S/CBC: Cambridge Biomedical Campus (including Addenbrooke's Hospital)

As a local resident, I strongly object to this devastating proposal to extend the biomedical campus/release greenbelt. Every major viewpoint (Wandlebury, the Gogs, the Beachwoods) would be negatively impacted. The proposed area is part of a beautiful and absolutely vital green space used daily by local residents for walks and to connect with nature. It is part of an important wildlife corridor and is adjacent to Nine Wells LNR, itself already under threat from over development. This precious land must not be built upon and must be permanently protected - it cannot be replaced or offset.

Encroached on the Green Belt and lacks good road and public transport.

I don't think there should be further incursions into the Green Belt as proposed here. The new sites on Wort's Causeway have already taken Green Belt land and they don't look as if they are going to be at all sustainable, as promised, because there seem to be no safe or convenient walking or cycling access through to Queen Edith's schools, doctors or shops. The Biomedical Campus has grown massively in recent years and yet we are told further expansion is necessary even though the original expansion has caused big traffic problems. Green Belt growth may be cheap for developers but comes at environmental cost - brownfield sites should always be given priority.

The Nine Wells reserve is very small and I feel the wildlife it supports will be threatened by the planned development coming so very close by. I would like land to be set aside to create a wildlife corridor to link this little reserve with the beechwood reserve nearby.

Supporting the development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus is a laudable aim. Appropriate housing needs to be provided in or around this area of Cambridge. Is there for example no prospect for a new settlement similar to Cambourne or Northstowe to the south of Cambridge?

I am very troubled by the size and overwhelming nature of the proposed site next to the new Ninewells development. Ecological reasons are paramount, the fields provide enormous benefit to the local landscape and residents. We are very concerned about traffic and flooding issues too, please block this proposal Thankyou

Please see attached document.

(Minerals and Waste) Most of Consultation Area (CA) for Addenbrooke’s energy from waste Management Area (WMA) is within the Proposed Area of Major Change. S/CBC/E/2 is partly within the CA.
All of the PAMC is within a MSA for chalk and parts are within a MSA for sand & gravel.

For the last ten years I have been conducting ecological surveys of one square kilometre of green belt which includes the area of major change. The fields I study are bounded by the Biomedical Campus, the Nine Wells development, Babraham Road, Granham’s Road and the railway line. I attach a copy of my interim report for 2021.
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 red-listed farmland bird species of high conservation concern, as well as the equally endangered water voles. There are also good numbers of brown hare and a range of other birds, mammals, arable plants, butterflies, dragonflies and other invertebrates. The fields affected by S/CBC/A and S/CBC/E2 all form crucial parts of the wider ecosystem.
Key species affected include grey partridge, which declined by 93% between 1970 and 2018 and are now considered ‘vulnerable to extinction’ in the UK; corn bunting and yellow wagtail which declined respectively by 89% and 68% and are now considered ‘near threatened’ meaning that they are likely to become at high risk of extinction in the UK in the near future. The fields affected by S/CBC/A were home this year to five pairs of grey partridge, four corn bunting territories and three pairs of yellow wagtail.
For several reasons which I discuss in the attached detailed submission it is entirely unrealistic to expect Policy S/CBC, as it stands, to achieve the minimum required 20% biodiversity net gain of habitat. Even if offsite habitats were proposed that might benefit farmland birds elsewhere these would not justify losses of sedentary farmland bird species from their existing range.
If Policy S/CBC is genuinely essential to the future of the City and South Cambridgeshire, and sufficiently exceptional to justify the release of green belt, a separate mitigation or compensation package would be required for the farmland birds in order to ‘take account of particular species in a locality that give habitats their local distinctiveness’ (Defra). This would mean improving the arable habitat across Granham’s Road land to provide a refuge for the displaced wildlife as the species concerned are not readily mobile. In the attached detailed submission I propose ways in which this might be achieved – however, habitat creation is always harder work than maintaining existing habitat and retaining the existing fields would be a less risky option.
I attach both more a more detailed submission and my interim report for 2021 of the area I survey.

Regarding S/CBC/E2 and S/CBC/A. These should not be converted from Green Belt. This is urban sprawl which belt is meant to prevent. Out of keeping with area and easy decision for South Cambs as relieves need to find 990 homes in other sites.
In 2018 soft edge of city was cycle path and should be defended.
Fields are flood plan and do flood. Where will excess water go?
Fields are crossed and surrounded by paths and hedgerows supporting biodiversity. This loss does not sit with the Stated Vision.
Historic and popular Ninewells Nature Reserve will disappear if area is developed.

The Trumpington Residents' Association strongly objects to policy S/CBC and the proposed expansion of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC). We believe this is premature, unnecessary and inappropriate. The proposal seems to have been shoe-horned into the Plan without adequate consideration or consultation. It is not clear that it is either viable or needed. It should be removed from the Plan.

We have previously objected to the expansion of CBC that was included in the current Local Plan (S/CBC/Policy E/2). As far as we are aware, no plans have been put forward for the use of that land. Also, there is the potential for better use of the land within the existing footprint of the Campus: we are aware that the CBC authorities are actively looking this type of change. The policy states that "development on the additional land will only be allowed to take place when evidence is provided that opportunities on the existing campus have been fully explored and utilised before development takes place" (page 86). The proposals fail to demonstrate that the development plans are appropriate.

Concentrating development here will place further pressure on resources, transport, housing and the community. It would result in a "very high level of harm" to the Green Belt (page 89).

If approved, the proposal would extend the edge of the city well into the Green Belt, as far as Granham’s Road. Nine Wells LNR and White Hill would be greatly affected by development. The extension would be very visible from the countryside to the south, including from Magog Down.

The development in the Green Belt would undermine Cambridge’s 'special character' by reducing the separation between Cambridge and its necklace of villages which the current Local Plan emphasises support this character.

We argue that there is a sufficient supply of employment land elsewhere, as detailed in the Employment Land and Economic Evidence Base (Appendix H). The Development Strategy Topic Paper states that "Given the overall supply of employment land available, it is not considered that the case for release in this location can be made on the overall land supply" (page 132). There are other areas with the potential to accommodate the needs of CBC, within a reasonable distance of the core Campus. There are opportunities to maximise the role of the wider Cambridge biotech area, with more partnerships, less pressure on one location, and co-location across the area.

The proposed inclusion of additional homes as part of this development does not seem to have been factored into the projection for homes and is contrary to the Green Belt policy (page 39).

The proposed expansion area includes high quality category 2/3 agricultural land. The development would undermine the principle of protecting the best agricultural land (Policy J/AL, page 235, and the Jobs Topic Paper, page, 21). The National Planning Policy Framework states "Where significant development is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality".

It is not clear how the proposed housing fits in with the overall Plan. There is a reference to providing "affordable and key worker homes for campus employees" (page 85, final line). Is the intention to have no market housing? If the affordable housing is limited to campus employees to support the expansion of the Campus, it would have limited impact on the existing shortfall in affordable housing.

If the expansion was approved in principle, there is a strong case for phasing it well in the future (beyond 2041), after other steps have been taken to maximise the use of the existing site and the already approved development area; limiting the area taken up by the development; requiring a design code that restricts the visual impact of high-rise buildings; prioritising functions that really need to be close to the existing Campus; and for removing or reducing the number of homes within the development. We believe that it is essential that the best use is made of the existing Campus site first.

Mitigating the flood risk would require a comprehensive approach to drainage.

Should this proposal continue to be brought forward, the Wildlife Trusts welcomes the recognition of the need for significant Green Belt enhancement in adjoining areas of White Hill and Nine Wells , to provide green infrastructure and biodiversity improvements supporting the objectives of the Strategic Initiative 3: Gog Magog Hills and chalkland fringe. However, this location is renowned for its farmland bird assemblage and if the allocation is progressed, specific measures to mitigate and compensate for these losses should be built into the policy requirements. Other beneficial aspects could include enhancing sustainable access routes towards the Gog Magog Hills.

The release of the greenbelt land between Babraham Road and Granham's Road is in contradiction to the 2018 plan. Policy 17, in the 2018 Plan, declared that any proposals for development should respect "...key views, especially of and from the chalk hills..". The fields you are proposing for intensive development rise up towards the stunning chalk ridge of the Gog Magog Hills. This is a vista we cannot afford to lose and it is unique for Cambridge. East Anglian chalk is part of the character of the area. In the document Greater Cambridge Green Infrastructure Opportunity Mapping concern was expressed that development was "....eroding the areas of best landscape from the south-east to the southside of the city and in particular the views and chalk downland round the Gogs and the green space between the Biomedical Campus and Nine Wells Nature Reserve". The fields in front of Ninewells are part of this 'best landscape'. We have a responsibility to protect this landscape from development. A sensitive transition is needed between the city and this key vista.

These fields are also close to Nine Wells Nature Reserve. The City Council describes this as a "...historically important site" and claims that "the chalk watercourse are being managed with the aim of re-creating the conditions favourable for a possible re-introduction of .......rare freshwater invertebrates". If these fields are developed they will increase the people moving through the reserve further threatening it. Development of the fields around this important site will threaten the biodiversity corridor. The Cambridge Green Infrastructure Strategy 5.4.2 drew attention to the fact that areas of calcareous grassland '...have become fragmented and need to be expanded and linked together, in order to produce sustainable blocks of habitat". Any development will reduce the green connectivity between Ninewells Nature Reserve and the surrounding hedgerows that support wildlife.

The plan which pushes the edge of the city a far as Granham's Road further weakens the divide between Cambridge and its villages, especially Shelford. Green belt exists to prevent such alterations occurring. The Cambridge & Peterborough Structure Plan Policy (9/2b) said it would "...ensure the protection of green corridors running from open countryside into the urban area". The proposed release of this green belt fails to comply with this policy.

Flooding
Please contact me if you wish to see a flooding report for this area. It is a flood zone 3 and I have photographs of the fields completely water-logged for months at a time. The Ninewells Estate has continuing problems with water, including the children's play area having to be redeveloped and repositioned because of standing water.

Ecological concerns
John Meed's interim report can be read using the following link: https://queen-ediths.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Interim_report_JM_2021.pdf . It shows that this green belt area is extremely valuable for farmland birds of high conservation concern, with exceptional numbers of grey partridge as well as corn bunting and reed bunting. I have photographs of the grey partridges taken on 4th December and have recently seen a kingfisher on several occasions. Grey partridge have declined by 93% in recent decades and are red listed.

The land provides a variety of habitats with hedges, grassy margins and patches of woodland. John Meed reports seeing " muntjac and roe deer, badger, fox, stoat,weasel, rabbit, mole, field and bank vole, and wood mouse, as well ascommon pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle and noctule bats." I have not yet seen these animals as I have only lived here for a few months but there is plently of evidence of their existance. The mature hedgerows are full of the burrows of a range of mammals.

Pollution
The Cambridge Biomedical Campus has already caused considerable traffic congestion and demand on local resources. Further growth will exacerbate these problems, not solve them. Residents of the Ninewells Estate already have to struggle with air pollution from standing traffic in Babraham Road.

There is also noise pollution from the Addenbrokes Helicopter service and once the station is developed that will also bring railway noise and vibration to the area. The proposed development of such a large site with many hundreds of new homes will also bring significant AQMA traffic impact without mitigation.

The Ninewells Estate was developed as the soft fringe to the city of Cambridge, not a cell to be completely surrounded by the Biomedical Campus.

With reference to the Local Plan with regard to the land marked S/CBC/A i was pleased to see that the planners consider the site unsuitable for development. It is wholly within the Green belt and in a very appealing rural area on the very edge of the city. Were development to be permitted it would result in several high rise commercial structures
Totally out of character with the surroundings. The Ninewells estate, having been marketed as the soft edge of the
city, would be hemmed in by the CBC, farmland concreted over and wildlife gone forever. Nature is not unlimited and does not always bounce back.
The wildlife seen everyday on and around the field, would be gone as John Meed so eloquently affirms in his report. It beggars belief that Cllr Hawkins suggests that this proposed building on the green belt in any way promotes climate change. The planners know that the field goes beyong waterlogged after heavy rain, in fact last winter it was in places submerged for many months....photos can be supplied.
The field is entirely unsuitable for development and there are no exceptional circumstances to permit it.

I am strongly opposed to the expansion of the Addenbrooks site. The proposed area of development is an area of natural beauty and the environmental costs will be deleterious to the quality of life for what was supposed to be maintained as a protected greenfield site. Water security, flooding risks, agricultural and environmental needs, along with the existence of alternative, more suitable brown field sites north of Cambridge, militate against any further development around Ninewells.

I am totally against your bringing the Biomedical Campus forward into Babraham rd and possibly re-aligning of Granhams Rd. This field floods every winter. You are talking about increasing the jobs and houses far more than is necessary and more than Cambridge can cope with. TRANSPORT must be improved immediately.
If the Campus must be extended please do that in line with the present permission on Dame Nary Archer way to the south creating a park round Ninewells and maintaining and adding to all the hedges and trees.
This plan is against your own better judgment in 2018. No Good.

Huntingdonshire District Council has no comment.

I object for these reasons:
1. The proposed additional land is green belt and was previously already designated as a soft belt after the last expansion.
2. There is no guarantee of water supply. Extraction is already maximised and more would create exponential damage to aquifers and the local environment.
3.;The proposed additional land is not needed. There is already adequate land for current expansion needs.
4. As a local resident, I believe this plan will have a huge negative impact on my life.

I consider this an Ill-conceived and speculative land grab, and as such it should be refused.

Whilst I understand Cambridge is expanding, I object to the scale of the expansion proposed which seems an unsubstantiated vanity project by non-residents.The Green belt is narrow enough and provides an outer edge to a small city - its lungs. The Biomedical Campus is surrounded by many new developments already and in this dry area there is no evidence that a water supply can be sustained on the scale proposed, and the residential roads are already under pressure. This proposal would create a concrete jungle which wealthier residents will seek to flee, encouraging further development forever outwards.

While I accept the desirability of allowing the Biomedical Campus to expand, there are pressing issues which need to be addressed and which are more urgent, i.e. the inadequate public transport and the need to "green" the campus to make it less stark.
I understand it is not intended to use the existing field boundaries, with their straight lines and sharp angles, as the future boundary for an expanded Biomedical Campus. This is one of the very few areas of Cambridge with anything that could be described as upland and this is a precious asset which should not be despoiled.

I feel particularly strongly about the massive developments occurring around Addenbrookes site. Although extremely aware of the need for certain important developments, such as the Children's Hospital and Cancer Centre, as a resident I think greater emphasis needs to be placed on the impact on the green belt, including Nine Wells reserve, the land towards the Beech woods.
I've commented elsewhere on my concerns about the sustainability of the growth of the biomedical Campus, and lack of consideration of local current residents' views and the impact on future residents.

Addenbrookes is a large employer. We would support development here but the types of homes need to fit in with those likely to live there.

A high proportion of Key Worker accommodation for the Addenbrookes site very important so workers at all levels at Addenbrookes have somewhere nearby and a safe walk from Addenbrookes.

Support the proposal not to build south of Grahams Road. Care will need to be taken over site design to limit the impact of buildings/homes on the higher land on the wider landscape, tree planting etc. , mirroring neighbouring landscape on nearby hills.

comment on consultation

S/CBC/A. S/CBC/B/2 and the surrounding area are extraordinarily rich in bird, mammal and plant biodiversity and home to many endangered species. We are already about to lose land of a similar nature and importance on both sides of Worts Causeway. Many local people use the area for leisure and contemplation - as the pandemic has shown, areas of natural beauty are vital to mental health. These are being pushed further and further beyond walking reach of the residents of Queen Edith's. Car journeys will be needed to access equivalent areas. The plans to implement measures to enhance biodiversity and green infrastructure on the field sloping up to White Hill will not provide sufficient space for wildlife nor for humans offering little in compensation for despoiling a beautiful area.

I am opposed to the rationale of the Local Plan, which underestimates the climate emergency, failing to properly reflect the Desgupta report's understanding of sustainability and the economy; choosing to develop greenfield sites (thereby maximising carbon emissions) and not brownfield sites; adopting a cavalier attitude to the question of water supply; isolating the nine wells nature reserve rather than linking it up, eg. to the beech woods; undermining biodiversity (especially re. threatened bird species found locally); failing to develop an integrated transport system whose primary consideration is climate change.

This Plan should be rethought in light of the climate emergency.

The fields south of the hospital are flooded for the best of the three winter months, and this is without development on them, meaning that the plants that currently live on the land will help in soaking some of the rainwater. The flooding creates a pond that is big and deep enough for many of the birds that live in the wetland of Hobsons park bird reserve to move to this part of the fields and swim around in the waters that collect here.

Developing on this land means having the same problems if not more than the new AstraZeneca DISC building on Francis Crick avenue has had - with flooding of the basements and sinking of the building, impacting on the time for delivery of a new research building and leading to financial losses and the usage of more building material (substitution of many broken parts, including big glass windows), which we know is responsible for around 7-8% of CO2 emission globally - hence, yet another environmental disaster.

Many houses in the Ninewells development already have problems in heavy rains, with gardens being flooded and water reaching up to 1 inch against patio doors at the peak of rainfalls. The system for collecting rainwater is insufficient for the current development, considering that the playground is constantly flooded in the winter and has created still unresolved issues between the residents and the developers. The piece of land currently proposed for development is below the level of Ninewells and is indeed at the bottom of a clay hill, meaning that waters run down the hill to collect here. This is not a 1/100 years event as claimed by some, but something that happens every year during the winter months - and I have records of this and am aware that these records have been shared with Councillor Katie Thornburrow.

In addition to this, the fields south of Ninewells are a site of natural diversity, with 93 bird species recorded over the last 10 years, of which 20 red list birds and 27 amber list birds. We cannot afford to be complacent with nature, species that we consider abundant now may be extinct soon because of overdevelopment. Development on this piece of land will impoverish the environment of some natural niches where some endangered birds species are thriving.

The fields are also currently a site where residents enjoy their time walking and being in contact with nature, something that cannot be dismissed when considering that we all needed more outside space in the COVID19 pandemic, which is certainly not the last one coming our way. Humanity needs nature to stay sane.

Area S/CBC/A is unsuitable for housing, being partly underwater much of each winter. Suggest to restrict housing to south of the present line of Granham's Road (which is apparently to be rerouted to the south anyway) and use S/CBC/A for recreational purposes. A sump of some sort - a boating lake??? - would help drainage both north and south of the field, and notably the already problematic situation on the built Ninewells estate.

I am objecting to S/CBC-A on the grounds of ecological concerns: inadequate water supply, irreparable damage to ecosystems including identified endangered species and increased carbon emissions. It is not a good site for expansion with poor existing infrastructure and facilities. The fields flood regularly and remain underwater for 3-4 months a year. There is a lack of an integrated public transport system and the road network is already overloaded. This continued expansion into the countryside is not justified -the proposed level of growth exceeds that projected and there is a complete democratic deficit in the process and evidence base.

This area is already over-developed. The proposed further development will totally ruin the Nine Wells SSI and lead to ever more traffic congestion.