Question 10

Mostly not

you need more green space....its that simple

Mostly yes

I can't see any mention of - Design standards for residential buildings (why not Passivehouse?) - Incorporation of local, low carbon generation (solar) into all buildings - A 15% reduction in water usage sounds pretty un-ambitous - Whether any gas will be required in the development

Not at all

The huge amount of new housing planned is in itself an environmental disaster. Please re-think the whole thing and consider whether this housing is in fact necessary. Also, "Carbon Neutral by 2050" is too little, too late. Any new development should be at least Carbon Neutral by 2030, and preferably carbon-negative. You should provide for the installation of CO_2 Direct Air Capture facilities from a company such as climeworks (see climeworks.com).

Not at all

A development that is encouraging over 18000 people in to an area which is already experiencing challenges with regard to water is not demonstrating a responsible attitude to the climate crisis whatsoever. All these sound bites are just that and I have no confidence that you will achieve any of these targets.

Mostly not

There isn't enough detail. The high density building in itself is counter to green credentials. I like the dual aspect so air can flow through, but am concerned that some things like communal shared boilers or underground heating have not been suggested. Will there be triple glazing?

Mostly not

I'm saying mostly not, because I'm commenting on water supply issues. 110l pp pd may be a reduction on general use in Cambridge, but is still a lot higher than the 80l pp pd at Eddington. It's also a lot of water per day from a shrinking aquifer leading to environmental damage to the chalk streams (and I'm sure you know how rare this habitat is). So, could do better on the water use issue. But surely, another water source must be found in the very near future???

Mostly yes

The environmental improvements will only help if the housing is actually affordable and people really do end up living near their jobs. This consultation website has been extremely badly designed. Why is each point treated separately when each one is a single multiple choice question followed by a box for comments? Why have I been offered the same demographic survey 10 times? Why have I been sent 10 useless emails which just say I responded? How many people gave up before the end?

Mostly yes

build 100% Building Regulation Code 4(3) homes, they will need less alteration over lifetime of building.

Mostly not

By 2050 we must be at Net Zero Carbon. This means, in practice, zero carbon emissions (since the 'offsets' by using trees etc is not that secure in terms of geologically significant carbon sequestration). 2050 is so close in practice that we should expect that new developments all start out with zero carbon. So, where is the ADDITIONAL renewable electricity being generated for this development? Will all buildings COMPLETELY avoid use of natural gas (since alternatives like biogas are small scale and hydrogen is a long way off still)? Efficiency is part of the solution, yet will never be the entire solution. I urge this major development to be a gold standard in building to future expectations, not a half-hearted transitional expectation which just wastes more precious resource in the long run.

Neutral

The climate emergency document seems overly focused on ventilation and cooling, whereas global heating implies extremes in all directions - not just warmer warm days, but also colder cold days, and windier windy days? BREEAM "excellent" seems unambitious to me: how do "the top 10% of new UK buildings" (as per BREEAM) fare compared to, say, Scandinavian or Dutch standards? This is the city that needs to lead the country, and these buildings will need to be great in 2050, not just now, so why not push for "outstanding" across the board? Any extra upfront cost may well be recoverable through "Energiesprong"-inspired financing.

Yes, completely

If anything, you are going over the top.

Mostly not

There is no mention of power use. How will net zero be achieved, heat pumps, solar??

Neutral

The idea is really important. But on the other hand, the specifics here do not go far enough. One aspiration would be to bring in co-funding from govt to up the level of carbon reduction, as it will clearly be expensive. Is this not the place to trial low carbon heating systems?

Neutral

These seem like pretty pessimistic aims. Surely biodiversity could be increase more than 10%?

Neutral

These seem like pretty pessimistic aims. Surely biodiversity could be increase more than 10%?

Not at all

For all the reasons mentioned the development is not required

Not at all

More houses and offices just add to climate crisis if they don't need to be built in the first place

Not at all

It would be better not to develop the North East Cambridge until it's proven that new houses and offices are needed, taking into account the economic crisis the country is in, this could take a few years , therefore no development could mean a greener space to help with the climate crisis.

Mostly not

Please see my comments in the previous submissions. Climate crisis is the no. 1 issue affecting this planet (not Covid as some people think!) alongside overpopulation. Unfortunately pandemics are not going to go away, as this is probably nature's way of telling us something, and dealing with it. They are certainly a consequence of our un-thoughtful and environmentally destructive fast global lifestyle and ill-concieved economic dependence. The big danger is when you think you are coming up with an answer, but in fact are contributing (or perhaps just responding) to this exponential economic growth. Despite what I have said, I am not opposed to new housing developments, it's just that they need to be more radical in addressing the problems. Don't be led by 'consumer demand' but actually create a real vision that will excite people's imagination in being totally different. We can no longer accept small changes. They have to be big ones (in the positive sense of the word).

Mostly yes

Yes. I think it is the start.

Neutral

Should be more prescriptive for Developers. " We propose that developers should consider lifecycle carbon costs.." is far too woolly. If really want this to be a leading Development that makes Cambridge standout is a forward thinking city then FORCE the use of the latest low carbon house building technologies.

Mostly not

Does net zero carbon by 2050 include the carbon produced by construction of new WWTP, removal and decontamination of current plant? Insufficient detail on 15% water reduction use; nothing on rainwater capture, greywater recycling. Can Cambridgeshire’s aquifers support an additional 3.2million litres demand per year? Site-wide 80 litres per home per day not in line with national policy. Ventilation in high rises needs to include heat exchange system, e.g. air to water, to reduce carbon for heat production. How can there be green roofs and solar panels?

Not at all

No, you are contributing to the climate emergency by insisting on unnecessary development.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Not at all

This does not respond to the climate crisis. It is building on land that necessitates the WWTP to be moved and worse still, potentially moved to Green Belt, valuable green lung and even impacting on an SSSI site. This causes a massive irreversible, negative ecological impact. It is building in an inappropriate, over dense manner, in order to cram in too many people to this already populated area. The number of businesses planned is also too great and needs to be reviewed in light of social and economic changes post COVID. It would be far more ecologically sound to re-utilise existing empty and abandoned premises in this post COVID world. This has not been taken into account.

Neutral

HMG has banned the connection of new homes to methane gas supply from April 2025. Many of the home proposed will be build in the next four years. This restriction should be enforced sooner.

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly yes

There is a need to be more ambitious in increasing biodiversity by including more public space with provision for e.g. trees, wildflower meadows and ponds.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Mostly not

Water conservation weak Low building standards. Far more carbon efficient to leave the sewage works where is is Far less water pollution