Question 8

Mostly yes

Nice ideas, especially along the bleak Busway, but it could do with a lot more along paths and cycleways.

Not at all

The area not developed at present is full of large trees and wildlife. With areas fenced off to people there is a wonderful biodiversity not only with the plants and trees but they provide a home for a variety of birds, insects and small animals. There is even the clear water drain running through the area which is full of fish and insects. It is a joy to watch and to hear the water as falls when two levels meet. The only part of the whole area that will be protected is the Cowley Road Hedgerow. Thousands or even millions will lose their habitat. I wouldn't call that improving diversity.

Mostly not

No answer given

Not at all

Again the answer is not at all. • Doubling Biodiversity is regional target, but this plan aims only to increase biodiversity by 10% - a woeful target. • 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

10% is the absolute minimum requirement of Cambridge City policy, doubling biodiversity is the regional target (Natural Cambridgeshire including Cambridge city) so this is at the very bottom end of what could be done. Will there be a dedicated Ecology Officer as is the case at Eddington? Other developments have lakes - Eddington Waterbeach and Northstowe

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly not

Whilst green/brown roofs and corridors provide some basis for biodiversity, unless larger open wild spaces are introduced and connected to others, then the species diversity will be limited to plants, insects, birds and small animals.

Mostly not

You are craving people into a higher density area than London and you are saying how well you are doing for biodiversity. And at the expense of proper biodiversity on the Green Belt you wish to contaminate with sewage. Not a good trade off at all

Mostly not

10% is not enough to improve biodiversity. With current climate change problems, the target should be much higher.

Neutral

A target of a 10% net biodiversity net gain seems very modest.

Mostly yes

this is great...but is Bramblefields nature reserve protected from the proposed massively tall buildings that will be built? I don't think so. How will bats navigate round huge builds where there we re none before? Will muntjac and foxes still be able to navigate from bramblefields to milton park? What reassurance can you offer about the integration of already existing green spaces and biodiversity

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

No. I understand that doubling biodiversity is the regional target, so your plan to increase biodiversity by only 10% is pretty poor showing. Why don't you follow the example set by Eddington where they are developing biodiversity to the highest standard. At present there are many trees and much shrubbery, and plenty of birds. There even runs a fresh water drain from east to west (into the science park and beyond) with many insects and small fish.

Neutral

Green roofs are an essential part of the strategy, but presumably the heat pumps and PV panels necessary to achieve a carbon neutral development will also need to be located at roof level. How will the conflict be resolved?

Neutral

It seems like Eddington is doing much better. Could a similar scheme not be implemented in this district?

Neutral

It seems like Eddington is doing much better. Could a similar scheme not be implemented in this district?

Neutral

It seems like Eddington is doing much better. Could a similar scheme not be implemented in this district?

Neutral

Why, when there is a regional aim to double biodiversity, is there only an aim to increase biodiversity by 10%? It is also important that the existing areas of biodiversity are safeguarded. I would promote an on site and off site open area and promoted wildlife area. I have concern that increased used of Milton Country Park and open green space could put ecological pressure on the sites. The documentation is unclear on promotion of tree planting. I would strongly encourage further detail on avenue tree planting and woodland areas.

Mostly not

Could melliferous plants and trees be planted throughout the area to ensure pollinator population increases in the area?

Mostly not

No answer given

Not at all

10% net gain in biodiversity is pitiful and will not be delivered. The record of developers in this area is lamentable, and if you are promising 10% then that is as good as an admission that biodiversity will go down. Who do you think you are kidding here?

Mostly not

10% seems very small. Again there seems to be some loopholes in the descriptions used for what provisions will be made (e.g. “where an adverse impact on biodiversity is unavoidable, this shall be minimised as far as possible and appropriate measurable mitigation provided”)

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly yes

Make buildings sustainable - use rain water. Consider alternative heating systems such as used in K1 development. Really like idea to maintain hedgerows. Bird boxes etc v good. Employ a biodiversity lead for the area to get people involved.

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

Cambridge has declared a climate emergency and doubling biodiversity is regional target, but this plan aims only to increase biodiversity by 10% - a woeful ambition. 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?

Mostly yes

There are some excellent proposals here.

Not at all

Seems rather false to be championing biodiversity whilst proposing trashing existing rich green spaces in the form of the green-belt. Unclear how any of these "improvements" would end up better than leaving the waste water plant where it is and not damaging existing ecosystems and wildlife in the green-belt.

Not at all

The aim to increase biodiversity by only 10% is a wasted opportunity that leaves the north of Cambridge lagging behind other areas of Cambridge. The care that was taken in the planning of Eddington should be followed here to enable it to create a sustainable development that prizes biodiversity and creates an area to be proud of.

Mostly yes

I agree that all new development in North East Cambridge should be required to prove that it will increase biodiversity in the area and would like to ensure that existing sites are well protected during construction.