Question 8
Plan is completely flawed and clearly only driven by greedy Developers looking to make massive monies from very dense building initiatives, leading to major degradation of green lungs/green spaces. Plan degrades, not maintains (even less so IMPROVES) Biodiversity. Biodiversity doubling is a regional target - 10% target is woefully low. Look at Eddington. Specific & clear examples of major Biodiversity degradation include: no new allotments; no new sports pitches; Green Space by River Cam is very vague; no recognition that Milton Country Park already at capacity etc.
No uploaded files for public display
You are wrecking any biodiversity in this area and in the area you choose to replant the sewage works. One of which is totally Green Belt! Concrete is one of the world’s worst elements for making carbon. So to destroy something that is almost adequate and build it is insane.
No uploaded files for public display
No - you are industrialising green belt land to allow development on a brown field site i.e. relocating AW sewage works - most possibly to Horningsea, 1 mile from Fen Ditton Primary School.
No uploaded files for public display
When you need to take over green belt land to relocate the Sewage Treatment Works to make this contaminated site available for development, it is difficult to see how biodiversity is being improved.
No uploaded files for public display
How can you even ask this question? You want to move a sewage works with all the demolition and clearing up that will require and huge blocks of flats. Concrete has an enormous carbon footprint. Then taking pristine green belt to rebuild a sewage works!!
No uploaded files for public display
Permaculture should be built into the planning stages, green roofs and farming. Related is the proposed relocation of the sewage works to Honey Hill is a disaster waiting to happen for biodiversity there. Renewal of the Fens are increasingly vital biodiversity in Climate Change.
No uploaded files for public display
No - see question 7. We need more than a thin strip of land. Where are the new decent sized recreational areas to cater for the growing population?
No uploaded files for public display
Promising, will depend on litter and use of chemicals in the area.
No uploaded files for public display
No comments
No uploaded files for public display
No comment
No uploaded files for public display
No comment
No uploaded files for public display
No comment
No uploaded files for public display
No comment
No uploaded files for public display
Construction of all these buildings and the (possible) relocation of the WWTP to the Green Belt will be detrimental to the biodiversity.
No uploaded files for public display
Doesn't look like it.
No uploaded files for public display
NOT ENOUGH GREEN SPACE. WE NEED MORE OPEN SPACES/GARDENS/SPORTS FIELDS.
No uploaded files for public display
Not meeting targets 10% is woeful. Target is doubling biodiversity!
No uploaded files for public display
No, to the contrary, reviewing the North East Cambridge (NEC) area in isolation and disassociating relocation of the Water treatment works does not provide a true reflection of the impact on biodiversity. The three relocation sites currently proposed by Anglian Water are all Green Belt locations. It is most unlikely that the provisions around NEC will make up for the impact on the Green Belt and corresponding biodiversity resulting from the relocation. Anglia Water is on record as stating that provision of infrastructure should not be governed by Green Belt Policies. Furthermore, the key governing consideration in the relocation would currently appear to be cost, not suitability or biodiversity. If the NEC development is to be considered on a truly integrated basis, then it should consider all impacts and be viewed holistically, including relocation of the Water Treatment Plant, acknowledging that a significant element of the 182 hectares being badged as Brownfield development, will be at the expense of the Green Belt.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment
No uploaded files for public display
Green spaces with plants, trees and water (not just weeds) well maintained.
No uploaded files for public display
No. 10% uplift is inadequate.
No uploaded files for public display
Don't care, you will do what you want regardless
No uploaded files for public display
No. Along with green space, this is the weakest part of the scheme. Suggest land at Chesterton Fen is purchased and used for a nature reserve, alongside expansion of Milton C.P (above). A lot of re-engineering will be needed to develop the 1st public drain into a biodiversity asset.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment
No uploaded files for public display
The improvements are welcome but not nearly enough is being done to address our destructive lifestyles. Development needs to get really serious about banning private cars totally.
No uploaded files for public display
Not sure how you are tackling this from the documents provided.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment
No uploaded files for public display
You are building concrete blocks, how can you have any biodiversity? Biodiversity is becoming a useless marketing tool!
No uploaded files for public display
Biodiversity has already been seriously damaged over the past decade. My concern is that this is being done aswell as eating into greenbelt agricultural land. We should be concentrating on becoming more self-sufficient as a national society.
No uploaded files for public display
No comment
No uploaded files for public display