64 Knightly Avenue
Cambridge
CB2 0AL
07764 683951
fionawaller@gmail.com

12/12/2021



Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing in a personal capacity to object to the Draft Local Plan on the following grounds:
• Inadequate water supply
• Effect on national food security
• Failure to minimise climate change
• Likely irreparable damage to ecosystems
• Carbon emissions resulting from construction
• Lack of an integrated public transport system
• Undermining of the Government's policy of ‘levelling up’
• A democratic deficit in the process and evidence base .

I support the letter of objection sent to you by Friends of the Cam, available here:

https://www.friendsofthecam.org/sites/default/files/ObjectiontoNext%20LocalPlan_0.pdf


More specifically, I would like to comment on the proposals relating to the expansion of the biomedical campus to the south of the city. These proposals would take the fields in S/CBC/A, just south of the Ninewells development, out of the green belt.

The first proposals for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan set out to ‘increase and improve our network of habitats for wildlife, and green spaces for people, ensuring that development leaves the natural environment better than it was before.’ It will aim to do this by requiring ‘development to achieve a minimum 20% biodiversity net gain’.

The councils recognise, in relation to the plans for S/CBC/A that: “release of the areas proposed would result in very high harm to the Green Belt” and that “there are concerns regarding biodiversity and landscape impacts”.

However, they argue that “the harm of release would be lower than other land in this area, although this is still acknowledged as a high level of harm”.
I strongly believe that this high level of ecological harm can neither be justified or mitigated and can in no way meet the ‘20% biodiversity net gain’ requirement.
At first sight this area may appear unlikely to support high levels of biodiversity. However, in practice, as recorded by John Meed in his 10-year survey (https://queen-ediths.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Interim_report_JM_2021.pdf), it is home to remarkable populations of red-listed farmland bird species of high conservation concern (1), as well as the equally endangered water voles. There are also good numbers of brown hare and a range of other birds, mammals (fox, rabbits, stoats, badgers etc), arable plants, butterflies, dragonflies and other invertebrates.

I am a herbalist and amateur botanist and have been amazed by the wide array of wild flowers at the field edges, some rare. I have never seen such an array at field edges in this country. The ancient hedgerows and margins, and waterways, are also rich in both flora and fauna.

I completely agree with the assessment of John Meed in his response to the plan (https://queen-ediths.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Response-to-Policy-S_CBC-JM.pdf), that the mitigations Policy S/CBC proposes ‘to enhance biodiversity and green infrastructure’ on the field sloping up to White Hill do not go anywhere near far enough to counter the species loss elsewhere.

As he concludes: ‘It should be clear from the evidence I have gathered over the last ten years that Policy S/CBC/A will have a negative impact on biodiversity, and that the mitigation measures proposed will be insufficient to prevent this, let alone achieve biodiversity net gain. Habitat creation is always harder work than maintaining existing habitat.’

I have additional concerns regarding the use of the fields to expand the biomedical campus. The area is prone to severe waterlogging during wet periods; the area is used extensively by local residents for leisure; it is unclear what kind of development would be allowed; development will place additional demands on infrastructure and local services.
The Ninewells housing development was promised as a ‘soft edge’ to the city. Now, with the last sales on the estate only recently completed, the next Local Plan proposes taking the field immediately to the south (which is twice the size of Ninewells) out of the Green Belt to allow the Biomedical Campus to expand further – a hard, commercial edge to the city with disastrous ecological impact.

Please confirm that you have received my objection, and that this individual submission is noted, recorded, counted and made available.