Question 8

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

I welcome the stated aim of biodiversity net gain, but 10% is not enough. Natural Cambridgeshire (a partnership of which Cambridge City Council and Cambridgeshire County Councils are members) has set a target to double the area of land in Cambridgeshire that is managed for nature. While an increase of 10% is the target for NE Cambridge, I am concerned that the aims and aspirations for biodiversity improvements will not actually be delivered by developers. Phrases such as “where an adverse impact on biodiversity is unavoidable, this shall be minimised as far as possible and appropriate measurable mitigation provided” can provide loopholes if a developer is looking for them. As discussed in our answer to question 7, I am concerned that there are potentially conflicting objectives for Milton Country Park and Chesterton Fen. Increasing access to and use of an area often has detrimental effects on biodiversity (for example disturbance, trampling of ground cover, litter). Cambridgeshire as a county has one of the smallest proportions of land managed for nature in the country (according to Natural Cambridgeshire). Biodiversity targets cannot be achieved by intensifying the use of existing green space: we need to radically increase the area managed for biodiversity. As mentioned, 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).

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly yes

Seems ok

Not at all

I welcome the stated aim of biodiversity net gain, but 10% is not enough. Natural Cambridgeshire (a partnership of which Cambridge City Council and Cambridgeshire County Councils are members) has set a target to double the area of land in Cambridgeshire that is managed for nature. While an increase of 10% is the target for NE Cambridge, I am concerned that the aims and aspirations for biodiversity improvements will not actually be delivered by developers. Phrases such as “where an adverse impact on biodiversity is unavoidable, this shall be minimised as far as possible and appropriate measurable mitigation provided” can provide loopholes if a developer is looking for them. As discussed in our answer to question 7, I am concerned that there are potentially conflicting objectives for Milton Country Park and Chesterton Fen. Increasing access to and use of an area often has detrimental effects on biodiversity (for example disturbance, trampling of ground cover, litter). Cambridgeshire as a county has one of the smallest proportions of land managed for nature in the country (according to Natural Cambridgeshire). Biodiversity targets cannot be achieved by intensifying the use of existing green space: we need to radically increase the area managed for biodiversity. As mentioned, 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).

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly not

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. It would help if 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. Trumpington development with 3,500 homes has 90 hectares of designated public green space (Trumpington Meadows and Hobson’s Park). The NE Cambridge proposal with 8,000 homes has 10 hectares. Trumpington has 20 times more public green space, North Cambridge is already the weakest part of city on this measure. The 10% proposed is woeful. Doubling Biodiversity is the regional target. Look at Eddington.

Not at all

Moving the sewage works to green belt land will have an absolutely horrific net effect on biodiversity.

Not at all

It is completely fatuous to even think that a development proposal such as this can have a "biodiversity net gain". Policy planners must be in a world of their own to think that concreting over and developing large areas can sustain more biodiversity than nature itself. The proposal that site developers will be placed under an obligation to "deliver" such "biodiversity net gain" is patently wishful thinking. In this context "biodiversity" needs to be sustainable and not just on a tick list project completion. Who is watching for the long term "biodiversity net gain" ? It beggars belief that planners think that biodiversity can be managed in some way. By "greenwashing" the development with fine words and "net gain" policies and unenforcable committments from developers, the public can be bamboozled on the subject. IN SHORT, YOU ARE DOING NOTHING TO IMPROVE BIODIVERSITY IN AND AROUND NORTH EASTCAMBRIDGE. IN FACT, YOU ARE PROBABLY DESTROYING IT.

Mostly not

I support the existing proposals. However, I feel there needs to be a lot more specific detail - which species, habitats, ecosystems etc. will actually be created versus those which will be lost, and how will this be monitored? If biodiversity is to be meaningfully enhanced, specific sites need to be allocated and invested in over the long term that will provide a range of habitats e.g. a fen restoration, meadow, woodland. These need to be integrated into the site so that local people know about and value them. There needs to be provision for wild mammals e.g. hedgehogs.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

High density has an impact on ecology, and the types of ecology that can survive in an 8-13 storey height development will be extremely limited There will be serious impacts on existing ecology as a result of the North-East Cambridge development. Net gain of ecology should be measured not only against the development area as the impact of the relocation of the sewage works makes the impact on ecology much more serious and widespread. The impact includes: Impact on existing habitats in the development area This should include the impact on the adjacent riverside green spaces which will be further affected by light spill, these areas currently inhabited by barn owls and bats which will be threatened by this overdevelopment. The diverse ecology on green belt sites threatened by the relocation of the sewage works. For example Honey Hill known as site 3 has immensive diversity. The County Recorder for Hymenoptera (bees and wasps) visits Low Fen Drove at Honey Hill regularly because of its extraordinary biodiversity compared with many local nature reserves, eg. Coton NR, Milton CP and Wandlebury. The old tree-lined drove and its ditches provide a very special habitat for some nationally rare species (indeed, some species have only been found at Low Fen Drove and nowhere else in East Anglia). It is part of the rich and varied ecosystem between Honey Hill and Wicken Fen, itself a World Heritage Site with over 9300 species. It would be an environmental crime of great significance were the ecology of Low Fen Drove at Honey Hill to be interfered with in any way. Honey Hill is not a suitable place to site an industrial sized sewage works. Impacts on water quality on site 3 will also have a significant impact on ecology directing contaminated water via the underlying chalk aquifer towards Stow cum Quy Fen Site of Special Scientific Interest. This SSSI comprises more than 15 long, thin ponds that support a range of aquatic plants including some uncommon species and areas of floristically rich calcareous loam pasture. The citation states that both the grassland and open water habitats are rare in the British Isles.

Mostly yes

The improvements to the immediate Area Action Plan site should be commended. If increased footfall is encouraged into Milton Country Park then this may have an impact on the biodiversity of adjacent areas. If this were to be the case then mitigation measures would need to be considered.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

No. Given the current outline plans I would say that bio-diversity will not be improved on the development site, and a negative impact will also be felt on the shoulder areas such as Milton Country Park. My own view is that a tragic missed opportunity to create a green corridor and potential related tree canopy which links Stourbridge and Chesterton Fen with Milton Country Park, at least from the point where Cambridge North station sits.

Mostly yes

Existing havens such as those alongside the guided busway and Cowley Road are being kept. Plenty of other good ideas.

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly not

Surely we don't live in a climate that can support green roofs? Does that not equate to damp buildings? How will they be managed? How will people get to enjoy them passing through. 10% improvement is not enough.

Not at all

10% projected increase is indeed the bare minimum required in Cambridge, so this is woefully inadequate. The regional target is one of doubling biodiversity, and the City should feel itself fully obliged to be committed to that target. A dedicated ecologist is required right now, just as at Eddington from the outset, and addressing this weakness must be urgently prioritised. Nothing should be done without involving the dedicated ecologist. No other major development in or around Cambridge shows such a shocking disrespect for nature. On the contrary, Waterbeach, Northstowe, Eddington, Cambourne and Trumpington all have a major emphasis on safeguarding biodiversity and green space. What natural havens there are at the margins of this site, such as along the river will be swamped with human activity, and biodiversity consequently driven out.

Mostly yes

Green and brown roofing is good. However, progressive thinking about the urban environment extends to green space at all levels with balcony planting to counteract the urban heat island. The buildings might look like the urban canyons of CB1 if they are not decorated with living things. This relates to my notion that central buildings should not look like conventional buildings at all, but like the domes of the Eden Project. NEC needs to make a bold statement that we are at one with Nature not sweeping her away with so many Lego boxes.

Not at all

No answer given

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

I could write endlessly about this. You intend to create a high density development and then greenwash it with over blown rhetoric. As I have stated in my previous comments no amount of s106 money is going to over come the fundamental problems with the so called County Park next to a major road (even the term Country Park is misplaced) and a crime ridden and threatening Chesterton Fen.

Mostly yes

Please do stick to your commitment to safeguarding biodiversity in the area.

Not at all

Doubling Biodiversity is the regional target, but this plan aims only to increase biodiversity by 10% - a woeful target. The plan must be more ambitious. It would cost a minimal amount to buy the farmland at agricultural rates to double the size of Milton Country park, or start delivering the Wicken Fen Vision at scale (see attached document). This type of ambition is essential to start tackling the biodiversity emergency, and history will judge us very poorly if we fail to grasp these simple opportunities. Eddington had its own ecologist and increasing biodiversity was built into plans from the start. The lake, open spaces, edible and drought-resistant planting, eco–drains and buildings with the highest sustainability specification available all combine to create a sustainable development that places biodiversity at the top of the agenda. Why have similar standards not been built in to plans for NE Cambridge?

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 necessitated by the development because of the development is matched by a similar sized area of land improved to increase biodiversity, either within the district or at sites nearby.

Not at all

I could write endlessly about this. You intend to create a high density development and then greenwash it with over blown rhetoric. As I have stated in my previous comments no amount of s106 money is going to over come the fundamental problems with the so called County Park next to a major road (even the term Country Park is misplaced) and a crime ridden and threatening Chesterton Fen.

Mostly not

The aim of 10% biodiversity gain is unambitious, especially given Natural Cambridgeshire's target of doubling the area of land in Cambridgeshire that is managed for nature. This target should be increased and more stringent requirements put in place to ensure it is actually met. Further to my comments on Milton Country Park above: increasing access to existing green space is likely to have a detrimental impact on local biodiversity

Mostly yes

strongly support response from Camcycle

Not at all

Doubling biodiversity is a regional target. You have a target of 10 percent! Eddington has its own ecologist and biodiversity is at the heart of the development and has been considered at every stage of the planning. Why can’t you do the same and create a really sustainable environment? I think you would get far more support for this development if you had a realistic plan for biodiversity and sustainability instead of just paying lip service to the idea.