Object
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 53243
Received: 01/10/2020
Respondent: Mr Jon Pavey
A minimum of 10% net gain in biodiversity value shows little ambition. Especially so as the Natural England biodiversity offsetting metric version 2.0 that will be used to calculate requirements can, according to some ecologists, be "gamed" to give the desired result. Moreover, as a measure of professional judgement is required, there are accounts that the biodiversity value computed by different assessors have differed by as much as 5%.
Obviously one expects the Councils will seek to ensure all assessments are robust and would withstand informed scrutiny: setting a higher net gain target would go some way to offset the risk of failing in practice to meet the national target requirement.
The Policy should specifically refer to seeking to bring biodiversity into the built environment with particular regard to connecting people with the environment to improve health, wellbeing as well as foster recovery of biodiversity - the Government's 25 Year Environment Plan (2018) should provide a cornerstone for the NECAAP.
Landscaping within the built up areas should in many areas be designed to support biodiversity and be complemented by features on buildings - for example locations that house sparrows can both nest (on buildings) and to spend their days nearby (eg in privet bushes). Similarly, the policy could be more adventurous by requiring facades to incorporate swift bricks and like provision for other species that might be drawn into the urban environment.
If Barn Swallows can nest on buildings in the middle of Hong Kong, surely they might be enticed to do similarly along a frontage facing the River Cam. Similarly, there is an excellent colony of House Martins on the Addenbrookes Hospital buildings; surely there is opportunity for provision of nesting sites for these at NECAAP. The Policy needs to include objectives which would ensure such biodiversity provision is readily and easily provided.
A minimum of 10% net gain in biodiversity value shows little ambition. Especially so as the Natural England biodiversity offsetting metric version 2.0 that will be used to calculate requirements can, according to some ecologists, be "gamed" to give the desired result. Moreover, as a measure of professional judgement is required, there are accounts that the biodiversity value computed by different assessors have differed by as much as 5%.
Obviously one expects the Councils will seek to ensure all assessments are robust and would withstand informed scrutiny: setting a higher net gain target would go some way to offset the risk of failing in practice to meet the national target requirement.
The Policy should specifically refer to seeking to bring biodiversity into the built environment with particular regard to connecting people with the environment to improve health, wellbeing as well as foster recovery of biodiversity - the Government's 25 Year Environment Plan (2018) should provide a cornerstone for the NECAAP.
Landscaping within the built up areas should in many areas be designed to support biodiversity and be complemented by features on buildings - for example locations that house sparrows can both nest (on buildings) and to spend their days nearby (eg in privet bushes). Similarly, the policy could be more adventurous by requiring facades to incorporate swift bricks and like provision for other species that might be drawn into the urban environment.
If Barn Swallows can nest on buildings in the middle of Hong Kong, surely they might be enticed to do similarly along a frontage facing the River Cam. Similarly, there is an excellent colony of House Martins on the Addenbrookes Hospital buildings; surely there is opportunity for provision of nesting sites for these at NECAAP. The Policy needs to include objectives which would ensure such biodiversity provision is readily and easily provided.