Whilst Cambridge Past, Present & Future appreciate the international significance of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and the benefits of a centre of medical excellence on our doorstep, we nevertheless have reservations about the continued expansion of the CBC and OBJECT to this policy because it would cause a high level of harm to the green belt, loss of biodiversity (see attached report from John Meed) and increase flood risk.

Future growth of the Campus is constrained by the Gog Magog Hills. The hills are arguably the most important landscape area on the city fringes and it is generally agreed that any development of the slopes would be unacceptable. Not only that but building right up to the slopes will also have significant detrimental visual impacts. This raises a fundamental question about the longer term.

If the campus does continue to expand then where will it expand if there is no acceptable land adjacent to the Campus? The answer is a new campus in a different location. If that is the long-term future, then why not address it now rather than encroaching on an important part of the green belt? Has that option been considered as part of the plan making process?

Given that future land for the campus in this location is likely to be highly constrained we challenge whether any residential provision should be made and we would also argue that a more rigorous set of criteria should be agreed so that new enterprises and activities have to demonstrate why co-location within the Campus is absolutely essential for their operation. Co-location would be desirable for any biomedical company, but is it crucial to the effective operation of that company?

Notwithstanding our objection in principle to this policy, we comment specifically on the proposal:
• "Significant Green Belt enhancement in adjoining areas of White Hill and Nine Wells will be required, to provide green infrastructure and biodiversity improvements supporting the objectives of the Strategic Initiative 3: Gog Magog Hills and chalkland fringe. These areas would remain within the Green Belt and are included in the Area of Major Change to highlight that future proposals for built development on the allocated areas must also include green infrastructure and biodiversity improvements within its adjoining open area."

We welcome this approach. Some of the previous attempts to mitigate the impacts of development through green infrastructure and public access improvements through Area Action Plans and similar have failed because they have been considered aspirational rather than contingent. Policy drafting must ensure that:

i). Any development is contingent on green infrastructure and biodiversity improvements in the adjoining area.

ii). The scale and type of improvements are spelt out clearly so that both the developer and community understand what is expected.

We are attaching with our submission a report by John Meed who has been studying farmland birds on this land for the past ten years. He reports that “At first sight the area I study may appear unlikely to support high levels of biodiversity. However, in practice it is home to remarkable populations of threatened farmland birds, all red-listed species of high conservation concern, as well as the equally endangered water voles, brown hare, and a good range of other birds, mammals, arable plants, butterflies, dragonflies and other invertebrates.” John’s report highlights that many of these species would be impacted not just by the development but potentially by future landscape and biodiversity plans. He proposes that in addition to the land identified at White Hill and Nine Wells that additional work would be needed on adjacent farmland to mitigate the impact on farmland wildlife.

In relation to the statement:
• No development will be permitted south of Granham’s Road. However there may be potential to realign the eastern end of Granham’s Road to a point no further south than the southern boundary of the Wort’s Causeway development to the east of Babraham Road, subject to achieving an acceptable junction arrangement, with the Green Belt boundary following the line of the road. The additional area that may be created by realigning Granham’s Road is shown as a separate area at this stage, and will be explored further, with the boundary to be defined in the draft Local Plan.
We note that the realignment of the road would result in further loss of 5-6 acres of greenbelt to development because Granham’s Road (the green belt boundary) would effectively be moved south.