I argue that there would not be expected to be an ever continuing need for healthcare facilities on the CBC beyond those significant investments already planned (Cambridge Childrens' Hospital and Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital) in the next 25 - 50 years and use of exisiting allocated land in this area. If expansion of the hospital facilities are anticipated to outgrow the existing campus one could again look to expand other peripheral facilities. Patients currently travel considerable distances for tertiary care at Addenbrooke's and efforts to provide outreach clinics and services at the surrounding local hospitals would reduce the considerable burden of travel for these large numbers of patients. Furthermore, with improvements in health and social care allowing more care to be delivered in the community, the increasing use of technology for virtual consultations, and advances in treatment that allow therapy to be delivered in patients' own homes or in tablet rather than injection forms, it is debatable whether exisiting hospital capacity on the campus needs to expand significantly or if this would be for the benefit of patients. The idea that staff need to be centred in one location containing multiple different functions is also outdated, given the ability to work virtually, and the specialised facilities required by individual departments in the hospital, as far as elective surgery and elective consultations are concerned also need not be centralised on this Campus. Rather one wonders why there could not be development of further healthcare facilities toward the east of the city around the Airport, which would make use of the existing and planned housing developements in this area and would in fact reduce commuting for those staff members who live in and around the Cherry Hinton area, while public transport links from the east of the city to the hospital and any future Cambridge South station should be strengthened. Equally if Campus expansion is deemed to be inevitable there would appear to less environmental impact from development of the land south of Addenbrooke's Road, between Hobson's brook and the railway line, or indeed land further to the West, between Addenbrooke's road and the M11. In the case of the latter, this site could easily be linked with the existing campus by shuttle bus and would reduce congestion around Trumpinton Road and M11 J11 if a dedicated access path were made, while it would bring considerable enhancement to the land south of Addenbrooke's Road.

Arguments relating to colocalisation of research and industry on the campus are of course attractive to investors and industry, but for decades such investment has supported the development and expansion of numerous science parks outside of Cambridge, where there is less of an impact on the environment form development than in the already congested Cambridge Southern Fringe. Research facilities on the Campus are currently under-occupied and building new facilities where existing building are unusued purely for commercial gain or profit from lands sales does not seem an appropriate use of Greenbelt Land. Pharmaceutical and Biotech companies in the area currently have no difficulty recruiting staff to Cambridge but indeed local transport infrastructure would be improved by the planned busway towards Babraham Road Park and Ride and consideration of extending this from the Biomedical Campus to Granta Park and improving the frequency of busses along Babraham Road to the Babraham Research Campus. Indeed the number of people communiting out of Cambridge rather than into Cambridge for work is an opportunity to develop new and expand existing sustainable transport links to these peripheral science parks as it is inevitable that some employees of any potential new developments on Campus will live at a distance requiring their own transport methods including motor vehicles. Whilst it is noted the the development will be dependent on a Trip Budget approach I would argue that this is in reality extremely difficult to model accurately and is unlikely to result in a net reduction in car travel, either for employees in this location or for travel to and from local facilities, and schools for example due to the considerable distance from central Cambridge and exisiting education facilities.

The numerous new housing developements in the Clay Farm Estate, Ninewells and Trumpington Meadows sites have already augmented the housing available to staff and in particular key-workers on the Biomedical Campus. There is clearly a profit to be made for the landowners from conversion of this Greenbelt land if permission is given to develop commercial property and housing, simply due to the existing transport and proximity to Cambridge as well as allowing road travel out of and around Cambridge on this Southern Fringe site, but this commercial gain does not seem a valid reason for removal of this site from Greenbelt land. While some of the housing will be available for keyworkers, the majority would also not be afforable for the majority of staff working on Campus and therefore the argument that this would be required to support the growth of the campus is hard to realise. Adjacent Greenbelt land has aleady been released either side of Wort's Causeway and if unbiased modelling shows further housing is genuinely required by the Biomedical campus, with a desire to reduce travel into Cambridge or the campus, sale of these houses should be prioritised for staff and keyworkers on the campus.

Besides the question as to the need for allocation of this further Greenbelt land to the campus, the impact of removal of the proposed area in S/CBC-A would be hugely detrimental to the biodiversity supported both within the fields and by the natural hedgerows that surround these, which form an exisiting green corridor, as flagged by the council's own assessment. It seems unlikely any amount of compensatory work to increase biodiversity close to existing Ninewell's nature reserve could exceed the loss of biodiversity that development of this site would result in, if only because of the areas of land involved, and the density of animal populations this could support, as the proposed protected land is already rich in biodiveristy, so there is likely to be only a token gain from the proposed Green Belt enchancement. Similarly, there is already a very easily accessible large green public space close to the Campus near to and surrounding the Hobson's Park bird reserve, which is currently under-utilised and could be made more accessible by providing easier access by foot and cycle to cross the railway line, where the footpath at the exisiting southern edge of the biomedical Campus joins the DNA path from the Shelfords and the south. Indeed the area could better be enhanced by increasing the green infrastructure either side of the railway line and towards the Shelfords.

In terms of topology, the S/CBC-A site is both at the bottom of the chalkland ridge and Gog Magog hills, and also downhill of the existing Biomedical campus, such that there is a high ground water level in this location, and the area can already become waterlogged for several months of the year with groundwater flooding apparent for several weeks or months most winters. If this land were developed it would lead to reduced drainage into the exisiting ground and result in increased rainwater falling from the Gog Magog hills and the developed land having to drain at the northern margin of the site. This has the potential to result in a significantly increased risk of flooding to surrounding exisiting developments and drains, which are already often at capacity due to the nature of the clay soil and numerous aquifers in this region. There are also a number of red-listed farmland birds that occupy this area as well as other wildlife, attracted especially by the rich natural hedgerows that surround this land. There is also a significant issue related to sewerage in this region with pumping and storage already required for sewerage from the Ninewells development.

The proposal to build commercial premesis would also result in unacceptable noise, traffic and importantly visual disturbance to existing residents who enjoy this quiet landscape and natural edge to the city along the designated Greenbelt land and these units would both significantly impact existing views of and from this edge of the city. A moreover new commercial premesis would result in further congestion to exisiting transport routes along Babraham road and the Southern Fringe. As the majority of Keyworkers tend to be younger individuals or those with families, development of new Keyworker housing would also need to be conducted hand-in-hand with appropriate transport links and education facilities provided for these families. The lack of school provision in the plans is surprising and I believe would lead to further heavy vehicle traffic toward the schools in Queen Edith's and nearby areas. Babraham road is already thorougly congested at peak times and adding another 990 homes in this area would surely exacerbate matters further besides the traffic to the commerical areas, as mentioned above, with the significiant difficulties likely to be encountered in attempting to model a Trip Budget accurately.

In summary I do not believe there is, or at least there has not been presented, adequate evidence for the need of further release of Greenbelt land adjacent to that already agreed in the area, nor the need for significant further expansion of the Biomedical Campus itself for reasons outlined above, and moreover that there are advantages to continuing to develop the links to exisiting out of town Science parks and the surrounding villages and communities.