Question 10

Neutral

Why can't BREEAM Excellent can be achieved for residential properties as well as commercial? This would be a serious missed opportunity.

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly yes

The target should be net zero by 2030 not 2050.

Not at all

No the AAP should require it to be an Net Zero Carbon Development. Vague aspirations about it being “low carbon” are inadequate. It should also have strong policies about embodied carbon, for example, incentivising timber construction, following guidance from RIBA and LETI It is essential that there are strong policies on energy intensity, thus incentivising a “fabric first” approach to decarbonisation. It should encourage smart grids, storage, and the use of renewable energy Water usuage should be capped at 80lppd maximum, preferably 60lppd The AAP must require passive approaches to enable buildings to stay cool during the inevitable future heatwaves , eg shading and solar control glazing. This is a real opportunity to use the councils planning powers and land ownership to create a genuine exemplar Net Zero Carbon development, (as with Eddington) but the current plans are grossly inadequate.

Mostly yes

It is great to see it even features, the more outlandish the ideas and what is built the more likely it is to work. That's been proven again and again all around the world - if we allow just the latest version of English shoddy building and watered-down (sic) half-hearted measures all we will end up with is a 21st Century version of slummy private landlord owned flats & tenements as found in Arbury & Orchard Park and every other British city from Plymouth to Glasgow. Good luck! ;)

Mostly yes

The vision in the Draft AAP is for North East Cambridge “to be an inclusive, walkable, low-carbon new city district with a lively mix of homes, workplaces, services and social spaces, fully integrated with surrounding neighbourhoods.” Furthermore one of its principles is to “respond to the climate and biodiversity emergencies, leading the way in showing how we can reach net zero carbon.” Policies 2-5 in the Draft AAP set how NEC responds to climate change. This includes meeting net zero carbon by 2050, a reduction in the use of water, 10% increase in biodiversity, and setting minimum standards for design and build. Policy 3 states an Area Action Plan wide approach to energy and associated infrastructure should be investigated and, where feasible and viable, implemented. The policies respond with proposals to mitigate impact, enhance natural capital and adapt to climate change. This aligns with the County Council’s Climate Change and Environment Strategy’s priority themes.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

(1) By moving a sewage works, that has no operational need to be moved, to a greenfield site you are generating a massive amount of carbon. Do you include this in your target of zero carbon by 2050? (2) Water is a valuable and increasingly fragile resource. By moving the sewage works to Honey Hill, that is above the aquifer that supplies Cambridge's drinking water, you are threatening the water supply of Cambridge. This aquifer is NOT protected by a layer of gault clay and the Government Magic Maps charts show that this is a red risk of ground water contamination. (3) Again as for my answer to Q1 is is disingenuous to class this as a ‘brown field’ development. The logic of displacing an industrial plant into Green Belt land in order to artificially create ‘brown field’ land for development is fundamentally flawed, and the huge financial benefit of this device will not be reaped by the customers of Anglian Water Services who operate the plant, but rather by the shareholders of Anglian Water Group who are mostly offshore. That any of our Green Belt should be sacrificed to this end is disgraceful.

Not at all

No - should be zero parking spaces, and better cycle provision. Anything more is not helping climate change.

Neutral

No solar panels? Should every roof not have them?

Neutral

The transport sector is the largest contributor to carbon emissions in the UK and it will be a challenge to achieve a modal shift in north Cambridge from a situation where 71% of trips are made by car to one where 75% of trips are made by walking, cycling or public transport. Public transport itself is unlikely to be zero-carbon for some time. Therefore, it’s important that other aspects of the development create as few emissions as possible: for example, buildings should be designed to be carbon-negative. The area’s vision should not be for a ‘low-carbon’ district which is too vague for developer commitments: specific targets in terms of carbon emissions should be set for each aspect of the site. The Climate Change paper (p12) notes that significant reinforcement will be needed to the electricity grid to support the development, including increased use of renewable energy and infrastructure such as electric vehicle chargepoints: these will be needed throughout the site for e-bikes as well as cars to enable people of all ages and abilities to travel by cycle. In terms of climate adaptivity, it will also be important to consider flooding: drainage should be managed in such a way that cycle and walking routes are not disrupted in the case of a 100-year rain event and remain clear and accessible at all times. Finally, we note that the trip budgets have been calculated based on the ability of the local highway network to support levels of car usage at peak times rather than the reductions of transport emissions needed to support local authorities’ journey to zero carbon. Trip budgets, car parking allocations and other car use metrics should begin with the carbon budget for travel not the maximum acceptable level of congestion and pollution.

Not at all

Fine words but the reality is we are going to need more water and that is already running down. Houses will need power that will have to be generated employment sites will want air con plus all other electricity needs. Would be good to say what will be the water consumption for this development, the extra power needed for this site the carbon emissions from this site and then say its great for the enviroment and the City.

Mostly yes

While aiming to be carbon neutral by 2050 might be ambitious in today’s terms, the goal should be reviewed regularly as a result of active engagement with the numerous firms in Cambridge that are leading the development of new environmental technologies. In addition to the climate gain, this will enable the North East District to showcase Cambridge Innovation for the rest of the world.

Mostly not

Probably not. It's best just to have fewer people in cambridge

Not at all

No because by building the houses you are using up Carbon, by shifting the WWTP you are using more carbon (couldn't you just improve it where it is?!), by bringing that many new houses to the area you are increasing the number of car journeys that will take place around Cambridge (increasing pollution). Each house will use more of Cambridge's already short water supply, they will use electricity.... etc etc. I don't think that now is the time to be building a huge number of extra houses in Cambridge. Things are changing as a result of Coronavirus, when the dust settles it may turn out that there are many other more sustainable solutions. It is likely many people won't go back to office working - there will be offices free, why not use them as housing? Please please can someone do a decent study on Cambridge's ground water situation. It seems that our city is getting drier and drier and that is not good and not sustainable. It needs to be taken account of in all future plans for our city.

Not at all

no calculate all water needed, power consumption, carbon emissions, against what is on the current site and then show how this helps the climate change.

Mostly not

Th plan should include a target and timescale for the area to become net-zero carbon. The standards for climate change adaptation for residential buildings look good, but for mitigation, with low embodied carbon and energy consumption, are woefully inadequate to tackle the climate emergency declared by both councils. Residential new-build should all be to standards much higher that buildings regulations to avoid the need for retrofitting them in decades to come. Please strive to the highest energy standards that the councils can negotiate or legally insist on.

Mostly not

The proposal does not mention embodied carbon and only discusses operational carbon. Embodied carbon plays a significant and ever increasing amount in the lifetime carbon emissions of a building (up to 50%). Consequently low carbon materials such as cross laminate timber should be considered for use. The development should publish its life cycle carbon values into the public domain so that there is some accountability. District heating should be utilised.

Not at all

See earlier comments - the plan is too dense.

Not at all

To present this project as "responding the the climate crisis" is a direct and flagrant lie. At the very least it is deeply bound in denial. I welcome the focus on energy and water efficiency and sustainable travel, but ambitions fall way short of what is required. The issue of regional water shortage is particularly pressing: this is already a water-stressed region and abstraction is causing a range of problems, even before the projected impacts of climate change are taken into account (see the Cam Valley Forum report ‘Let it Flow’: https://camvalleyforum.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Cam_Valley_Forum_Let_it_Flow_Full_report_26-05-20-compressed.pdf). The water use target for this development is 110 litres ppd. In contrast, the Eddington development had a target of 80 litres ppd, by using grey water and rainfall capture. To achieve this Eddington employed an Ecology Officer from start of project. The ‘target’ of the North East Cambridge development is poor in comparison to Eddington and is woefully inadequate considering the water-stresses this area is already facing. There is no specific commitment to green energy, district heating or highest residential building standards (Passivhaus/Sustainable Homes). By only ‘proposing robust targets’ and ‘encouraging … low carbon lifestyles’, the development plans leave themselves open to loopholes and the potential for not meeting any of their ‘targets’. However ‘efficient’ this new development turns out to be, the fact remains that introducing 8,000 new homes (with up to 4,000 private vehicles) plus businesses will increase the environmental footprint of Cambridge.

Not at all

This is a net carbon footprint deficit. As said in Question 1, pollution, congestion around A14/Milton Rd roundabout. All the huge extra carbon footprint of more concrete with un-called for, unneeded removal of sewage works will far outweigh any carbon footprint advantages of proximty to North Station and any architect know that this proposal is all cuckoo.

Mostly not

The points raised by the MRRA reflect my views on the development of the area. There are no commitments to the highest construction standards and the brightly coloured flats will soon look out of date. There does not appear to be any mention of renewable energy. We are going through a climate crisis and the development needs to focus on conserving and reusing water wherever possible. The half-hearted ‘proposes robust targets’ and ‘encourages low carbon lifestyles’ is a passing acknowledgement and does not mean the developers will actually do this if costs prove too high. At very least every roof should be required to be covered in solar panels. Unless the development is built to the highest standards, there is a risk that it will become dilapidated after a few years and further energy will have to be expended in rebuilding or demolishing it.

Not at all

• No. • BREEAM excellence does not include integrating the use of solar power, or other forms of renewable energy such as geothermal, as being built into the whole development as standard. • To address the climate crisis, renewables have to be integrated from the starting point for any development not something that is to be retro-fitted in the future. • Reusing water – such as rainwater and non-sewerage domestic waste water – should be designed in as standard.

Mostly not

I fear this high density/ multi storey development will not be built to the highest standards. I support MRRA and HPERA responses.

Neutral

The obsession with banning cars is ridiculous. Pollution and the Cimate Change are major problems but electric cars will solve this problem in the near future. The council should concentrate on making electric cars more popular, insist on charging points in all new developments and plan how ordinary hosueholds can charge their electric cars. The freedom made available my modern perosnal trasnport is not going to be let go and the council needs to change it's approach and allow electric or hydrogen powered vehicles solve the pollution climate change problem

Not at all

Most of the climate targets for the development are not sufficiently ambitious and contributing to local zero carbon goals in terms of transport will be particularly challenging.

Neutral

It will be crucial to include embeded carbon in the design of the infrastructure. You cannort pat yourselves on the back if as much CO2 is produced in construction as the occupants use in 10 years

Not at all

No comments

Not at all

All aspects on provisions to conserve/make best use of Planet’s resources is very weak. Water/Energy generation (all types: solar, heat pumps etc.) & local energy storage/Driving the Electric revolution – infrastructure requitements etc. Includes Water conservation aspects; not Passivhaus plans; Sustainable Homes Level 6 - or 5? No transformal step change to learn from the lessons of the past: Goldsmith Street Norwich and Eddington as models.