Question 10
10% very low target. Not good enough Housing too dense. not enough green space
No uploaded files for public display
2050 doesn't feel very ambitious. Doesn't really feel like an emergency if you wait thirty years.
No uploaded files for public display
Cars and buses used for inward and outward commuting (the difference between the number of residents of working age and the jobs available in the districts combined with job mobility in Cambridge) will produce pollution.
No uploaded files for public display
More meaningless hot air and buzz words if you just end up allowing the usual volume house builders to put up the usual rubbish buildings they put up everywhere else.
No uploaded files for public display
More ambition is needed, given the scale of the climate crisis that we face. To respond adequately to this crisis, these issues must be integrated in every decision - around procurement and implementation. This requires an effective coordination body, with appropriate expertise. It also requires making firm commitments to sustainable options (at the moment, there are a number of statements which say 'where possible...'). This is a real opportunity to help drive change in Cambridge and it must not be missed.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
There are some positive elements to the proposals but: water conservation targets are weak. The buildings are not Passivhaus standard. Consideration should be given to building to sustainable Homes Level 6. Goldsmith Street Norwich and Eddington are good models.
No uploaded files for public display
It is good to see the BREEAM sttandards being highlighted for non housing development but what about the housing stock. It is not clear that these proposals will make the site carbon neutral ,can this be demonstrated ?
No uploaded files for public display
What is suggested is far too vague. It is a backwards step compared to Eddington. So no absolutely not, and it is shameful given the current climate crisis that the plan isn't much more robust.
No uploaded files for public display
Inadequate water recycling / use of grey water Follow Eddington's example for this and for district heating Planned homes are not to Passivhaus standard
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
There does not seem to be any commitment to renewable energy, the highest construction standards, conserving and reusing water, or any of the many things that might have resulted in a development that responded appropriately to the climate crisis. Instead, the plan merely ‘proposes robust targets’ and ‘encourages low carbon lifestyles’. I'm not an expert but I think Eddington development did better. Surely we should be trying to improve on previous developments not let anything slip.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
More green space is needed to help offset carbon footprint
No uploaded files for public display
Much higher energy savings could be achieved through building design, local power production and power storage.
No uploaded files for public display
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. Trip budgets for motor traffic should be calculated based on the carbon budget rather than current highway capacity. Cycle infrastructure should be designed in a way that is adaptive to climate change: for example, cycle routes should remain clear in the event of a 100-year rain event.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
You are obviously proposing to maximise the impact that NECAAP will have on the climate crisis by relocating the sewage works instead of upgrading it and developing the remaining land. This is a transparent fact that you have chosen to ignore. As with biodiversity, you appear not to care about the climate crisis, unlike the vast majority of people who live in north-east Cambridge. We do care about biodiversity, the environment and the climate crisis and expect our representatives and those appointed to work for us to act accordingly.
No uploaded files for public display
You may like to think you are proposing robust targets for energy use, water conservation and use of cars but it is unlikely whether this will actually happen. Looking at recent developments in Cambridge this is certainly not the case. More building for retail, office or housing equals more water. We already have water shortages in this area. We dont need a further drain on our pecious water. It is unlikely that the houses will be as efficient in their energy use as you propose.
No uploaded files for public display
However, could have more renewable energy installations
No uploaded files for public display
Most of the climate targets for the development are not sufficiently ambitious. The new 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.
No uploaded files for public display
Building high density blocks of housing using mainly concrete and moving sewage facilities to the green belt is certainly not responding to the climate crisis. A far more creative approach needs to be instigated, for housing and development throughout the whole country not just Cambridgeshire. This whole development is of the previous century and not envisaging the needs of the future. It seems to be "Developer" driven rather than the future needs of our society.
No uploaded files for public display
Can you make the buildings v well insulated and use eg heat pumps for heating? + Encourage use of solar water heating/ solar panels?
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Most of the climate targets for the development are not sufficiently ambitious. The new 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. Trip budgets for motor traffic should be calculated based on the carbon budget rather than current highway capacity. Cycle infrastructure should be designed in a way that is adaptive to climate change: for example, cycle routes should remain clear in the event of a 100-year rain event. This is Cambridge's chance to shine nationally - as befits the city's history and contemporary economic-industrial profile - in integrating carbon-negative, sustainable, ambitious, brave targets and technologies as standard into every aspect of development. Don't squander this chance to do the right thing as well as gain great PR!
No uploaded files for public display
The mere fact of the development is impacting the environment through the use of materials, construction and construction traffic. Although the residents will be lower use water - how can this be policed once people are in occupation? Overall this only an increase on the burden not lowering it. whey don't you focus on improving the existing housing stock not developing more adding a further burden!
No uploaded files for public display
No mention of opportunity to generate solar power from rooftop panels? A no brainer it would seem.
No uploaded files for public display