North East Cambridge Area Action Plan Issues and Options 2019

The proposed boundary is not appropriate as it does not fully reflect the surrounding landscape context, thereby limiting future design options. It is essential to incorporate the river corridor for the following reasons:
1. Elsewhere in the consultation the movement, green space and open space sections refer to creating and enhancing linkages from the site to Milton Country Park and the river.
2. The green space, open space and biodiversity sections all refer to solutions and interventions involving the river corridor.
3. With respect to achieving biodiversity net gain, it is highly questionable whether this could be achieved within the current proposed boundary, particularly with the development of Chesterton Sidings, which was until very recently a high quality brownfield site supporting priority habitats, the loss of which must be compensated. Other design considerations may legitimately dictate a high density approach to development with a relatively limited area of green spaces and a greater use of multifunctional green spaces, all of which significantly reduce the potential to achieve a net biodiversity gain on-site. The off-site biodiversity compensation / offsetting that will almost inevitably be required must be planned strategically in advance. Whether these go to support strategic habitat creation at places such as Wicken Fen, are developed adjacent to the site along the river Cam corridor, or a mixture of these approaches will need to be decided now. Provision of strategic green infrastructure in additional to Milton Country Park, and biodiversity enhancement and offsetting, both along the River Cam corridor should form part of the NE Cambridge AAP. This approach would significantly benefit the overall quality of place at NE Cambridge, and the quality of life of those who live and work there.

Objective 7 is fine as far as it goes but will not be able to be met in the current concept plan, particularly with respect to achieving a measurable net gain in biodiversity, without inclusion of the river corridor.

The concept plan is severely lacking in green infrastructure provision and ability to deliver a measurable net gain in biodiversity on site. If the river corridor is added to the AAP this would increase the scope of provide better strategic green infrastructure solutions as well as deliver more by way of biodiversity enhancement associated with the site, rather than having to provide biodiversity offsetting elsewhere in the county.

Option C provides a sensible approach, but also justifies the extension of the AAP boundary to include the river corridor, as set out in our other representations to this consultation.

Yes, for the reasons set out in our responses to other questions about the need to include the river corridor within the AAP

Options C & F are essential to deliver a high quality strategic green infrastructure solution.

We do not have a preference with respect to option A or B.

Yes, so long as it is matched by off-site provision. alternatively, inclusion of the river corridor within the AAP, would mean that quantity would not have to be compromised.

Options include the provision of green roofs to provide open space and green walls to soften a dense built environment. Provision of urban habitat features to attract wildlife could also help to green a dense urban quarter, with features such as swift and swallow nesting sites, nectar rich planting beds to attract pollinators, bat bricks, a variety of bird boxes and green walls to attract nesting species.

Multifunctional green spaces and buildings with green features (roofs and walls) can help to integrate biodiversity into a dense urban quarter. However, there will be a need for strategic green infrastructure provision and biodiversity offsetting off site, hence our suggestion of including the river corridor within the AAP, which would then bring it "on-site" and increase options for providing a larger range of experiences and meeting the needs of more residents on-site.

The AAP must explicitly specify that a measurable net gain in biodiversity will be achieved, and we suggest that a minimum percentage of 20% is included (using a recognised biodiversity accounting methodology).

The AAP will result in the final loss and destruction of the Chesterton sidings site, which was until very recently a high quality brownfield site supporting priority habitats and many priority species. In calculating the measurable net gain to be achieved, the precautionary principle should be used, with Chesterton Sidings scored as priority habitat, in calculating the net gain and offsetting requirements.

In order to achieve a net gain in biodiversity, significant off-site compensation is likely to be required. A decision needs to be taken now as to whether this will all be off-site at strategic locations such as Wicken Fen, or whether part of all will be achieved closer to the site, for example along the river corrdior. If the river corridor was included in the AAP boundary, then this would become on-site. Use of the river corridor would also increase the options to meet green space requirements for the new residents.

The use of urban wildlife features such as green roofs, green walls, planting schemes and building design that makes spaces for wildlife should form part of the solution to achieving a net gain in biodiversity, but will be additional to the habitat offsetting requirement.