Question 8

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

This is frankly unbelievable. Your vision does not mention that you are hoping to increase biodiversity on one site by destroying it on another. Wherever you move the sewage works you will harm the existing wildlife and flora there. You will also harm them further by increasing the noise and light pollution and human activity. This is particularly the case with Honey Hill, which is one of the few local places with low light levels at night, and has much wildlife which those of us who have walked there in lockdown have seen almost every time we have gone out.

Not at all

This is a ridiculous statement. We will plant lots of things on this site but ruin acres of green belt land with huge biodiversity to build it? The water treatment works should stay on brownfield land!

Mostly not

A development by its nature is counter to biodiversity. However anything else which improves the diversity

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly not

The Community Forum submission to the Issues and Options consultation on this topic was as follows: Commitment to biodiversity and high quality landscaping. Whilst various welcome indications were given about the central role of biodiversity, it remained hazy whether what was envisaged could combine increased density with sufficient space and emphasis on enhancing the natural environment. There was a lack of data, and in the case of the Science Park, the risk that densification would destroy the green qualities of this relatively low-density site. The attractiveness of the Science Park should be preserved whilst making it and its facilities more accessible. End of CF Submission Although it may be possible to create more diversity in a technical sense it is difficult to think that this area will be as diverse in quality and quantity as it could, and should, be. The “green bridge” over Milton Road would have made a real difference. This would have made a major difference to the whole feel of the place. but this is another of the genuinely good proposals which has fallen by the wayside. The idea that there will be a presumption against development on science park green spaces is something few residents would have much confidence in. Given the current move in the direction of quality over quantity in office space it should not be even countenanced, The below average amount of green space in an area of high and very dense housing is the fundamental problem that cannot be finessed.

Mostly not

The Community Forum submission to the Issues and Options consultation on this topic was as follows: Cars Whilst the vision of low car ownership is to be applauded, doubts remain that it will be possible both to respond to the current car ownership needs, and to avoid adjacent residential areas being the reservoir for parking ‘illicit’ cars owned by occupants. The danger is that measures to reduce car use will not be sufficiently thought through, robust or enforced to stand up to human creativity. The idea that not providing parking would reduce car usage at Orchard Park has just resulted in cars being scattered around the development. Adequate electric car charging provision is required from the outset. Transport. If the residents of the new development are going to be prohibited from having cars the poor state of public transport will be a threat to the development’s viability without a sea change in the quality of public transport. It is difficult for outsiders to grasp the inadequacy of Cambridge buses. A rule of thumb is that if a complete bus trip to the centre is even as fast as walking you are doing well. Central government wants London levels of development without enabling the London style control and operational finance of the buses which is essential for this to work. Cambridge must be fairly unique in having quite a few bus services not remotely designed with the actual inhabitants in mind. We welcome the concept of a trip budget for cars, however, it is an approach not a solution. Extra trips due to Science Park densification, the A14 upgrade and the many new developments such as Waterbeach and Northstowe will soon swallow this up. The plan suggests a reduction in the proportion of car trips of about two thirds to cope with this. The question is, How feasible is this? Are there precedents around the world for such a dramatic change and, if so, is it applicable to this case? The option of re-installing the railway line on the guided busway should be considered. It would have far more capacity and reach and it would be the fastest way of getting to the central station and the biomedical campus. A route will be needed for the Varsity Line anyway. The planners have our sympathies in grappling with, sometimes, conflicting transport strategies which may, or may not, materialise or have any hope of working. This is even if they are politically feasible and affordable. The danger is that we will commit to an unfeasibly high level of development before we have a realistic plan to deal with the transport. Many key factors are outside the control of the planners and the result could be gridlock. End of CF Submission The item that stands out is the claim that there will be “no additional vehicle movements on Milton Road and Kings Hedges Road”. Although there are parts of the plan which there is scope for debate it is, at this point, that it completely disappears down the rabbit hole. The proposals last year showed a potential for car trips to increase by a factor of three. This was only reduced to the current, barely acceptable level, by simply wishing away two thirds of these trips. The evidence simply does not support this assertion which can only be considered a complete fantasy. Except ofr Covid and major wars there has been a relentless increase in car traffic for the last 100 years. There has to be some cast iron evidence to show a mofor reduction in use will happen and it does not. It does not even have to be completely wrong to cause a major problem. Even 20% more traffic would cause gridlock. On page 220 of the plan it argues that there is more flexible working, but firms are not going to buy office space for 20,000 people to keep them half empty. This is a fallacy. It will just be, say, 40,000 people in the office half the time. It should also be considered that with the increase in WFH more people will want to live in rural locations. This may reduce some trips, but they are more likely to be made by car due to lack of transport in rural areas aver being viable. If more offices are built then they will be full, just with more people using them less with just the same trip problem. The other problem is that if this fantasy policy fails there is no good plan B. The area will be completely choked with traffic. The original proposal had a number of measures to limit car use on the developments: 1. A ban on residents owning cars. 2. Access out of the development only onto the A14 to make travel into town more difficult. 3. Car not allowed to be parked on the development but only at car barns at the edge. 4. Green bridge across Milton Road The problem is that these have been watered down to rather vague and unfalsifiable assertions about discouraging car use. Again, the devil is in the detail, for instance, 20mph limits are not an innovation for residential areas. The police in Cambridge do not enforce them anyway. Local residents will be unpersuaded by the assertion that if displaced parking becomes a problem then something might be done about it once it becomes a serious problem. Putting in measures to avoid it at the outset is surely the minimum that should be done.

Mostly not

The Community Forum submission to the Issues and Options consultation on this topic was as follows: Commitment to biodiversity and high quality landscaping. Whilst various welcome indications were given about the central role of biodiversity, it remained hazy whether what was envisaged could combine increased density with sufficient space and emphasis on enhancing the natural environment. There was a lack of data, and in the case of the Science Park, the risk that densification would destroy the green qualities of this relatively low-density site. The attractiveness of the Science Park should be preserved whilst making it and its facilities more accessible. End of CF Submission Although it may be possible to create more diversity in a technical sense it is difficult to think that this area will be as diverse in quality and quantity as it could, and should, be. The “green bridge” over Milton Road would have made a real difference. This would have made a major difference to the whole feel of the place. but this is another of the genuinely good proposals which has fallen by the wayside. The idea that there will be a presumption against development on science park green spaces is something few residents would have much confidence in. Given the current move in the direction of quality over quantity in office space it should not be even countenanced, The below average amount of green space in an area of high and very dense housing is the fundamental problem that cannot be finessed.

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

Human encroachment is destroying habitat and putting pressure on other species. Past record in protection is not reassuring. You say 'We will ask development to contribute', not require them to fund.

Not at all

Biodiversity won't improve if you build 8000 new homes without converting sufficient land to natural/recreational space. The river nearby offers huge potential for wetland creation.

Yes, completely

If you're taking as much care as you seem to be about preserving and creating green spaces for natural wildlife habitats, then I'm happy

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly yes

Please publish more detailed plans to improvements to Milton Country Park and Chesterton Fen.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

To make the plan work, the sewerage works must be located onto a greenbelt site. This is nothing short of unnecessary vandalism of the local environment. In destroying a greenbelt site the choice has been made to put biodiversity at the very bottom of the priority list.

Neutral

This is a huge opportunity for N/E Cambridge to be a showcase for biodiversity net gain. I believe that the Eddington development has addressed several biodiversity measures, and experience gained there may be relevant. The plan refers to 'integrating biodiverse features', including bird and bat boxes. I am keen in particular to see strong provision for the migratory bird, the Swift (although comments below regarding internal/external fittings are relevant to other species). External boxes eventually corrode and could present safety issues if their fixings become loose - they have to be maintained. A far more effective alternative is to fit nesting spaces into the fabric of the building while it is being constructed, e.g. via permanent swift bricks or integration of nests within soffits & fascias. Such solutions are inexpensive and offer a permanent residence for these popular summer visitors, whose presence would add to the vibrancy of the new district. St Regis House in Chesterton Road, Cambridge provides an example of using these techniques. The developers should be required to collaborate with swift conservation groups regarding the location and number of nest bricks, rather than just to fit a set number of boxes in possibly sub-optimal locations. For instance: south-facing walls are not favourable; the nest brick should ideally be at least 5 metres high; there should be several nests per building (swifts are colony-forming birds); etc. Two helpful organisations that are on hand for advice are: http://actionforswifts.blogspot.com/ and https://www.swift-conservation.org/ The plan refers to the creation of green corridors. Ideally, residential garden boundaries / fences should be equipped with doorways or gaps, or green boundaries used instead of more traditional wood fencing or brick, to allow freedom of movement throughout the district for species such as hedgehogs, frogs and other wildlife.

Mostly yes

I like the idea of green links to existing green spaces. I think opening up the Chesterton Fen area would be a great achievement – at the moment it feels like a no-go area, and I would be interested to see how you can balance the needs of the traveller communities on Fen Road with the idea of a community green space.

Yes, completely

Biodiversity net gain is a must have for this development, and must not be sacrificed as the development progresses - I believe this is highly important.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

Biodiversity is not about providing select green plots. How do wild creatures and plants move from area to area?

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

You need to expand and give more space.

Not at all

How dare you! It is a known fact that planners and developers have little or no understanding of biodiversity and how to safeguard it. I have absolutely no confidence that you will protect biodiversity. In fact you will be outright destroying it by moving the sewage works out in to the Green Belt around Cambridge.

Neutral

I think there is too little green space to encourage biodiversity. Green roofs and bat boxes are all very well, but if I'm honest sounds like green washing.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly not

The huge number of new houses you are planning will reduce the overall amount of wildlife habitat, so surely by definition this will be harmful to biodiversity. I don't think you can make up for the loss of hundreds of trees by putting in a nesting box here and there.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Neutral

I am not a specialist, but the 10% goal seems unambitious, given the poor existing state (as per the report provided). Can we reduce the extent of sealed surfaces, for example?