We welcome the publication of the Greater Cambridge Local Plan: First Proposals 2021 (GCLP) Habitats Regulations Assessment Report (The HRA Report) and the opportunity to comment on it. Cambridgeshire contains a number of sites of international importance for biodiversity that must have the highest level of protection. We also welcome and support the recognition at Para 1.10 that the HRA report is based on the precautionary principle and the statement that ‘where uncertainty or doubt remains, an adverse effect should be assumed’.

Cambridge Past, Present & Future has also commented on the Biodiversity and green spaces policies in the GCLP First Proposals consultation and our comments on the HRA report should be read in together with these. Whilst it is appreciated that the focus of the HRA report is necessarily on European sites, it also raises fundamental issues and concerns that apply to sites of national and local biodiversity importance too.

Although the publication of the HRA report is welcomed, there are however, some concerns that we discuss in further detail below. This applies especially to potential recreational impacts and the consequences of increased water supply and quality issues arising from the implementation of the future GCLP. We also note the caveat that the HRA report indicates that (on a precautionary basis) a conclusion of no adverse effect on the integrity of European sites cannot be reached without further work on issue of water quantity and quality - both key concerns.

Assessment of in combination effects

Chapter 3 of the HRA report refers to the assessment of potential in combination effects and the identification of other Local Authority plans that could contribute to these. The scope of this is welcomed. It should be noted though that broader projects such as the Oxford-Cambridge Arc still require more work and detail to enable potential in combination effects to be identified. This also applies to any other site allocations and development that have yet to be defined or that may emerge in future versions of the GCLP.

Screening Assessment

It is noted that para 4.3 indicates a list of policies that will not result in development and will contribute to ensuring the safeguarding of European sites. This intention is welcomed but much will depend on how these polices are worded and framed. For example, we would refer to our comments submitted in respect of the First Proposals for biodiversity and green spaces. Whilst the overall and intention and policy direction of these polices is welcomed, the detail will be critical. We have commented on the need to prioritise polices to ensure that the protection of all sites of biodiversity importance is the first principle - this should also provide clear guidance for future developments on the standards and process that will be required. This includes the assessment of projects, the application of the mitigation hierarchy and justification and compensation for harm to sites where an unavoidable adverse effect might happen. Similarly, water quantity/quality and recreational issues are key concerns and we comment on these further below.

Table 4.8 provides a summary of the screening assessment and whether potential likely significant effects (LSEs) will occur. We note that potential LSEs are identified regarding possible off site physical damage and loss and non physical disturbance for Eversden and Wimploe Woods SAC and for water quantity and quality in respect of European wetland sites. It is also noted that a potential significant effect from recreational impacts has been identified for Wicken Fen Ramsar site and the Fenland SAC - the latter overlapping the former. The reason for this appears to be because of specific visitor survey work carried out at Wicken Fen. As para 4.60 of the HRA report indicates:

‘No zone of potential risk was identified for Wicken Fen Ramsar. However, in line with a precautionary approach and following the completion of the visitor surveys within Wicken Fen Vision Area, a Zone of Influence has been applied. The survey data that was collected at the Wicken Fen Main Entrance and found that the majority of visitors travelled between 10km and 20km to visit these sites. Based on these findings and in line with a precautionary approach a ZOI of 20km was applied in this assessment.’

Recreational pressure arising from future development as a consequence of development planned for in the GCLP could have a serious impact on existing European sites and those of national and local importance that are, of course, not covered by the HRA Report. It is also evident that the potential effect on Wicken Fen and the related Fenland SAC has only been identified because of specific survey work. With this in mind, we are concerned with the confidence that can be placed on a finding of no LSE for other European sites based on a zone of potential risk for recreational pressure based on a 2Km and 5km distance. We comment further on the implications of the findings of the HRA Appropriate Assessment with regard to potential recreational impacts on Wicken Fen and the Fenland SAC further below.

Appropriate Assessment (AA) - overall approach

Para 5.5 summarises the LSEs indicated in Table 4.8. That table indicates no LSE from Air Pollution on any European sites. Para 5.5. however indicates to the contrary - we assume this is an error as the subsequent AA does not address this issue.

Paras 5.34 to 5.37 refer to mitigation in respect of non physical disturbance and Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC. It is noted that paras 5.35 and 5.36 state (with reference to overall biodiversity policy) :

‘The policy will state that development proposals adversely affecting sites of biodiversity or geological importance will not normally be permitted. Exceptions will only be made where the public benefits significantly outweigh any adverse impacts. In such cases where development is permitted, we will require that the intrinsic natural features of particular interest are safeguarded or enhanced.’

and:

‘It is recommended that this wording is further strengthened to explicitly state that the level of protection provided should be appropriate to the international, national or local significance of the site. In addition, the policy should be updated to reflect the safeguard measures detailed above’.

We commented on this issue specifically with regard to the biodiversity and green spaces policies in this First Proposals consultation. The supporting text quoted at para 5.35 above indicates that exceptions will only be made where the public benefits significantly outweigh any adverse impacts. However, more clarity will be needed on how this will work in practice. Again, it is appreciated that the policy wording has still to be written. However, this is such an important issue that a clear statement of intent should be made in the GCLP now. If developments are proven to have an adverse effect or, applying the precautionary principle, a risk of an adverse effect, then they should only be normally permitted when clear tests are applied. Arguably this should also include being satisfied that applicants have demonstrated that there are no less damaging alternatives they could pursue.

Clarification will also be needed of what tests will be used to determine whether public benefits outweigh adverse impacts on important sites, because an approach solely on a case by case basis could risk a lack of consistency and consequent serious harm to biodiversity interests without sufficient justification. The level of public interest that would need to be demonstrated will also need to be commensurate with the level of interest affected - this is likely be very high if for example, an internationally or nationally important interest is at risk.

AA - Impacts of Recreation on Wicken Fen Ramsar site and Fenland SAC

We have already flagged our concern with the approach to the treatment of recreation effects in respect of the approach to screening for LSEs above. The AA identifies the potential impacts of increased recreational pressure on the Wicken Fen Ramsar site and Fenland SAC and paras 5.43 to paras 5.49 set out proposed mitigation. Para 5.46 states:

‘It is however recommended that the policy is strengthened further by providing a commitment in the plan that any development proposed within 20km of the European site to provide alternative natural greenspace that is specifically designed and managed to alleviate visitor pressure on the European sites. In addition to this, it is recommended that that (sic) the policy outlines the quantity and quality of open space provision and how delivery and management in-perpetuity will be secured’.

This overall commitment is welcomed and we are pleased to see that it concludes the need to manage alternative natural greenspace in perpetuity. However, the success of any mitigation (and ultimately any finding of no risk of any adverse effects) will all depend on alternative green space being delivered in a timely fashion to serve new development in the Cambridge Area. At this point in time that assumption is questionable.

Specifically, proposed new development at Waterbeach, North East Cambridge and Cambridge East will result in a substantial population within approximately 10 miles of these highly sensitive sites. Existing recreational green spaces such as Milton Country Park are already at capacity. Our recent understanding is that the relevant local authorities do not propose to create any new large scale greenspace for North East Cambridge. Whilst the need for such space is accepted, as yet the local authorities have no mechanism to deliver it. Failure to secure and deliver the required open space would thus place the Wicken Fen Ramsar site and Fenland SAC at considerable risk from increased recreational pressure and could not support a HRA finding of no adverse effect.

AA Water Quantity and Water Quality

We have already commented on these issues in respect of the biodiversity and green spaces policies because planning decisions in respect of the supply of water and waste disposal can have a number of profound impacts on both European sites and other important biodiversity interests.

With regard to water quantity it is noted that HRA report indicates potential issues regarding the impacts on European sites within the area and, with respect to mitigation, refers to work of Water Resources East (WRE) and the development of a long-term integrated water management plan (IWMP) for Eastern England.

It is also stated (para 5.60) that:

‘The purpose of this IWMP is to understand the future demand for water in this region, available water supplies, and the options available that will be required to balance supply and demand’.

The HRA also states with regard to the future GCLP at para 5.64 that:

Any new development as part of the GCLP will need to demonstrate water neutrality to ensure no adverse effect on the integrity of European sites susceptible to impacts from water. In part this will be achieved through reduced water demand within specific proposed development. However, this will largely be reliant on the actions of Cambridge Water with support from WRE. To address this, there should be a commitment in the GCLP that new development will need to demonstrate that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of European sites. This will need to include demonstration that water will be supplied without increasing abstraction beyond the existing agreed rates in the most recent Water Resource Management Plan or reducing the current available headroom, which could result in further detrimental impacts.’

The AA then concludes at para 5.68 (emphasis added):

Subject to the findings of the Greater Cambridge IWMS and WRE IWMP being confirmed and delivered a conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity can be reached. However, in the absence of these studies and in line with a precautionary approach, a conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity cannot be reached in relation to the effect of water quantity on Ouse Washes SAC, SPA and Ramsar site, Wicken Fen Ramsar site, Chippenham Fen Ramsar site, Fenland SAC and Portholme SAC either alone or in-combination until further detail is provided and presented in the GCLP.

We are concerned that potential harmful effects on European sites have yet to be resolved. This also has implications for effects other sites of national and local biodiversity and must be addressed as a matter of urgency if the GCLP is to proceed.

Whilst water availability is, of course, a relevant constraint that the planning system should consider, the capacity of our watercourses to dispose of treated water waste is likely to be a more binding one. Furthermore, consideration must also be given to the climate-change-induced, greater frequency of storm events. Without increased investment by the water authorities the frequency of storm events leading to raw sewerage being discharged is likely to increase, even at current levels of development.

Again it is noted that para 5.71 of the HRA report states:

‘An increase in demand for wastewater treatment as a result of development in the GCLP in combination with neighbouring boroughs and districts in the region has the potential to adversely affect the integrity of European sites that are susceptible to impacts from water.’

The report goes on to highlight three particular areas of concern - increased volumes of treated waste water, overloading of the combined sewer network during storm events with potential for further flooding and contamination and a potential for contaminated surface run off from an increase in the area or urban surfaces and roads.

Mitigation is proposed to address potential water quality impacts through upgrades to Water Recycle Centres (WRC) and relocation of the existing Cambridge WRC. However the HRA report also states at para 5.74 (emphasis added):

At this stage, it is unclear whether there is sufficient capacity available within existing infrastructure and as part of upgrades to WRC to support the increase in wastewater treatment as part of proposed development in the GCLP. It is recommended that exact mitigation measures are informed by the findings of the Greater Cambridge IWMS, including Outline Water Cycle Study and upcoming Detailed Water Cycle Study.

The HRA report continues to note that there is currently limited mitigation in the plan policies that will provide for increased demands in wastewater treatment in the Greater Cambridge area. It is recommended that there is a specific inclusion of wording that outlines that any development will only be permitted where there is sufficient capacity within the WRC infrastructure. As advised by English Nature, the HRA report then indicates there should be specific detail in the GCLP on the mechanism and timescale of delivery for mitigation that will be implemented, also informed by other work on upcoming water plans. The HRA then again concludes at para 5.76 (emphasis added):

Subject to the findings of the Greater Cambridge IWMS being confirmed and delivered a conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity can be reached. However, in the absence of this study and in line with a precautionary approach, a conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity cannot be reached in relation to the effect of water quality on Ouse Washes SAC, SPA and Ramsar site, Wicken Fen Ramsar site, Chippenham Fen Ramsar site, Fenland SAC and Portholme SAC either alone or in-combination until further detail is provided and presented in the GCLP.

Again, as with the water quantity issue, we are concerned that potential harmful effects on European and other important biodiversity sites have yet to be resolved and that this must be addressed as a matter of urgency if the GCLP is to proceed.

Next Steps

Finally we note and appreciate the point made regarding next steps at para 6.6 that the HRA is an iterative process and is expected to be updated. We will of course comment on further information when this is available. We still remain concerned however, that fundamental issues such as the impacts of recreation and water as described above are still to be resolved.