Question 8

Yes, completely

It's very important to keep all existing biodiversity and to ensure its included in the new areas.

Neutral

It is imperative that there are staff available for managing the green spaces and diversity once the developments have been built.

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

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. It is important that wildlife reserves- unlike playparks etc- are left to be wild- not manicured and tidied. Developers should be contractually obliged (not 'asked''!) to contribute to funding to support improved biodiversity and green spaces. I 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.

Not at all

Unless the wildlife can read the raodsigns, and avoid becoming roadkill

Not at all

Eddington and Clay Farm have incorporated dedicated wildlife areas in these developments. There are none here. Please explain why. There are at least 8 Red Listed species of birds in the development area that will be threatened.

Not at all

The negative impact on flora and fauna caused by the construction process cannot be undone. The site chosen for the relocation of WWTP to enable this development will suffer immeasurably and catastrophically.

Mostly yes

Improvements to Chesterton area is a good idea, and giving local people access helps peoples' health. Parking should be limited to blue badge holders, and there should be an exit at the station on the Fen side of the railway line.

Mostly not

Doubling biodiversity is a regional plan but this only allows for 10%. This is shameful and unlike other new developments in Cambridge.

Not at all

Building work on this scale would totally disrupt the local flora and fauna, with no guarantee that any would return once the construction was completed. The current open land gives the greatest biodiversity that could be obtained. Only the planting of non-local species on green roofs would improve plant biodiversity.

Not at all

This directly conflicts with improving biodiversity in my view

Mostly yes

No answer given

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

Only 10% increase. Regional target is to double! Eddington had its own ecologist and it was built into the plan from the start b

Mostly not

Policy 5 says that ‘Development proposals will be required to deliver a minimum of 10% net gain in biodiversity value..’ and Figure 14 refers to ‘10% biodiversity increase across NEC’. The Wildlife Trust believe that targets for Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) in large developments should be set at 20%. Because of the inherent uncertainties in creating or restoring, and then maintaining, habitats that achieve their stated aims, aiming higher than 10% shows a real aspiration to an appreciable gain, as well as providing a buffer against future challenges in long term habitat management. We would strongly urge the AAP to consider a move towards a more aspirational and confident BNG target. In terms of offsite habitat creation, which will be required to deliver BNG, we would comment that Chesterton Fen is unlikely to deliver significant gains for biodiversity, given the existing constraints of the site, and its size, and that the clear intention within Policy 8 is for Chesterton Fen to form a part of the solution to delivering recreational and open space for residents of NEC. The Wildlife Trust would broadly support the idea of Chesterton Fen being used to deliver open space for recreational use, with opportunities for biodiversity capitalised on wherever possible. The two objectives can sometimes be delivered together, but on a site the size of Chesterton Fen, with existing neighbouring land uses, this seems unlikely to be able to deliver significant gains for wildlife whilst also delivering for public recreational use. The Wildlife Trust therefore believes that an alternative offsite location is necessary to deliver BNG. Policy wording should reflect the priorities for the various offsite options proposed, so that it is clear what is intended and there is no inappropriate ‘doubling up’. The emerging Cambridge Nature Network should be used to inform locations for maximising the benefits of Biodiversity Net Gain from the NEC development. We support the inclusion of green roof and green walls within accompanying policy text and believe it is an appropriate approach in an urban setting with high density buildings. We would strongly urge an ambitious vision to the delivery of green roofs with consideration given to setting mandatory provision within each development phase. We welcome the specific acknowledgement that ‘extensive areas of biodiverse living roofs are necessary to replace open mosaic habitats which are of significant value’ and would suggest clarity in the policy wording that these should be ‘biodiverse green roofs’ specifically, as opposed to sedum mats. We support the specific wording use ‘integrated bat features’ as opposed to bat boxes placed on the exterior of walls. Improvements to the First Public Drain are welcomed and could reap gains for protected species such as water voles, if provided with sufficient buffers as it flows through the redeveloped site. Improvements to water channels beyond the NEC boundary would be welcomed as an opportunity to increase BNG both within and beyond the site’s boundaries.

Neutral

No comment

Mostly yes

*

Mostly not

The complete omission of equestrians from the non-motorised user transport and travel sections needs to be corrected. The Peterborough and Cambridgeshire Local Transport/Travel Policy and government Active Transport/Travel Plan both formally state that non-motorised users are walkers, cyclists and equestrians, not just walkers and cyclists. The Greater Cambridge Partnership Greenways initiative is to deliver high quality non-motorised user routes for walkers, cyclists and equestrians. There are many equestrians in and around Cambridge city and its rural surrounds on all sides. Horses live within the city confines and are regularly ridden across, through and around it. Wherever your documents and consultations reference "walker and cyclists", that needs to be amended to "walkers, cyclists and equestrians". Your map 2.1.3 shows Mere Way as a "non-surfaced off road cycle route". This is incorrect. It is a Public Byway and therefore open to walkers, cyclists, equestrians (ridden and driven) and unless there is a wet season closure gate on it, it is also open to motorised traffic too. The Chisholm Trail project underway should be usable by equestrians as well as cyclists and walkers. All three groups are vulnerable and need safe routes across the city. The Genome Trail path from Shelford to Addenbrookes should be open to equestrians. Creation of new inclusive non-motorised (NMU) routes for walkers, cyclists and equestrians gives ample opportunity for creation of biodiversity corridors with appropriate grassing, flowering plants, vegetation, hedges and trees bordering such routes which will mean that the new NMU routes also cater for wildlife and bees as well as humans on foot or with dogs, horses or cycles or wheelchairs.

Mostly yes

It is important to protect existing green areas e.g. along the busway and to match new cycle and other "hard" areas with equivalent new areas of biodiversity.

Mostly not

This is a really exciting development for Cambridge. It has the potential to be a showcase for putting biodiversity "at the centre of policy making" with all the benefits to human health and wellbeing accruing as well as addressing the Biodiversity Emergency. Therefore "biodiversity issues need to be taken seriously" - and this requires more ambition than set down in the Biodiversity and Net Gain Policy. There are some excellent ideas and concepts discussed in the NECAAP supporting documentation but one gets the sense that it was deemed undesirable to fully embrace these when drafting the Policy, instead settling for falling back on the national 10% biodiversity net gain metric. (That said, proposals set out in the Policy are sensible as far as they go.) The biodiversity net gain target should be higher - 20 or 25% would not be unreasonable given the site's current usage. Also, as development proceeds unforeseen, practical matters might well result in infrastructure intruding into areas original thought to be set aside for biodiversity thereby reducing overall net gain. Careful planning at this early stage should be able to achieve higher net biodiversity gain without significant cost penalties or adverse impact on the lives of those who will live and work on the site. This includes ensuring the suggestions for (say) bat crevices, bird boxes, permeability for hedgehogs and similar means of integrating biodiversity into the development are mandatory for all development partners. Reference should be made to only permitting locally grown native species in the landscaping across North East Cambridge with biosecurity and climate emergency in mind.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly not

The plan to increase biodiversity by only 10 per cent is not enough. Compare Eddington with its open spaces and emphasis on building biodiversity into the original plans. More emphasis needs to be placed on saving water and drought resistant planting.

Mostly yes

It's important to protect and improve biodiversity. In addition to the proposed measures, providing more continuous cover will help wildlife move through the site.

Not at all

By attracting 15,000 cars to the area biodiversity will get run over. Car access must be restricted, and the parking space that is saved should be turned into woldflower meadows and parks. Bird nest boxes alone are worthless if there is no food for birds.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly not

The NECAAP should never be considered in isolation. The extreme negative impact on flora and fauna that would result in the relocation of WWTP to areas that are either partially or entirely green belt can never be undone and totally outbalance any of the measures proposed in these plans. We do not believe that this relocation is justified or necessary and strongly urge the reconsideration of keeping the sewerage works on the existing site and to negotiate with the Government about targets for housing and employment growth. The huge shift towards home working following the pandemic will have a significant impact on both of these needs moving forwards and must be revisited.

Neutral

No answer given

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

Existing havens for biodiversity in the area (such as those alongside the guided busway and Cowley Road cycle and walking routes) should be safeguarded. I would prefer that plans to increase biodiversity occur on the site rather than nearby.