Greater Cambridge Local Plan Issues & Options 2020

Local Plan policies should establish a minimum requirement for Biodiversity Net Gain (we have suggested 20%). The Greater Cambridge planning authority will need to identify a Nature Recovery Network within the Local Plan but should also prepare a Nature Recovery (or Biodiversity & Green Infrastructure) Strategy that supports this (either as a full Development Plan Document or a Supplementary Planning Document). Ideally this document would be prepared covering the whole county. Biodiversity off-setting does not replace the mitigation hierarchy and internationally and nationally important nature conservation sites and irreplaceable habitats must be excluded, as adverse impacts on these should be avoided at all costs. The Nature Recovery Strategy should describe how Biodiversity Net Gain will be calculated. Where there are cases of biodiversity losses or insufficient net gains, the strategy will need to set out a mechanism and process for developers to arrange for biodiversity off-sets elsewhere through accredited habitat banks, or else through the payment of a tariff to provide for the necessary biodiversity off-sets. The strategy will need to set out how the councils will use the tariff collected. The nature recovery strategy would need to establish the rules for where biodiversity off-sets will be acceptable, including the balance between any strategic county-wide provision (e.g. large fenland wetland creation projects) versus local provision within the Greater Cambridge area. We would expect the majority of off-site biodiversity measures to be provided in or immediately adjacent to the Greater Cambridge area, but a proportion should be used to support internationally and nationally strategic projects elsewhere in Cambridgeshire. It would be advantageous to establish one or more habitat banks locally, to help ensure offsets are directed to the best locations and biodiversity off-set sites should ideally be secured permanently. The strategy could also make provision for a fee system paid for by developers to enable the local councils to have the resources to properly record and monitor implementation of the biodiversity net gain system and the delivery of both on-site and off-site habitat creation.

Yes, somewhat agree

The Wildlife Trust somewhat agrees with this statement. It is essential to plant “the right tree in the right place”. For example increasing tree and woodland cover in the West Cambridgeshire Hundreds landscape-area would support the nature network of this part of Greater Cambridge, as would increasing tree cover on the clay areas between the West Cambridgeshire Hundreds and Cambridge city. Increasing tree cover within urban areas to help with urban cooling, reduce air pollution and bring the other benefits from trees would also be good. Increasing tree cover as part of the provision of strategic natural greenspaces around the city and large settlements, where it doesn’t damage other non-wooded habitats and their habitat networks, would also be valuable. However, equally planting the wrong trees in the wrong place could damage wildlife habitats and habitat networks, or even increase carbon emissions (e.g. planting on peat soils resulting in drying of the peat). Greater use should be made of natural regeneration, as tree planting itself can involve carbon emissions in transporting trees from nurseries, in using plastic tree tubes or fencing to protect the trees and in the weeding and other maintenance operations required to help trees establish.

Designing nature and natural greenspaces into new developments can form an integral part of creating spaces that people want to use and can interact in. However, thought also needs to be given to retrofitting nature to those parts of the city or villages with deficits in natural green space. Inclusion of natural vegetation and trees in urban areas and along transport corridors can also play a significant role in reducing air pollution.

With respect to landscape, the Wildlife Trust believes that significant enhancement to the quality of the landscapes in Greater Cambridge is required, both those that provide the immediate setting to Cambridge, but also the rural hinterland of South Cambridgeshire. Although there are some gems that provide the building blocks for an enhanced nature network, much of the landscape of Greater Cambridge is biodiversity impoverished, with considerable effort required to achieve a functioning nature recovery network. New wildlife-rich habitats can increase the quality of the landscape. The Green Belt that provides the setting for Cambridge is a particular case in point. Whatever model of future growth is adopted for Cambridge, key parts of the rural hinterland need to be protected in perpetuity and enhanced as part of a nature recovery network, with the threat of development removed. Without this there is always development hope value and no incentive to actually enhance the landscape or reverse the decline in biodiversity. Cambridge should continue to retain significant green corridors through the urban areas and linking to an enhanced countryside beyond. There is also scope to improve the landscape setting of other settlements including some villages.

Nothing chosen

It is time for a fundamental review of the purposes of, function and land uses within the Cambridge Green Belt. The Green Belt has undoubtedly “preserved the unique character of Cambridge as a compact, dynamic city with a thriving historic centre”. It has also largely achieved its objective of “preventing communities in the environs of Cambridge from merging”. However, it has done both of these through the building of several major new settlements beyond the Green Belt boundary, increasing commuting, congestion, pollution and contributing to significantly increased carbon emissions. Many of the transport schemes to service this pattern of growth have been or will be highly damaging to the natural environment. Looking ahead, achieving the levels of proposed growth and new development related to the doubling GVA ambition in a sustainable manner is almost certainly incompatible with retention of the Green Belt in its current format. The third purpose of the Green Belt is to “maintain and enhance the quality of Cambridge’s setting”. It can be argued from a biodiversity and nature recovery network perspective (and perhaps less so from a landscape perspective) that the Green Belt has in large parts failed to enhance the quality of Cambridge’s setting. Most of the green belt is ecologically sterile intensively farmed countryside. Much of the land is owned for its future development potential with little prospect of being enhanced for nature and people. Positive nature and people friendly land uses cannot compete against this hope value on the open market. A more positive vision with tangible actions is required to enhance the Green Belt. This should be based on the enhancement of the biodiversity, landscape and natural environment around the city in order to deliver a nature recovery network. Should there be significant changes to the Green Belt it will be essential to enhance the remaining areas of Green Belt and consideration could be given to extending the green belt or future green wedges in defined areas to compensate for any losses required to achieve a more sustainable pattern of development. Such changes should support and contribute to the proposed Greater Cambridge Nature Recovery Network, which must be permanent.

No choices made

Q42 Response: As the Wildlife Trust’s remit is nature conservation, it is not for us to rank the different development model patterns, as all could have significant adverse impacts on nature, depending on how they are done and the precise locations of new development. However, we can make high level observations on each of the respective approaches from a nature conservation (and climate change) perspective.

This clearly has the potential for less land-take within the countryside, and has advantages with respect to climate change and net zero carbon. However, it will still be important to ensure residents of urban areas have easy and high quality access to green spaces and nature without which this approach would not be sustainable. If this approach resulted in a reduced percentage of undeveloped ground or tree cover, such as the loss of large gardens when they form part of the “urban forest”, it would not be sustainable.

There are clear sustainability advantages from a climate change and net zero carbon viewpoint of development being located closer to jobs and leisure opportunities. Some land on the edge of Cambridge has already been removed from the Green Belt such as Cambridge Airport in anticipation of future growth of the city so these are the obvious first areas to look at for future development. High quality strategic and local green infrastructure will be required both within the development but also beyond if the new developments are to be sustainable.

There are clear sustainability advantages from a climate change and net zero carbon viewpoint of development being located closer to jobs and leisure opportunities. However, a more critical issue is access to sustainable transport, as the reality of the modern world is that people move jobs regularly, but move homes less regularly. Therefore the assumed advantages of co-locating jobs and homes is not as clear cut in practice as in theory. However, sustainable mass public transport options do require sufficient users, so the case for Cambridge to grow and to grow closer to Cambridge still has merit. Much of the Green Belt is impoverished from a biodiversity perspective and not all of it would be considered of high landscape value. Should this approach be favoured, locations must avoid nature conservation sites, priority high value landscapes, and those areas we have identified for the creation of a long-term and permanent nature recovery network.

This approach through the use of new settlements on former military bases or open land beyond the Green Belt has formed a major part of the growth strategy in recent decades and will continue to do so during the next Local Plan through already allocated sites. However, this approach has encouraged increases in commuting and carbon emissions, and many of the transport infrastructure developments required to address this failing will themselves have significant adverse impacts on nature conservation sites or priority landscapes forming part of a nature recovery network. It is therefore hard to justify in sustainability terms a continuation of this approach beyond those sites already allocated, unless they also form part of public transport corridors (see below).