Biodiversity and green spaces

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 68

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 56486

Received: 06/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Avril Coghlan

Representation Summary:

- Noise and light pollution can affect insects, birds, bats, etc. It should not be allowed that proposed developments that will cause a lot of light pollution and noise pollution are allowed near nature sites, and existing biodiverse places like parks, rivers, etc.

- Where a new development (e.g. housing estate) is proposed near a noisy road or place that is brightly lit at night, it should not be allowed that the proposed 20% increase in biodiversity is due to bat boxes, bird boxes, etc. that are sited beside a brightly-lit noisy place where wildlife will not thrive. Bats and birds and insects are adversely affected by sound and light. It would seem better to me that the 20% increase in biodiversity would be at an off-site place that is more amenable to biodiversity in that case.

- In recent years some areas of Cambridge have had carefully planned developments that seem to have given rise to real increases in biodiversity, e.g. the Trumpington meadows. On the other hand, some other proposed developments (e.g. the recent planning proposal for the Anderson land in Cherry Hinton) did not include any increase in biodiversity, because the developer had actually systematically cut down trees and bushes and sprayed Roundup for several years before measuring the biodiversity baseline. There should be more consistency between the requirements for different developments - the wildlife and people of all of Cambridge/Cambridgeshire deserve the same level of careful planning and consideration for biodiversity as has been given in Trumpington.

- It should not be allowed that developers spray a site with Roundup and cut down trees and bushes to the level that biodiversity decreases hugely, and then use that as the baseline for their increase in biodiversity by the proposed development.

- Insects are at the bottom of the food web, and as such, are essential to all larger animals such as birds, hedgehogs, etc. Cambridge should declare itself a pesticide-free town as many other cities and towns around the world are doing, to encourage insects, which are necessary for all other animals to thrive.

- Cambridgeshire has an extremely low rate of woodland compared to other counties of England. It would be of great value to biodiversity to create some managed broad-leaf woodlands near Cambridge.

- The amount of litter along the roads and in hedges, trees, etc. near Cambridge is enormous. This must have a big effect on wildlife that gets caught in or accidentally ingests plastic bags etc. Developers should have to contribute to a litter clean-up fund to get rid of litter around Cambridge.

Full text:

- Noise and light pollution can affect insects, birds, bats, etc. It should not be allowed that proposed developments that will cause a lot of light pollution and noise pollution are allowed near nature sites, and existing biodiverse places like parks, rivers, etc.

- Where a new development (e.g. housing estate) is proposed near a noisy road or place that is brightly lit at night, it should not be allowed that the proposed 20% increase in biodiversity is due to bat boxes, bird boxes, etc. that are sited beside a brightly-lit noisy place where wildlife will not thrive. Bats and birds and insects are adversely affected by sound and light. It would seem better to me that the 20% increase in biodiversity would be at an off-site place that is more amenable to biodiversity in that case.

- In recent years some areas of Cambridge have had carefully planned developments that seem to have given rise to real increases in biodiversity, e.g. the Trumpington meadows. On the other hand, some other proposed developments (e.g. the recent planning proposal for the Anderson land in Cherry Hinton) did not include any increase in biodiversity, because the developer had actually systematically cut down trees and bushes and sprayed Roundup for several years before measuring the biodiversity baseline. There should be more consistency between the requirements for different developments - the wildlife and people of all of Cambridge/Cambridgeshire deserve the same level of careful planning and consideration for biodiversity as has been given in Trumpington.

- It should not be allowed that developers spray a site with Roundup and cut down trees and bushes to the level that biodiversity decreases hugely, and then use that as the baseline for their increase in biodiversity by the proposed development.

- Insects are at the bottom of the food web, and as such, are essential to all larger animals such as birds, hedgehogs, etc. Cambridge should declare itself a pesticide-free town as many other cities and towns around the world are doing, to encourage insects, which are necessary for all other animals to thrive.

- Cambridgeshire has an extremely low rate of woodland compared to other counties of England. It would be of great value to biodiversity to create some managed broad-leaf woodlands near Cambridge.

- The amount of litter along the roads and in hedges, trees, etc. near Cambridge is enormous. This must have a big effect on wildlife that gets caught in or accidentally ingests plastic bags etc. Developers should have to contribute to a litter clean-up fund to get rid of litter around Cambridge.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 56622

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Gamlingay Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Active site allocations for green infrastructure should be made on the same scale as allocating land for housing/business/employment development.

Full text:

Active site allocations for green infrastructure should be made on the same scale as allocating land for housing/business/employment development.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 56729

Received: 03/12/2021

Respondent: Croydon Parish Council

Representation Summary:

South Cambridgeshire is a green agricultural space. Building the odd park or nature reserve is no substitute.

Full text:

South Cambridgeshire is a green agricultural space. Building the odd park or nature reserve is no substitute.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 56820

Received: 07/12/2021

Respondent: Mr John Meed

Representation Summary:

I am delighted that the local plan includes Biodiversity as one of its themes and in general terms I support the objectives and priorities set out. However we need clarity about what will happen to the Biodiversity and Green Spaces Topic Paper and, above all, the Greater Cambridge Green Infrastructure Opportunity Mapping. I recommend, in particular, that the objectives for the Green Infrastructure initiatives be included within the local plan.

Full text:

Response to Local Plan Theme: Biodiversity and green spaces from John Meed
I am delighted that the local plan includes Biodiversity as one of its themes and in general terms I support the objectives and priorities set out. I will submit some suggestions for possible improvement in my response to individual policy areas.
This theme contains documents that operate on three different levels:
• The Greater Cambridge Local Plan – First Proposals. In some cases (eg Policy BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity) this gives detailed, measurable objectives; in other cases (eg Policy BG/GI: Green infrastructure) the objectives are more general.
• The Biodiversity and Green Spaces Topic Paper sets out more background for each policy. In some cases (eg Policy BG/GI: Green infrastructure) this is where more detailed objectives can be found.
• The Greater Cambridge Green Infrastructure Opportunity Mapping presents a further level of detail, principally for Policy BG/GI: Green infrastructure. This document sets more detail for individual initiatives.
As I understand it, once adopted, the Local Plan itself will be the only document that would have weight in determining a planning application. There is therefore a key question about which elements of the other two documents need to be included within the eventual Plan.
• For example, Policy BG/BG: Biodiversity and geodiversity already has specific objectives that are detailed and measurable within the Local Plan – First Proposals.
• By contrast, for Policy BG/GI: Green infrastructure, the objectives for individual objectives are contained in the Topic Paper. There is very real risk that these objectives, and in consequence the entire Greater Cambridge Green Infrastructure Opportunity Mapping, will have no weight in planning applications.
As the local plan develops this needs to be clarified. I am making specific submissions for Initiatives 3 and 14. In both cases I believe that the objectives in the supporting documents must be included within the local plan, though I recommend some changes to the objectives. I have studied the other initiatives less closely but I would imagine that a similar case could be made for them as well.
John Meed, December 2021
John Meed is a researcher and writer who lives in south Cambridge. He conducts regular surveys on behalf of the British Trust for Ornithology, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme. For the last ten years he has carried out a detailed ecological survey of one square kilometre of green belt south of Cambridge Biomedical Campus.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 56824

Received: 07/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Martin Yeadon

Representation Summary:

I would like to see a the plan proposing improvements along the lines stated without necessarily waiting for any development proposals to come forward.

Full text:

I would like to see a the plan proposing improvements along the lines stated without necessarily waiting for any development proposals to come forward.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 56889

Received: 08/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Prince

Representation Summary:

There is often a conflict between recreational use of green spaces and biodiversity – this is addressed in places but needs to be flagged up as a central issue. Green space is needed for people AND for wildlife and in areas of high density housing, sharing doesn’t work.

Full text:

There is often a conflict between recreational use of green spaces and biodiversity – this is addressed in places but needs to be flagged up as a central issue. Green space is needed for people AND for wildlife and in areas of high density housing, sharing doesn’t work.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 56912

Received: 08/12/2021

Respondent: Cllr. David Sargeant

Representation Summary:

West Wickham Parish Council support the aims for improved biodiversity and green spaces.

Full text:

West Wickham Parish Council support the aims for improved biodiversity and green spaces.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 57127

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Maggie Gould

Representation Summary:

With reference to the area covered by Strategic Initiative No 8: I would recommend that this should be extended beyond the A603 to include the Orwell Clunch pit (SSSI, Wildife Trust County Wildlife Site, Local Geological site) and village (which is in 5 broad opportunity zones & includes a chalk stream which is within Strategic Initiative 1).
Collaboration with landowners could improve planting of trees/hedges/meadows along/around the chalk ridge from Orwell to Barrington, providing a coridoor for wildlife linking through from Victoria woods.

Full text:

With reference to the area covered by Strategic Initiative No 8: I would recommend that this should be extended beyond the A603 to include the Orwell Clunch pit (SSSI, Wildife Trust County Wildlife Site, Local Geological site) and village (which is in 5 broad opportunity zones & includes a chalk stream which is within Strategic Initiative 1).
Collaboration with landowners could improve planting of trees/hedges/meadows along/around the chalk ridge from Orwell to Barrington, providing a coridoor for wildlife linking through from Victoria woods.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 57140

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Pro Ann Barrett

Representation Summary:

Proposals would be detrimental to local ecology, loss of green recreational space when housing is increasing adjacent population, reduction in opportunities for walking, increasing risk of flooding and noise and disturbance to domestic properties , increasing congestion on biomedical campus for little proven benefit,

Full text:

Moving the green belt boundary south means losing green belt and access to walking space which will be even more important after the Worts causeway development increases the population using the fields under consultation. These are already extremely frequently used .Development will mean loss of valuable natural habitats(see John Meed) and increased risk of flooding which is already substantial and problematic on the Ninewells estate.Surrounding housing with campus development will increase noise and disruption to domestic sites. Physical proximity of units of the biomedical site is not essential when virtual communication is more time efficient. As the size of the site increases , travelling between units will cause more traffic, even if all foot or bicycle.The proposals would disrupt footpaths joining Ninewells and the Beechwoods where joining up a wider swathe of green space would be very desirable.Ninewells reserve ecology would be detrimentally affected, especially after the loss of land to the rail developments.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 57205

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Abrdn

Agent: Deloitte

Representation Summary:

Abrdn notes the ambitious target of a minimum of 20% biodiversity net gain for development. Abrdn is supportive of ambitious targets for biodiversity but notes that this is double the target that was identified in the recently consulted on Cambridge Biodiversity SPD and also the emerging national target which is set by Government.
Any biodiversity net gain requirements should be proportionate to the potential of specific sites. For example, sites that are in a highly sustainable brownfield location which might have limited potential for increasing biodiversity. If the Local Plan policy is too prescriptive on this issue it may restrict the ability of brownfield sites to provide housing or employment uses in highly sustainable locations.

Full text:

Abrdn notes the ambitious target of a minimum of 20% biodiversity net gain for development. Abrdn is supportive of ambitious targets for biodiversity but notes that this is double the target that was identified in the recently consulted on Cambridge Biodiversity SPD and also the emerging national target which is set by Government.
Any biodiversity net gain requirements should be proportionate to the potential of specific sites. For example, sites that are in a highly sustainable brownfield location which might have limited potential for increasing biodiversity. If the Local Plan policy is too prescriptive on this issue it may restrict the ability of brownfield sites to provide housing or employment uses in highly sustainable locations.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 57252

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Daphne Lott

Representation Summary:

The City and area have good green spaces. These should be protected & not destroyed. No building on them particularly in 2 mile radius of City centre. Most open spaces close to the city eg. Milton Country Park have a rural touch to them and are a huge asset. The Biodiversity could be broadened in some areas.

Be mandatory that already approved plans plant many trees on site. Roads that are redeveloped, eg. Histon and Milton Roads, as many trees as possible planted. Consult & encourage residents to contribute to the cost of planting more trees if funding an issue

Full text:

The City and area have good green spaces. These should be protected & not destroyed. No building on them particularly in 2 mile radius of City centre. Most open spaces close to the city eg. Milton Country Park have a rural touch to them and are a huge asset. The Biodiversity could be broadened in some areas.

Be mandatory that already approved plans plant many trees on site. Roads that are redeveloped, eg. Histon and Milton Roads, as many trees as possible planted. Consult & encourage residents to contribute to the cost of planting more trees if funding an issue

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 57271

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Universities Superannuation Scheme (Commercial)

Agent: Deloitte

Representation Summary:

USS notes the ambitious target of a minimum of 20% biodiversity net gain for development. As set out in representations to Cambridge Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document and Biodiversity Strategy, USS is supportive of ambitious targets but notes this is double that identified in the recently consulted on Cambridge Biodiversity SPD and emerging national target set by Government.
Any biodiversity net gain requirements should be proportionate to the potential of specific sites. For example, sites that are in a highly sustainable brownfield locations which might have limited potential for increasing biodiversity. If the Plan policy is too prescriptive on this issue it may restrict the ability of brownfield sites to provide housing or employment uses in highly sustainable locations.

Full text:

USS notes the ambitious target of a minimum of 20% biodiversity net gain for development. As set out in previous representations to the Cambridge Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document and Biodiversity Strategy, USS is supportive of ambitious targets for biodiversity but notes that this is double the target that was identified in the recently consulted on Cambridge Biodiversity SPD and also the emerging national target which is set by Government.

Any biodiversity net gain requirements should be proportionate to the potential of specific sites. For example, sites that are in a highly sustainable brownfield locations which might have limited potential for increasing biodiversity. If the Local Plan policy is too prescriptive on this issue it may restrict the ability of brownfield sites to provide housing or employment uses in highly sustainable locations.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 57386

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Huntingdonshire District Council

Representation Summary:

Huntingdonshire District Council have no comment.

Full text:

Huntingdonshire District Council have no comment.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 57525

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Stapleford Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Cambridge is reknowned for its green spaces, open agricultural land, the unique landscape of the Magog Hills, its chalk hills and the Wandlebury Historic Site. The proposed Green Belt erosion between the City and Stapleford Parish will ultimately destroying our village status. Your policy is to enhance biodiversity, geodiversity, river corridors and protect open spaces. Building in open spaces in the Green Belt cannot meet these policies. We agree that tree cover is an important issue but Chalk Hills will not support the planting of numerous trees in our area. Wandlebury have a strong policy for tree planting and maintenance.

Full text:

Cambridge is known for its green spaces, open agricultural land, the unique landscape of the Magog Hills, its chalk hills and the Wandlebury Historic Site. The Green Belt between the City and Stapleford Parish has been and is proposed to be eroded already, ultimately destroying our village status. Your policy is to enhance biodiversity, geodiversity, river corridors and protect open spaces. Building in open spaces with a development that is in the Green Belt cannot possibly be seen to meet these policies. We agree that tree cover is an important issue and have taken advantage of some of the tree offers that have been around but fail to see that Chalk Hills will support the planting of numerous trees in our near area. Wandlebury have a strong policy for tree planting and maintenance and therefore we believe we are moving towards meeting this need in our area.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 57590

Received: 10/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Pargeter

Representation Summary:

DEFRA and other metrics take no account of disturbance factors. The presence of people is a deterrent to much wildlife, and cats are unnatural predators which unbalance the ecosystem. An interconnected distribution of havens remote from severe disturbance should therefore be maintained. Ditches and hedgerows are important for this and should be protected
Business or industrial developments have a greater potential for biodiversity gain than residential developments as there is less disturbance, particularly outside working hours, and there are no domestic animals. It is important that sufficient space is set aside within such developments.

Full text:

The headline commitment to require biodiversity net gain is welcome. It should be recognised, however, that the DEFRA and other metrics take no account of disturbance factors. The very presence of people is a deterrent to much wildlife, and cats are unnatural predators which unbalance the ecosystem. That being the case, it is important to ensure that a distribution of havens remote from severe disturbance is maintained, and that these do not lose their interconnections. In this respect ditches and hedgerows are important, and should be protected, as recognised in “Greater Cambridge Green Infrastructure Opportunity Mapping Final Report (2021)”. There are many recent examples of stretches of hedgerow being completely removed and replanted, whereas infill, retaining as much of the old hedge (including occasional trees) as possible, would be better for biodiversity.
In many ways, business or industrial developments have a greater potential for biodiversity gain than residential developments. There are few people around outside working hours, and there are no domestic animals. It is important that sufficient space is set aside within such developments, and that measures are put in place to ensure that it is managed in the future, as indeed mentioned in the Green Infrastructure, Proposed Policy Direction. A good example of what can be achieved is Granta Park.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 57674

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Conroy

Representation Summary:

All Policies are supported

Full text:

All Policies are supported

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 57704

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth Parish Council

Representation Summary:

We support this policy.

Full text:

We support this policy.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 57787

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Dr Reg Nicholls

Representation Summary:

These comments are made on behalf of the Cambridgeshire Geological Society.
In your infographic, there is no mention of Local Geological Sites or Geological SSSI. There are a number of such designated sites within the area covered.
Local Geological Sites are designed to provide a system of locally valued non-statutory sites.
Local Geological Sites (‘LGS’) are broadly equivalent to Local Wildlife Sites (‘LWS’) but have a wider remit as they can be designated for their scientific, educational, historical and recreational benefits. Typical Cambridgeshire LGS include quarries, pits, Fenland, chalk springs and could also include buildings, walls, boulders and river meanders

Full text:

These comments are made on behalf of the Cambridgeshire Geological Society.
In your infographic, there is no mention of Local Geological Sites or Geological SSSI. There are a number of such designated sites within the area covered.
Local Geological Sites are designed to provide a system of locally valued non-statutory sites.
Local Geological Sites (‘LGS’) are broadly equivalent to Local Wildlife Sites (‘LWS’) but have a wider remit as they can be designated for their scientific, educational, historical and recreational benefits. Typical Cambridgeshire LGS include quarries, pits, Fenland, chalk springs and could also include buildings, walls, boulders and river meanders

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 57809

Received: 11/12/2021

Respondent: Histon & Impington Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Monitoring needs to be in place to support this policy.

Full text:

Monitoring needs to be in place to support this policy.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 57947

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Davies

Representation Summary:

Support ‘Increase and improve our network of habitats for wildlife, and green spaces for people, ensuring that development leaves the natural environment better than it was before’. This means that policies must provide for the protection and enhancement of existing green spaces, networksand corridors,in urban areas, including provision for buffer zones.

Full text:

Support ‘Increase and improve our network of habitats for wildlife, and green spaces for people, ensuring that development leaves the natural environment better than it was before’. This means that policies must provide for the protection and enhancement of existing green spaces, networksand corridors,in urban areas, including provision for buffer zones.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 57994

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Cambridge Doughnut Economics Action Group

Representation Summary:

There is mounting research to suggest that Biodiversity Net Gain policies and measurement systems are widely unsuccessful in achieving their stated aims, eg https://kar.kent.ac.uk/88387/

Full text:

There is mounting research to suggest that Biodiversity Net Gain policies and measurement systems are widely unsuccessful in achieving their stated aims, eg https://kar.kent.ac.uk/88387/

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 58017

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Imperial War Museum/Gonville and Caius College

Agent: Tulley Bunting

Representation Summary:

IWM and Caius are supportive of the biodiversity and green space objectives of the GCLP, including the approach to biodiversity net gain to ensure habitats for wildlife are enhanced. By looking comprehensively and collectively at the IWM and Caius estates at Duxford, the parties consider that there are greater opportunities to increase biodiversity net gain across the estates.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 58028

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Great and Little Chishill Parish Council

Representation Summary:

General Comment - These are essential not only for the environment but also mental health.

Full text:

Please see attached summary.

Attachments:

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 58069

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Horningsea Parish Council

Representation Summary:

It is very disingenuous and lacking transparency to produce a local plan that does not mention the relocation of the fully functioning Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant to Green Belt, in order to unlock a brownfield site for a development project that was imagined for a living/working community prior to the effects of the global pandemic.

Full text:

It is very disingenuous and lacking transparency to produce a local plan that does not mention the relocation of the fully functioning Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant to Green Belt, in order to unlock a brownfield site for a development project that was imagined for a living/working community prior to the effects of the global pandemic.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 58085

Received: 12/12/2021

Respondent: Fulbourn Forum for community action

Representation Summary:

The assessment in the Greater Cambridge Chalk Streams Project ignores the opportunity to enhance the streams and water courses flowing from the springs at Fulbourn and Wilbraham. Naturally flowing, year-round water would have a significant effect in increasing biodiversity, and the resultant re-wetting of some areas would make a contribution to carbon sequestration as well. As a fen edge village, Fulbourn's fen character has been significantly reduced due to the abstraction from the Fleam Dyke pumping station and elsewhere. This can be restored and nature will quickly return given the right conditions.

Full text:

Fulbourn Forum for community action supports the proposals to revitalise the chalk stream network and the enhancement of the eastern fens of which the springs and water courses emanating from Fulbourn and Wilbraham are a part. These springs and their streams are the catchment area that feeds into Quy Water that flows through Lode and the water mill at Anglesey Abbey, then on to the Cam via Bottisham Lode.
The Greater Cambridge Chalk Stream Project does not appreciate the huge loss of water to this catchment resulting from over-abstraction of water from the chalk aquifer. The two springs just east of the Fulbourn Fen Nature Reserve will only run if there is above average rainfall in winter. The wetting and drying of the water courses is detrimental to the establishment of a healthy ecosystem. If reliable, year-round flows were re-instated (by a reduction in abstraction) the nature reserve and adjoining areas would quickly recover with an increase in biodiversity. To help with the climate emergency, it is essential that these areas are not lost. As recently as the 1980s, kingfishers and water voles were to be found in the Nature Reserve. But no longer. The current water augmentation is not the answer - it is a sticking plaster over a gaping wound. At Fulbourn the augmentation does not feed into the springs, leaving streams dry. It just provides a small amount of water to help wet the East Fen Pasture, the location of the wild orchids within the SSSI.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 58206

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Universities Superannuation Scheme (Retail)

Agent: Deloitte

Representation Summary:

Please see full response above.

Full text:

USS notes the ambitious target of a minimum of 20% biodiversity net gain for development. As set out in previous representations to the Cambridge Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document and Biodiversity Strategy, USS is supportive of ambitious targets for biodiversity but notes that this is double the target that was identified in the recently consulted on Cambridge Biodiversity SPD and also the emerging national target which is set by Government.

Any biodiversity net gain requirements should be proportionate to the potential of specific sites. For
example, sites that are in a highly sustainable brownfield location which might have limited potential for increasing biodiversity. If the Local Plan policy is too prescriptive on this issue it may restrict the ability of brownfield sites to provide housing or employment uses in highly sustainable locations.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 58303

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Mary-Ann Claridge

Representation Summary:

There should be explicit requirement for green separation between communities. While this is often mentioned in planning discussions, I see no requirement stated in this plan. Without it there is a high probability of piecemeal ribbon development in all areas outside the Green Belt.The requirement needs to be explicitly stated to be given adequate weight in future decisions.

Full text:

There should be explicit requirement for green separation between communities. While this is often mentioned in planning discussions, I see no requirement stated in this plan. Without it there is a high probability of piecemeal ribbon development in all areas outside the Green Belt.The requirement needs to be explicitly stated to be given adequate weight in future decisions.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 58312

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Hallam Land Management Limited

Agent: Marrons Planning

Representation Summary:

Hallam Land Management (HLM) support the Councils aims in respect of biodiversity and green spaces.

Full text:

Hallam Land Management (HLM) support the Councils aims in respect of biodiversity and green spaces.

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 58421

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Linton Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Support

Full text:

Support

Comment

Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options

Representation ID: 58451

Received: 13/12/2021

Respondent: Orwell Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Orwell Parish Council recomends that the Strategic Initiative 8 is extended to include the Orwell Clunch Pit and the village. In the opinion of the Parish Council this would be of benefit to the local wildlife and open up the opportunity to provide a corridor for wild life linking the chalk ridge to Victoria Woods.

A public meeting has been held to discuss the setting up of a charity to support environmental ideas and projects locally.

Full text:

Referring to the area covered by Strategic Initiative 8 (Western Gateway, Multifunctional Green Infrastructure Corridors), Orwell Parish Council recommends that this should be extended beyond the A603 to include the Orwell Clunch Pit (SSSI, Wildlife Trust County Wildlife Site, Local Geological site) and village (which is in 5 broad opportunity zones & includes a chalk stream which is within Strategic Initiative 1). In the Parish Council’s opinion this would be of benefit for wildlife generally and particularly for wildlife in and around Orwell.

Collaboration with landowners could improve planting of trees/hedges/meadows along/around the chalk ridge from Orwell to Barrington, providing a corridor for wildlife linking through from Victoria Woods.

A public meeting was held on 7th October to discuss the possibility of setting up a charity that would be able to support environmental ideas and projects in the area around Orwell. It would also be able to work alongside the Parish Council. A note is attached with the results of the feedback from the meeting.