Question 8

Mostly not

It is important that existing havens for biodiversity in the area (such as those alongside the guided busway, Cowley Road cycle and walking routes, the Bramblefields and Chesterton Nature Reserves, the allotments ) 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.

Not at all

The stated aim of biodiversity net gain is welcome, however 10% is not enough and in my view, amounts to greenwashing. 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, we are 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 my 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, we 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 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

No answer given

Mostly not

I do not think a net gain in biodiversity of 10% will be possible by moving the sewage works to a site in the Green Belt especially if Honey Hill is chosen.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

Although broadly supporting the principle of increasing biodiversity in NECAAP, I OBJECT to your conclusion that simply increasing the land area and also allowing full public access will achieve this . You should quantify and increase biodiversity on the basis of species not just habitat. Ignoring the loss of habitat if the sewage works moves is too cynical for my words to express my disgust.

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

No answer given

Neutral

Trees are important for health and wellbeing of wildlife and people. What consideration is there for varieties, age, and number being planted over what period of time.

Neutral

I doubt you could ever do "enough" - see previous comments re Open Spaces - involve both City & South teams and look elsewhere (abroad & in the UK) for examples of good practice. Get local tech & med firms to pay for some innovative and daring projects rather than simply bolting on cheap solar panels to every 3rd house and fixing rain butts to every down pipe.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Mostly yes

It is noted in Policy 5 development proposals will be required to deliver a minimum of 10% net gain in biodiversity value. The policy outlines the approach to delivering this. The policy has been informed by a site wide ecology study (2020). It is important developers view the 10% net gain as a minimum and take opportunities to exceed this where possible. Policy 5 outlines the securing of appropriate habitat management and monitoring plans. These are crucial to ensure the 10% increase in biodiversity is met.

Mostly not

This looks generally like token 'greenwash' stuff, so think what's been done is just to tick some boxes rather than improve nature. Having proper open spaces for people especially children to enjoy would encourage an appreciation of wildlife.

Mostly not

The aim is laudable..But ultimately westwards biodiversity corridor from Chesterton Fen is further trapped in the real world. I have to concede that it is the extra green roofs is the major plus element about all this, but then these could also be promoted much more in the rest of the city.

Not at all

This is current open space roamed by numerous wildlife so putting a few bat and bird boxes up does nothing to offset the loss to foxes, badgers, muntjac deer etc. Should not be looking at what we do at other sites but ensure this site as all it needs to maintain its current wildlife.

Mostly not

Destruction of natural habitats. Offsetting them elsewhere, outside of the planned area is insufficient. Any measure of biodiversity should be made only within the planned area.

Neutral

I totally applaud the aim of improving biodiversity in the plans. However, I do wonder if it is what will happen in the end. If the green areas are sprayed to keep down weeds and there are no wild areas then it would all be a waste of time from a wildlife perspective. I do also wonder if there will be a survey to see what the biodiversity is like currently compared to what it might be like in the future. If the land is already contaminated from the current waste treatment site to the extent that people are not advised to grow food on it (would you tell us if it was?!) then it all seems a pointless exercise. Fundamentally I disagree with this development full stop. I believe the Waste treatment plant should stay where it is - we don't need the disruption, the damage to diversity through the construction and the extra drain on resources by having that number of extra houses there.

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 built 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.

Yes, completely

Yes. The redeveloped site will be a considerable improvement on the current arrangements, which have the look and feel of a struggling industrial strip with accumulating environmental problems caused by long-term neglect.

Not at all

The site at present is a wonderful wildlife area with large trees and plenty of birds and small animals. The proposed plans have a lack of garden spaces which is disappointing. How can an area support wildlife and biodiversity if it is a high density area of housing and increases the number of people in the area. Local wildlife populations rely on back gardens for food sources and habitats. This is not being offered in the proposed plans. I accept that more housing is needed but we need to be creative and finding ways to live along side the native wildlife. Concreting over large areas is not going to encourage biodiversity in an area. If the food sources for small mammals are removed they will not stay in an area. Bat boxes are a waste of time and a token gesture if the developers have removed the plants and then the insects the bats need to feed on. Hedgehogs have a wide territory and need this to find enough food. If the gardens are not there to provide this then they will not survive in the area. It is difficult to see how building will increase biodiversity.

Mostly not

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 my 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

I think we need to look into this a bit more, from several directions. Green rooves, for instance, are a great idea, but perhaps solar panels on rooves might be better? And the sheer numbers of people and everything that entails will have a negative impact on all the wildlife and diversity in the area.

Not at all

I can't see how this new development can improve biodiversity I am really concerned about the lack of water.

Neutral

Bird boxes etc are admirable but not as a replacement for natural wildlife habitats.

Not at all

• The current site already has large trees and a wealth of wildlife, especially bird, insects and aquatic wildlife. A new development will destroy all that, so it’s hard to see how the biodiversity in and around North East Cambridge will benefit. • Green spaces such as gardens, parks and allotments are the places that encourage and attract greater biodiversity. Installing green roofs and bat boxes will not compensate for the loss of what already exists. To attract bats to bat boxes, first there has to be a rich food source for them.

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly not

I've said in the previous section that links to Chesterton Fen and Milton Country Park are crucial. For both these area there will be conflicts betweem 'open space' for pubic use and 'protected space' for wildlife. We need to better manage landscape for nature, but we must have available open space for all within easy walking distance of these developments, even if that means creating new protected habitats further out. It is not possible to keep 'protected' habitats within half a mile of such dense developments asa re proposed here.

Not at all

No comment.