Question 10

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

Far too long a horizon

Mostly not

I dont think blocking roads to cars will reduce air pollution across the whole of cambridgeshire... It just causes a reduction in those areas that are blocked, and an increase in the longer routes around those areas. I think a better solution would be to encourage residents of Cambridge to use electric cars by having the electric car charging docks in all parking bays. Also, I do like the plans to improve biodiversity, but I don't see how the plans will improve water efficiency...?

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

Will there be new energy produced in the area? Solar panels or geothermal or (sorry, I don't know the name) panels in streets that gain kinetic energy from being walked on? What will the BREEAM rating be for residential buildings? (Having read the City Council's carbon neutral plans I assume that all of this and far more has been thought of!)

Mostly not

Fine ideas. But we need more. Cambridge water is at crisis point. We need to fix that before we build new developments.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

It seems that the adequacy of the water supply is left to the developers to determine. Have you read the comprehensive report on water supplies that a local charity prepared? It is comprehensive and authorative. This is too important to be left to developers. The site is fine for house building though, when I worked at St John's Innovation Centre, I found the wildlife in the sewerage site to be impressive.

Mostly not

No answer given

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

All new buildings should be carbon neutral to run and recycle grey water for toilets or have compost toilets.

Not at all

Developments should aim to be zero carbon, meeting the best current standards of construction, insulation and provision/ incorporation of renewable energy generation eg solar panel, heat pumps etc

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

Not nearly enough. Plant a forest instead!

Mostly not

Please force developers to exceed standards for aspects such as insulation, heat loss through/around glazing, and "defaulting" to using gas (or worse, electrical storage heaters) for heating. For example, they should consider air source heat pumps. Making the construction of houses carbon neutral would also be sensible (versus only "developers should consider lifecycle carbon costs for their buildings"). Mandating that all new *non-residential* buildings are BREEAM "excellent" is good, but there are huge numbers of houses being proposed: they should also conform to a very high (and well-known) standard. As regards water use, why not be more ambitious and consider grey water recycling rather than just aspects like lower-flow shower heads? A lot of this proposal feels very tame on the environmental front.

Mostly yes

Increased train travel is one of the best things we can do in response to the climate crisis. Everything you do must consider whether it is maximising the passenger experience, which is door-to-door. If you do not do this then you are failing.

Yes, completely

This is also a ridiculously, offensively leading question. There is no option "far too much". This whole consultation is a sham.

Neutral

Water 1) An area covered mostly in concrete/ tarmac isn't great for water to absorb into the ground and tends to run off to rivers. 2) Anyway to include options for grey water collection and storage Building standards - You mention that the buildings need to be able to cope with the future climate, this means warm in winter and cool in summer without use of fossil fuels and minimising energy usage. All buildings need to be capable of both not either/or. Designs need to include passive ways to heat and cool. Electricity is still going to be required so need generation and storage capability. -you mention about life cycle. Where possible materials must be renewable and recylable and use of concrete must be minimsed Another big contribution to personal CO2 emissions are food. How will the area help to reduce this. Could there be space for local producers to set up pop-up shops. Oppotunities for community vegetable gardens/ allotments (good for biodiversity). How will waste from cooking be handled (food waste, water waste, wasted heat) ?

Mostly not

Adding 18,000 residents and additional businesses will generate more waste for landfill and air pollution to the local environment than currently seen. Development of a new site for Anglian Water treatment plant removes green fields and does nothing to help the climate crisis.

Neutral

No answer given

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

Maximising the climate-change mitigation possibilities would be to: a) Not move the sewage works; b) Not build more houses; c) Move jobs to where houses already exist and are cheap (i.e. not to places in Cambridgeshire) so that jobs and houses can be colocated; d) Move Astra-Zeneca back to its old premises in Cheshire.

Yes, completely

Fully support the principles

Mostly not

Seems like a good way to waste money and make houses more costly just so you can pat each other on the back about how ethical you are. I don't believe these plans were done with cost effectiveness in mind. You should be spending more time alowing people to build houses to solve homelessness and people living in poor quality conditions. But these plans are more interested in insects and small animals than people

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

There is already a lot of traffic on Milton road, I can’t Imagine how bad it will be after so much development. Not good for people leaving around and working in science park.

Not at all

No answer given