Question 8

Not at all

Only proposing 10% improvement whereas should be aiming for doubling in line with Regional Plan.

Not at all

Can biodiversity net gain be achieved after loss of biodiversity at the new WWTP site? How will Cowley Road Hedgerow be protected during the WWTP decommissioning and decontamination? The biodiversity net gain (or loss) metric will only be identified once the mitigation measure has been implemented; this will be too late. To instigate the Biodiversity Checklist, will an Environment Impact Assessment be part of every individual Planning Application for individual parts of each “Centre”?

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

8000 homes is not compatible with improved biodiversity. Nature needs space. Of course you should incorporate features such as green rooves. But nothing you propose can possibly offset the harm done by creating such dense housing with such inadequate green space.

Mostly not

Biodiversity will be negatively impacted by this dense development.

Not at all

Please see my answer to q7. The designs appear to show an urban desert. Chesterton Fen does not need to be turned into an urban park. the cattle that graze enable the wildflowers and birds to flourish. Milton Country park is already over busy - especially on Park Run days. You cannot "improve" it to get another 8000 people in there. It is not a place of "awe". I have no doubt that some birds will benefit from bird boxes and you may even get bats if you build large barn/ church type structures p- but I do not see them on the plan. Where will they feed if you do not have large wild green spaces?

Not at all

Build less densely

Mostly yes

We value 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.

Not at all

As I commented above, Milton Country Park is already close to or at capacity - how ever much is contributed to 'improvements', it can't grow. Doubling biodiversity is the accepted regional target, so the 10% increase proposed here seems like a token contribution. It all goes back to the overdevelopment of the site - the greedy desire to cram as many people into the space as possible, without thinking of the consequences.

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

Bird and bat boxes are like a sticking plaster on a big wound. Why cut down trees to replace with hard surface buildings. Re-green this site and do not develop the land.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly not

The proposals are not enough to give me confidence biodiversity will be any near maintained, and certainly it will not be improved in this plan. The buildings should certainly be constructed with every possible niche for wildlife of all sorts in mind, but there needs to be far more truly biodiverse open space within the new development. There should be a wildlife corridor to Waterbeach as proposed by Milton Country Park. Cambridge Past Present and Future's proposal to create a body to scrutinise all aspects of this development should be acted on, particularly in regard to open and wild space, which equates to quality of life. I am deeply concerned about any 'improvements' to Chesterton Fen. Its a valuable wild area, and a soakaway - any plans would need to be extremely carefully drawn up and implemented and in consultation with local residents, but with wildlife and biodiversity and potential future flooding prominently in mind.

Not at all

whatever your very worthy plans are, you should not be requiring the destruction of greenbelt land in order to make way for this development. I would love to believe that these plans will be enacted in whatever is eventually built but unfortunately I can see it starting out with good intentions and then falling into neglect once the developers move out

Mostly not

I've read the material and what fine aims they are. All the correct sentiments and ideals are there. However it doesn't work like that. I'm sure when Cambridge North was built there were all sorts of documents in place about biodiversity of a similar nature. Since it was built, the common terns I'd see on a virtually daily basis fishing along the river all the way from Milton into the city have disappeared. Coincidence? I fear that the "waste land" of Chesterton Sidings actually contained areas of gravel which were ideal for these birds to use as a nesting area. It's all tarmac and buildings now. The saplings planted in some abundance might be habitat in 20 years time, but will any wildlife be around to even find it by then? I'm sorry to sound so cynical but "new and tidy" never replaces "old and messy" in terms of habitat. If it turns out there's an old tatty hedge or an unloved mature tree in the wrong place, it will be got rid of. A nice new tidy one will be put in a couple of years later but by then, the insects that called those places home will be gone. Without the insects and berries, there will be no food for birds or small mammals so they will not come. Also too many people is generally bad for wildlife. Wildlife doesn't like too many people . As Milton Country Park has got busier, there seem to be fewer birds. As the riverbank path has got busier and there have been more and more boats on the river, I no longer see kingfishers; I'm sure the water is clean enough, the banks are just right and there is food, but they don't like all the humans making noise and dogs and boats passing all the time. So in conclusion, if you put a lot of people in an area, however hard you try with habitat, the wildlife will probably not come. And, if you're really serious, I assume you will be putting in the following measures: 1) swift boxes on all buildings; as there is water nearby this is a good area for airborne insects 2) housemartin nests on suitable buildings; see reasoning above 3) where you have suitable open structures, nest areas for swallows; see above 4) areas of undergrowth with linkage to attract small mammals and hedgehogs 5) a variety of mature trees and dead wood for insects and birds 6) ponds where 2 and 3 can collect mud to reinforce or complete their nests. Other species may collect mud too. 7) habitat where bats may roost and establish maternal colonies.

Mostly not

The Biodiversity Policy in the AAP is aspirational or, put another way, exceptionally optimistic. The supporting biodiversity study is sound, but even that pulls its punches and only hints at the challenges of retaining much of the fairly meagre existing biodiversity on site. This is not to denigrate the role that green roofs and bat boxes can play, but the reality will be that other demands for public use of the limited open spaces available (and the attentions of landscape architects) will mean that the majority of bio diversity replacement will have to be off site. A reduction in development densities and a substantial increase in ground level open spaces is an essential starting place. There will still be the need for a far more ambitious programme of off-site provision and long term management than a few enhancements to riverside meadows at Chesterton Fen. One of the challenges that should be addressed is to create a far diverse set of habitats on sites being used for offsetting, not just adding to the existing damp fen habitats alongside the River Cam, which are relatively abundant, if mostly under-managed.

Not at all

The aim to increase biodiversity by only 10% is pitiful. This feels like a greenwash. In the current climate, we would be expecting the City Council to set high standards in relation to environmental factors.

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. Doubling biodiversity is the regional target, but this plan aims only to increase biodiversity by 10%. 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 yes

No answer given

Neutral

Probably not given that doubling Biodiversity is a regional target, but this plan aims only to increase biodiversity by 10%. Take a look at Eddington for pointers which could and should be adopted for NEC.

Mostly not

There needs to be more and larger green space. Considering the site's current use is mainly industrial, a 10% net increase in biodiversity seems very conservative and unambitious and larger green spaces would mean much more access to nature for new residents.

Mostly not

There needs to be more and larger green space. Considering the site's current use is mainly industrial, a 10% net increase in biodiversity seems very conservative and unambitious and larger green spaces would mean much more access to nature for new residents.

Not at all

How can we be building a development that sets a plan to increase biodiversity by 10% when doubling biodiversity is regional target? By contrast Eddington had its own ecologist and increasing biodiversity was built into plans from the start. The lake, open spaces, edible and drought-resistant planting, eco-drains and buildings with the highest sustainability specification available all combine to create a sustainable development that places biodiversity at the top of the agenda. Why have similar standards not been built in to plans for NE Cambridge?

Not at all

Fanciful talk as always. If you get to build this, any wildlife will have had to move out. If you want to ensure that “existing havens for biodiversity in the area are safeguarded”, then don’t develop this site and leave the sewage works here, but incorporate some industrial units to fill any spare land that Anglia Water do not need and leave the Green Belt havens that are proposed for the new sewage works alone.

Not at all

No answer given