General vision is to support and protect existing nature sites. Sadly many developments will be built on and take away well-established green open areas - fields north of Cherry Hinton and airport which have been home to
vast amounts of wildlife, wild flowers, streams with frogs, tadpoles, birds,hedgehogs, bees and butterflies for years.
The proposed policy approach to Bio/Geodiversity (section 3) which centres on a 20% minimum net gain is ambitious, realistic, and welcomed. However, there is no clear policy to explain what procedures will be in place should overall progress falls short of this target. In section 3.5, 3rd bullet point, there is a typo (off/on-site) but in any case the policy should prohibit off-site where-ever possible since this can be leveraged as a loop-hole by small developments at the detriment to local parishes and neighbourhood plans.
It is disappointing to see the Councils not yet have adopted its own metrics to assess environmental net gain, particular given the importance of the local ecosystem. Such a metric would assist the Councils better assess the impact of developments encroaching on green belt, such as proposals to relocate Cambridge United football stadium, the Newmarket Rd P&R, and sewerage works. As a parish council, we oppose the re-location of the P&Ride site to the Teversham side of airport Way, as this will encroach on the Green belt and encourage further connected development, as the current P&Ride site has.
Recognition of recreational impact as a "significant issue" is welcome and future clarification of the policy must include a focus on pro-active repair and maintenance, both of which are currently lacking.

In section 4.4 "Green Infrastructure, Evidence Base" there is no mention of the pressure from the significant number of large housing developments on pressures to the chalk stream network. This is a major omission that needs to be addressed urgently. It is also disappointing not to see mention of quantitative targets throughout this section. A simpler route to obtaining planning permission for community orchards and allotments is required.
It is positive to see policy for green infrastructure explore the proposal for all significant developments to align to the Building With Nature standard. This will strengthen the framework for protecting green spaces identified in local neighbourhood plans, for example.
It is not justified to reject the alternative approach to restrict development within respective GI strategic areas on the basis that these areas are too broad. To redress the balance wherein the value of GI is greater than that of new developments, the policy should be to define the strategic areas more specifically.
The poor tree canopy cover across Cambridgeshire is well known (e.g. Woodland Trust) and the target of 19% TC by 2030 is welcome. However, it is disappointing to not see in the Evidence Base a more recent re-evaluation of the scientific and biodiversity value of all wet woodland on clay soils (e.g. Hayley Wood). While there are many welcome and well-intentioned policy proposals for woodlands, there is a greater need for specific quantitative targets that align to the BNG target as well as the TC target. A far greater emphasis on improving the quality of woodland and hedgerow is required. There are many local public woodlands and hedgerows which are low in diversity because of poor maintenance (as evidenced by overgrowth of ivy).
It is welcome to see in section 7 a recognition that wellbeing and open spaces are linked, particularly a focus on formal sports pitches. It is surprising that there is no mention of partnerships with major charities, especially the football foundation. Furthermore, while reference to strategic sporting facilities is made, there is no mention of support for grass roots clubs and this omission should be rectified.