green corridor between North Cambridge and Waterbeach. Even if this does go ahead, more green space is needed within NE Cambridge

Neutral

This isn't much green space.

Mostly not

strongly support response from Camcycle

Mostly not

No answer given

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”. We 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 would like to see more 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

Insufficient green space is proposed for such a large development.

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. Access to green spaces south of the development should be improved, specifically access to Ditton Meadows and Stourbridge common. Access to these areas are currently inhibited due to safety issues along Fen Road and overcrowding on the river path and Green Dragon bridge.

Mostly not

Milton Country Park will not be able to cope with the numbers you are talking about and the other spaces seem very small in comparison.

Mostly not

We support new green spaces along key walking and cycling routes and plans for a 3.5m landscaped verge (this should be the minimum) between the carriageway and cycleway on primary streets. We also support small neighbourhood greens and playspaces throughout the development so that every resident is able to access a green space area on foot and those without individual gardens have such places nearby to benefit their physical and mental health. Better cycling and walking links to existing green spaces will help residents of all ages and abilities connect with the natural world and boost their well-being; however spaces in this area of the city, such as Milton Country Park, are already overstretched. We agree with Cambridge Past, Present and Future that there is need for a significant large open space within the development and support Milton Country Park’s suggestion to expand the amount of green space north of the village with a bio-diverse corridor to Waterbeach (including cycleways) which could include a new Sport Lakes facility. We also note 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

I find the proposed green spaces absolutely inadequate considering how many homes are planned for the area! The plan surely looks well-optimised for maximum developer profits and for the council to make as much money from taxes as possible, ignoring the quality of life in the re-developed area. What I find particularly insulting is how the plan suggests people living in NE Cambridge will be using the Milton Country Park, which is already at capacity, so that more 13-storey buildings can be packed in the area. It feels the plan in its current state isn't going to contribute anything at all to make the area a nice place to live while at the same time will have an extremely negative effect on the Milton Country Park for the nearby communities. Such a shame that an innovative city like Cambridge has come up with such a short-sighted proposal.

Not at all

Pathetic, cynical greenwash - there isn't a vision for biodiversity here, nor is there sufficient green space of any real wild value.

Not at all

Not remotely enough green space for the intended level of new residents

Mostly not

Although broadly supporting the principles put forward in NECAAP, I OBJECT to your proposed provision of mix of public open spaces in NE Cambridge. The quantity is too small for the density. The mix allocates some space required for other uses such as green roofs v solar power or biodiversity v public access. You allude to use of Milton Country Park and Chesterton Fen but these are in use already so should be excluded from the mix.

Not at all

There is not nearly enough open, green, public space. The analogy to the areas of e.g. Parkers Piece shows how mean and skimpy it is. Recreation, open space, nature and relaxation are obviously important. So is having green space that can absorb rainfall, so not all just runs off hard surfaces. Including Milton Country Park in the plan seems wrong - it is not part of the scheme, and shouldn't be used to imply that

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

The green spaces planned for this area do not seem adequate. Especially since much of the new accommodation are flats. Much is made of the proximity of Milton County Park but this is not enough to serve a new community of this size as well as the communities north of the A14 that already make full use of it.

Not at all

Milton Country Park is already heavily used and should not be included in the mix of public open spaces for NE Cambridge. More open space should be include in the NE Cambridge area itself in order to provide the needed mix of public open spaces. Improved access to Milton Country Park and Chesterton Fee is more than welcome but should not substitute for open space within the development itself.

Mostly yes

Water-wise choices will be critical - this is already the driest part of the country and building on land that's been compacted by years of bulldozer development will not encourage greenery to grow. The City Council's recent trend to wild flower planting is an excellent example to continue and (pardon the pun) grow on! Furthermore choosing grass types that do not require much (any) water to remain alive and green will help as well as involving local residents at a community volunteer level as early as possible. The Tree Canopy project should also be involved. Recent developments outside of the city (literally anywhere in the country) are all too often great examples of minimum thought, zero care, plant and forget... Leaving withered ugly shrubs, trees and dusty squares more reminiscent of central Africa than England.

Not at all

DEFINATELY NOT!!!

Yes, completely

No answer given

Neutral

Open spaces should allow for a range of ‘occasional’ events that will help support community activities and sporting events. The use of open space by all ages needs to be considered and where appropriate facilities to promote their use provided. Policy 8 captures this in part but could be more explicit to ensure this is not overlooked when designing open spaces. It is important to reflect on the value of open space since the Covid-19 pandemic. Access to sufficient open space of a high quality, particularly for residents in apartments, for which there is a high proportion proposed for NEC, is essential.

Not at all

Detailed comment about food production in NEC: There are a number of paras. in the consultation pointing towards a need for food production within NEC. For example: "a self-sustaining place" (Strategic objectives, 2.2.3) "apply principles used by the NHS Healthy New Towns (Putting Health First)." (Strategic objectives, 2.2.4). These principles include "Provide access to affordable healthy food and food growing." (Principle 6.2) I note that "Regard will need to be had to the Cambridge City local standards of provision of all relevant types of open space (see Cambridge Local Plan 2018....Our expectation is that all open space requirements will be met on-site." (Policy 8 Open spaces for recreation and sport) Cambridge City Local Plan 2018, Appendix I: Open Space and Recreation Standards, para I.2 states that "Policy 68 requires that all residential developments should contribute to the provision of open space and recreation sites/facilities in accordance with the council's Open Space and Recreation Standards.". The City's standard for allotments is 0.4 hectares (1 acre) per 1,000 people (Table I.1) which applies "to all schemes for new residential developments and the requirement is based on the net number of residents accommodated in the new development." Para I.9 states "Provision for new allotments should be made in the existing built-up area of the city and for urban extensions." Paras I.10 & I.11 clarify that this standard applies to all new non-specialist housing other than student housing. Conclusion: The number of residents to be accommodated in the NEC development is 18,000. Therefore (if these are all in non-specialist housing) 7.2 hectares (18 acres) of new allotments should be provided. Further, Cambridge City Local Plan 2018, Policies 18 & 20, relating to specific large developments, state that allotments are one of the land uses necessary for the creation of a sustainable and vibrant community. I asked about provision of allotments in NEC at a recent online presentation (by the way, thanks to the planning team for doing these online sessions - more please!). Answers from the officer Matt Paterson focussed instead on community gardens, education and amenity. And roof gardens, for heaven's sake! (Roofs will never produce much food, and may be better used for siting solar panels.) There was no indication of allotments at all, let alone an area in acres. There is one mention of a required "community garden" (Policy 14) in the draft plan for NEC. While I welcome such a feature, let no one be misled that a planned community garden (CG) offers any significant contribution to food production. There is no indication of the area of such a CG (and with only 10 ha. of open space in all, mostly already laid out, there is not a lot of room available amid multiple competing needs). And even though a CG could produce some food, there is a no guarantee that this will be the main use of the space or even that any food will be grown there at all. Moreover the very notion of top-down CG provision is questionable: the only example I know of is at Clay Farm, and this has been beset by multiple problems, it is still mostly unused, has no plan and is still not under council control, 10 years after work started to deliver it. The way to deliver significant food growing potential in a new development is to provide allotments. Everyone knows what they are for, there is a well-established culture, and looking around Cambridge's existing 40 ha. of allotments there is no shortage of people willing to volunteer to manage them (on sites of sufficient size - over 1 ha.). Having created an allotment site, it is of course a suitable location for a CG to thrive alongside the individual tenants. Successful local examples include Empty Common Community Garden within the Empty Common allotment site, the community tree nursery within the Elfleda Road allotment site, and the Cambridge Cyrenians allotment project. The NEC development with 18,000 residents will need significant food growing provision especially given the absence of allotments in nearby Orchard Park and the full allotment sites with long waiting lists at the 4 nearest sites Nuffield Road, Histon Road, Pakenham Close (Union Lane) and Kendall Way. What usable food-growing area (in the ground, not planned community gardens and not roofs) will there be within NEC?

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

The plan mentions Milton Country Park, which is already at capacity - see https://www.miltoncountrypark.org/blog/2020/9/23/its-now-or-never-for-cambridge-country-park-and-sport-lakes. I believe that this should be discounted as it is outside of the planning area. It is farcical to include the First Public Drain as a park on any level, it is merely an overgrown path side and offers none of the true facilities of an open public space. Further provision should be made within the area for truly open spaces. If the proposed building heights are pushed through then open space within the area will be absolutely key for mental and physical health of residents. To include the open space within the science park is hardly accurate, it would be just as valid to count any unrelated open space such as Parkers Piece and state that residents will have access to that. The plan simply does not include anywhere near enough open space for the proposed immense increase in local population.