Question 10

Mostly not

I think the proposals for greener homes etc. is far too low. Surely with a new development we should be aiming for higher green targets?

Nothing chosen

Need to plan for more severe floods as this site is either side of the first public drain which fills alarmingly in storm conditions. Insufficient detail about how they would reduce water usage by 15%. Nothing about rainwater capture and reuse. Demand on water supply already exceeds supply. Any site-wide renewable energy system needs to be inclusive of all tenures of housing. Need safe storage for e-bikes in cycle parks. Mentioned green roofs and solar panels - and sport, all on roofs. How? Do like shutters outside windows to keep places cool in the summer, and passive cooling, ventilation, heat exchange.

Nothing chosen

Further comments: No comment

Mostly yes

The AAP should not be over-prescriptive e.g. by stating that all new non-residential flat roofs will have green or brown roofs for biodiversity. Instead, developers should have flexibility to meet standards. The recognition that BREEAM ‘Outstanding’ should be an ambition but that ‘Excellent’ or equivalent is the requirement is welcomed.

Neutral

Refer to comments under Policy 2, 3, 4a, 4b and 4c

Not at all

• There are no commitments to the highest construction standards and the brightly coloured flats will soon look out of date.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

Further comments: Many millions of rate payers money has been spent on future proofing the sewage works to 2050. You wish to waste that and then build a new one using new materials!How is that a good use of resources?

Neutral

• Is BREEAM Excellent sufficiently ambitious and compliant with realistic carbon budgeting? • With considerable research going into materials and construction techniques to reduce the carbon footprints of construction and operation of buildings, this needs to be reviewed regularly as the action plan evolves into detailed plans. • Is the resilience level adequate given the accelerating frequency of exceptional storms, floods, heatwaves and droughts? • Is the target consumption of 80 litres/person/day of treated water sufficiently ambitious? Can more be done to enable use of rainwater and greywater for non-drinking use? • Who will be responsible for drawing up and delivering the site-wide energy masterplan? • Even without the effects of climate change, the cumulative additional demand for water at this and developments already underway will far exceed the supply available from existing aquifers. The viability of this development depends, amongst other things, on ng committed to develop sufficient new water sources.

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

Good that climate crisis measures feature prominently in plan. Also needs references throughout to Greater Cambridge Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document (January 2020), which has specific guidance. Minimum construction standards for housing should be higher.

Neutral

Further comments: Ambition to be carbon neutral by 2050 is a bit disappointing, why not use ground source heating? Not sure why flat roofs are a good thing.

Mostly not

• There should be no compromise in making this a net zero carbon development (counting embedded carbon). See Mikhail Riches architects’ plans for the City of York Council and Goldsmith Street, Norwich. • If delivery is left to developers, then commercial interests will trump environmental and social, leading to a compromised outcome, as we have witnessed at CB1.

Mostly not

As set out in the attached representation it is not considered that the relocation of Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant represents the most environmentally beneficial solution when the relocation site will be developed in the Green Belt and countryside and extensive tunnels and pipelines will also be required.

Neutral

No answer given

Nothing chosen

The NECAAP has the potential to play a key role in achieving net zero carbon by 2050 within the context of the policies supporting future growth. Tied into this are the opportunities for Cambridge to play a leading role in the development of emerging technologies to accomplish local, national and international carbon targets. The NECAAP should seek to support and encourage ongoing research and development, prototype development and high-tech and skilled manufacturing to support the achievement of net zero carbon. The development at Cambridge Science Park North will commit to all of the themes highlighted above. Through the provision of circa 90 hectares of green space there will be opportunities to incorporate carbon capture through enhancement of the natural environment. The building fabric, layout and alignment with public and sustainable transport infrastructure will all work toward the achievement of net zero carbon by 2050. Crucially the co-location of Research and Development and Skilled Manufacturing will support development of market ready zero carbon solutions in expedited timeframes. Cambridge Science Park North offers Greater Cambridge and the UK an opportunity to develop and importantly deploy technologies that can transform and achieve net zero carbon. For example, Cambridge Consultants based on Cambridge Science Park partnered with Redbarn Group to develop VeriTherm, a fast and simple tool to verify the thermal performance of new buildings. In a letter of support from the UK’s Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, the Ministry stated that they are: “…keen that [VeriTherm] is further developed and a workable method to measure the thermal performance of homes comes to market" and continued, “this product could therefore contribute to reducing CO2 emissions from homes, reducing occupant bills and to the UK meeting its carbon budgets.” Trinity College Cambridge fully support the list of climate change mitigation measures provided for within Policy 2 and would recommend the addition of the following: • Supporting initiatives to increase opportunities for virtual renewable energy generation, sharing, trading and procurement, including community participation and affordability initiatives. • Supporting local and community initiatives and amenities that encourage residents to stay local and travel short distances on foot, by bicycle and non-fossil fuel transport. • Reinforcing the infrastructure required to support electric vehicles. There is a clear commitment by Trinity College to go over and above the standard approach to climate adaptation and resilience on Cambridge Science Park North. A real opportunity exists for an exemplar scheme with the potential to trial and showcase natural resilience features due to the scale and critical mass available on site. In addition, due to the nature of work undertaken there are opportunities to cultivate and trial emerging technologies on site allowing innovation to develop more quickly and solutions to move to market at enhanced speeds. Within emerging policies, support should be given to innovation in energy and renewable technologies. Cambridge has a key role to play in the research and development of solutions to the climate challenge. For example, CSP is exploring the feasibility of establishing an Energy & Renewal Technologies Centre on the Park. The aim would be to co-locate companies developing related technologies under one roof where they can share facilities, knowledge and best practice.

Nothing chosen

We support the proposed commitment to zero net carbon target, water efficiency including 110lpppd, BREEAM excellent standard and 10% measurable biodiversity net gain. However, please see our comments on green infrastructure and biodiversity above and elsewhere. Delivery of the appropriate level of strategic green infrastructure will provide significant multi-functional benefits for people and wildlife including air quality and climate change.

Nothing chosen

The policies to address climate resilience and change are welcome although we feel they fall some way short and are underachieving, with some obvious gaps. • The BREEAM ‘excellent’ set as a minimum standard only delivers a 25% carbon reduction, with an Energy Performance Ratio (EPR) ranging between 0.36 and 0.54. The Natures Arc Vision is for zero carbon emissions, therefore an ambitious and deliverable minimum BREEAM standard must be applied for an EPR of 0.90 to deliver zero net CO2 emissions. • Reference is made to green roofs, however the term ‘…..must contain an element of green roof…’ is open to provide as little as possible. For example, 5m² of sedum matting can be interpreted as ‘an element’. This policy would benefit from a challenging target for green roof provision of 3.2m² of green roof/person. ²⁹, ³⁰, ³¹ • Blue roofs are not referenced at all. These we would like to see included within the climate resilient measures if this scheme is to attain anywhere near its potential. A biosolar blue-green roof would be the ultimate level of climate resilient design.⁸ • There is no reference to the use of green walls as an additional technique for thermal regulation of buildings, absorption of atmospheric pollutants or attenuating run-off. • Solar panels are but inferred in Policy 2C and Policy 3 links to the Cambridge and South Cambridge Plans which make passing reference in Policies 29 and CC3, paragraph 4.17, • We would like to see all forms of street lighting be solar powered to ensure it contributes to reductions in carbon. Also, in respect of the impacts lighting has on wildlife as identified in the Biodiversity Assessment, the amount of lighting should be minimised and dark corridors for wildlife provided.³² • Water consumption and deficit is a national issue, the Cambridge area being no exception. We believe the proposed minimum 110ltr/person/day is totally unacceptable. There must be greater emphasis on an achievable target of 80ltr/person/day with all private and commercial dwellings using grey water recycling and increasing the capacity of rainwater harvesting. To this end, use of blue roofs would also contribute in accordance with Policy 4a of Water Efficiency.³³ • We are sceptical of the term ‘…reasonably practicable…’ in respect of source control management at the surface. Knowledge and design of SuDS source control is such there is seldom justifiable cause to send water below ground often into crates or through pipes to basins.³⁴ • The same ‘…reasonably practicable…’ terminology has also been used for off-setting potable water demand, which is liable to lead to under achieving. • While welcoming the use of future proofing we treat this with caution. Unless fully costed and justifiable as a last alternative, this leaves developers with a ‘get-out’ on delivering sustainability and climate resilience. While future proofed capacity to retrofit is helpful the costs, potentially more than at time of construction, can be limiting for a future occupier to meet, for example in green roof provision. ________________________________________ Qualifying points to responses: ⁸Green roofs help alleviate heat island effect, absorb atmospheric pollutants, provide summer and winter thermo-regulation of building temperature, acoustic insulation and reduce rates of run-off. Blue-green roofs provide protracted water storage which can either be released more slowly back into the system or for other purposes that will reduce the impacts on potable water supplies. This might also include the irrigation of green wall systems. ²⁹Based on the area required to meet Net Gain and estimated from the 18,000-population given. This is reasonably comparable to the area of green roofs/per person in the City of London. which is approximately 100ha larger, with less than half the resident population forecasted for NE Cambridge and where there are 5.47ha of green roof at 6.21m²/PP. ³⁰https://livingroofs.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/LONDON-LIVING-ROOFS-WALLS- REPORT_MAY-2019.pdf ³¹https://livingroofs.org/london-map-green-roof-boroughs/city-of-london/ ³²The guidance published by Bat Conservation Trust will additionally benefit other mammals, birds and invertebrates affected by street lighting: https://theilp.org.uk/publication/guidance-note-8- bats-and-artificial-lighting/ ³³Unequivocal evidence shows aquifers are suffering acutely from over abstraction, resulting in low flows across the catchment and impacting on rivers and wetland SSSI’s. This needs to be addressed by an ambitious policy that sets stringent targets for water efficiency. ³⁴Pipe to basin and or crates solutions compromise the opportunity to create hard and soft landscape features that manages surface water in a way contributory to placemaking as one of the objectives outlined in the policy.

Nothing chosen

10.1 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.” 10.2 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.

Nothing chosen

Please see attached Letter including representations on behalf of The Crown Estate. The Crown Estate notes and supports the AAP's objective for development to respond to climate change. These objectives align with The Crown Estate's own sustainability aspirations towards future buildings and where possible a net zero carbon performance by locking energy efficiency into the design of building form and envelope to minimise energy demand, utilising the most efficient building services systems, making the most of on-site renewable energy, and investing in additional, validated offsets to ensure zero carbon is achievable.

Nothing chosen

Definitely not. There should be more transparency about the true carbon cost of NEC by including the environmental cost of relocating the sewage works. There need to be absolute guarantees that developers will play their part in reducing carbon emissions. Surely NEC buildings will have the highest carbon footprint in the land after factoring in the colossal carbon cost of moving the sewage works, building all the extra pipes and tunnels and decommissioning work. The associated sewage works relocation to Sites 1 and 2 also risks reducing options for cycle and public transport infrastructure.