Question 10

Neutral

BREEAM Excellent for non residential - but what about residential? Again, time to be bold! Demand Passivhaus for all residential buildings - it can be done and is the only way to guarantee a massive reduction in energy use.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

The theory of this is OK but totally unrealistic. Cambridge is the driest area of the UK and almost ran out of water in 2019 and that was with the current number of residents and businesses. With the number of already approved developments in and around the city, including the large development at Waterbeach, even these basically good ideas for water conservation and reduced usage will be meaningless. The council will be the laughing stock of the country if the city and surrounding area literally runs out of water. Climate change is far more serious than this provides for. Basically the development MUST be much smaller in every way ie. less than half the size portrayed, whilst incorporating the biodiversity planned

Not at all

What is being done in the city as a whole? Nothing. Cambridge is heavily congested and polluted already. Congestion charges and road closures are the only solution. You are still proposing thousands new cars which will result in gridlock, pollution and chaos.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

How can you even claim to when you are putting the WWTP on green belt? How can you claim you will be carbon neutral when you will be using masses of diesel to decommission the old WWTP and build a new one?

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly not

Water use of any description is a serious problem here as we continue to deplete the chalk streams. The number if residents you propose cannot be sustained with our available supply.

Neutral

I see absolutely no evidence that any reliable statement can be presented at this stage in the planning that this scheme can play any role in responding to the climate crisis.

Mostly yes

Solar panels and green energy measures (air source heat pumps etc) should also be standard; it would be a really negative step if gas was built into new buildings when there are so many better options.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Not at all

Demolishing a perfectly good and recently updated existing sewage works in order to build it again somewhere else is a gratuitous waste of the resources and energy stored in the existing construction. You are also just pushing it out of the way of your proposed redevelopment without sufficient vision for the future. The existing sewage plant has been on its site for 125 years. the Victorians chose well and thoughtfully and did the job properly. Your re proposing to just move it to the other side of the A14 whence it will need to be moved again in, I hazard, no more than 2 decades. If you are going to move it find the money to do the job properly like your forebears did. You are wasting the money and resources which will be spent this time round by taking a short term view.

Not at all

By destroying large areas of surrounding countryside to make way for this development how can this possibly be called an eco development ? Nonsense

Mostly not

But it will never be enough, and if it would, would anyone be able/willing to afford it? Climate crisis is still not impacting on the public consciousness in a way that will require them to make "difficult" changes to their own lives.

Not at all

With respect to buildings emissions the Community Forum submission to the Issues and Options consultation was as follows: 1. Sustainable building. … We should be aiming at Passivhaus standards of insulation which require barely any heating and actually pay for themselves in the long term. Unfortunately, the request for Passivhaus standards has been ignored in favour of the BREEAM planning approach so the Community Forum has been again been ignored. These will not deliver net zero carbon. The latter are also not actual standards and have far too much wriggle room for developers whose ability to game these kinds of vague tick boxes is legendary. “Critics argue that BREEAM and Code work on a tick box structure of offsetting carbon, rather than reducing actual energy consumption and that higher levels of certification can be reached by spending more on additional features, such as; harvesting rainwater or using greywater recycling even when this increases carbon emissions or is sustainably questionable. Passivhaus on the other hand is more of a ‘bottom up’ initiative designed by building scientists seeking effective ways to design low-energy buildings and ensure that they perform as predicted. Passivhaus integrates energy efficiency into the fabric of the building, allowing the structure to do all the hard work and therefore affords more sustainable integrity.https://www.allen-york.com/blog/2016/06/passivhaus-versus-breeam With climate change we can expect significant increases in summer temperatures over the lifetime of the development. It is anticipated that summer temperatures over 40 degrees will be common by 2100 which will not even be half way through the lifetime of the development, assuming it is 200 years https://theconversation.com/climate-change-40-c-summer-temperatures-could-be-common-in-uk-by-2100-141479. The concrete jungle approach will create a heat sink that the superficial architectural features and landscaping will not be able to counter. As regards to transport emissions, the aspiration about having no extra car journeys on Milton Road is just management by wishful thinking. There is more about this in the response on transport. At best there will be 4,000 cars parked on the development so this will not be net zero by any stretch of the imagination.

Mostly not

No answer given

Not at all

You may be aiming to mitigate the impact, but the weak tools you have to make developers play their part in all these intentions mean this is unconvincing.

Mostly not

Stricter standards on energy efficiency would be welcome. Small Combined Heat and Power provision or similar cost-efficient measures to meet all of the local demand should be encouraged. Long term sustainability needs to be a key focus, not just one of several markers to achieve a high rating at the time of build.

Mostly yes

That's always a difficult question, but the fact that you're thinking about it at all is helpful

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

Reduce the permitted number of cars again by half and it would earn full marks.

Not at all

The destruction of the greenbelt to accommodate the relocation of the sewerage works clearly unmasks the 'greenwash' that other measures intend to address. That in addition to another 4000+ cars and it is clear that this plan will not only be detrimental to the local environment and peoples' health but does nothing to combat climate change other than worsen its effect.

Neutral

I worry that you are not being ambitious enough with your green targets. Carbon free by 2050 is too little too late for the city as a whole, but new developments have a duty to be at the vanguard of low carbon living. Why not insist that this development is entirely carbon neutral from the start?

Mostly yes

Why wait until 2050 for carbon neutral? This development should be built carbon neutral from the beginning.... Great to have BREEAM buildings and so on - could we go so far that this new district attracts tourists and industry with an interest in future building, as a world-leading example??

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

You need more to do. People recycle far more today and the collection mechanisms are ancients - No need to have three wheel bins -