Question 8

Mostly not

If the rest of North Cambridge is anything to go by, then it will be soon forgotten.

Neutral

A green bridge across the a14 would allow wildlife to move between spaces. It is unclear how the biodiversity will be improved. The use of a mixture of canopy heights, native species and flower meadows would be preferable to the manicured look of the science park.

Not at all

To suggest that such a development will aid biodiversity is disingenuous if it relies upon relocating the Waste Water Treatment Works to a exiting biodiverse area within the Green Belt.

Neutral

In my experience there are always good intentions but these types of initiatives are not maintained properly and become un-cared for areas covered in weeds and nettles

Neutral

In my experience there are always good intentions but these types of initiatives are not maintained properly and become un-cared for areas covered in weeds and nettles

Not at all

See question 7 your just playing at it.

Not at all

Just make the development all green space with lots of biodiversity.

Neutral

I don't know

Mostly not

No answer given

Neutral

Lots of fine words about intentions. The scale of construction proposed must have a negative impact on the biodiversity in the area. Not sure if can predict there will be a 10% increase in Biodiveristy.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

The negative impact on flora and fauna caused by the construction of this development cannot be reversed. The sites proposed for the relocation of the WWTP are partly or wholely Green Belt. This will be destroyed, so that the development can be constructed. This will have a massive negative effect on the biodiversity of those areas. To suggest that this development is good for biodiversity is therefore totally disingenuous.

Mostly not

No answer given

Not at all

To aim to hit the minimum target set nationally betrays a woeful lack of ambition. We know that biodiversity is plummeting nationally and globally. It is pitiful that you are seeking to get away with as little as possible. You say yourself that "In May 2019 Cambridge City Council declared a Biodiversity Emergency. South Cambridgeshire District Council has also set out a commitment to double the existing area of rich wildlife habitats, tree cover and accessible green space within the District." I cannot see evidence as to how this development contributes to a doubling of existing areas for biodiversity. You should be ashamed.

Mostly not

Not enough green space

Mostly not

Not enough green space. Why is north Cambridge treated worse than south Cambridge? We already have a paucity of green space and you are doing nothing to improve the situation.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

It is important that existing havens for biodiversity in the area (such as those alongside the guided busway and Cowley Road cycle and walking routes) are safeguarded as well as additional measures undertaken to increase biodiversity across the site. We recommend that the land area used to build new cycleways needed by the development is matched by a similar sized area of land improved to increase biodiversity, either within the district or at sites nearby.

Mostly not

The 10% target is woefully inadequate. The aim across the Cambridgeshire region is 100% and this development should be in line with this. Eddington is a good example of the ambition that should be displayed.

Not at all

The target of 10% is seriously inadequate. Also not in line with the regional target of doubling it. It seems very inadequate compared to what has happened in Eddington. It needs to be seriously rethought in order to be adequate.

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly not

Your existing plans sound great but you've not made clear how existing footfall to Milton CP will be managed. Nor have you discussed the impact of relocating waste water treatment works - one of the suggested sites impacts on a biodiversity SSSI Wicken Fen which would have a much greater negative impact on biodiversity than would be balanced by any of the initiatives you propose here.

Mostly not

No answer given

Not at all

More needs to be done. More parks and larger area of open space are needed. People will not have gardens and open space is vital for well being. The open space in North Cambridge is already much lower than elsewhere in Cambridge, this many people moving to the area will impact the existing open space. Allotments are also very important for well being.

Mostly not

Consultation: Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan To Greater Cambridge Planning The Re-siting of Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant and Vision Q8 Are we doing enough to improve biodiversity in and around North East Cambridge? I am writing to support the re-siting of Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant otherwise know as Cambridge Sewage Works. It is the only sustainable option for this plant and site and integral to the whole North East Cambridge Area Action Plan. We cannot continue to ignore the rights of future generations. The re-siting of the sewage treatment plant has been necessary, discussed and delayed for tens of years, even before the need for additional housing was as acute as it is now. None of the 3 sites in consideration, if developed, will result in real discernible negative impacts other than traffic disruption during construction. We should be able to accept this bearing in mind the long term gains. Because I live in Great Wilbraham I wish to make a specific comment about the Honey Hill site. I imagine those living closer to the other two sites might mention the Roman Road. Improvements to Chesterton Fen are considered in the Draft document. If Honey Hill is chosen there will be about 1% loss of the area included in the Wicken Fen 100 year project. This too should be acceptable given the gains associated with the proposal. However the opportunity to extend the Wicken Fen 100 year project area, to more than mitigate the 1% loss of land, by including the remaining fenland to the South of the A14 and A1303, in the Wilbrahams, Fulbourn and Teversham might be investigated. The creation of a more sizeable wildlife corridor, than is currently the case, along the course of Little Wilbraham River might be deemed necessary, and would be costly, for this to be effective. However, in the scale of costs and benefits for the whole North East Cambridge Area Action Plan, the sewage plant re-siting, additional housing, and the Wicken Fen 100 year project, the result would be hugely positive,

Neutral

Green corridors to north of A14 needed.

Not at all

I do not believe you care about biodiversity at all; if you did then you would minimise the impact of developing north-east Cambridge on biodiversity by keeping the sewage works where it is, upgrading it, and developing the remaining land. The misguided idea of relocating the works to an area on the Green Belt, particularly to Site 3 at Honey Hill at the gateway to the Wicken Fen Vision, is a disgrace and is totally unacceptable. We all know how much biodiversity has already been lost across the UK and in this year of the pandemic we have learn, through visiting the remaining green biodiverse areas near our homes, how precious this measure of environmental quality is. Anglian Water has carried out a consultation on your behalf but individually and collectively Greater Cambridge Shared Planning will be held to account by all of us who care about the environment of north-east Cambridge should you proceed with your reckless and destructive Plan. Shame on you.

Not at all

The negative impact on flaura and fauna caused by this construction will never be undone. The greenbelt site chosen for the relocation of the WWTP to enable this development will never recover. Moving the WWTP to Greenbelt just to allow this to project to go ahead due to receiving governement funding is the worst possible decision. Please rethink.

Mostly yes

No answer given