Question 10

Not at all

New building standards are more efficient which is great. The experience of brown roofs turning into dry deserts is widespread for example take the University computer build in West Cambridge where the green wall died and had to be replaced by traditional materials. A lot of what you describe is planners “green wash”. You might be better to use the roof space for solar panels and electricity generation. One of the best ways to avoid the climate crisis is to consume much less, so maybe we don't want the extra development at all....

Mostly not

2050 is a long way away - new estates should therefore be pushed to the max in response. All street furniture (benches, planted areas, streetlights etc) to be made of recycled plastic. All houses and offices should have solar panels integrated in their designs - the generated energy to be used on site. Small windmills could be used to look after water levels in the green areas (any pumps to control the water level to be powered by these windmills and or solar panels). Noise reduction panels on the side of the A14 could de made from solar panels perhaps?

Mostly not

Nothing seems to address this important issue in any very constructive sense.

Not at all

By building on the scale that you propose, the carbon footprint would be massive during the whole period of construction. A few green roofs will by no means compensate for the loss of green fields, which have been demonstrated as being highly beneficial in capturing carbon and returning it to the soil. The only true low-carbon green solution is to build nothing at all. I appreciate that modern construction methods can result in a reduced need for heating in the homes due to effective insulation. I trust that all blocks would have solar panels to minimise the need for electricity. I do not see how the usage of water would be reduced unless you do not allow baths in the apartments, when these are actually necessary for families with young children, for whom you believe to be catering (schools, library etc). I suppose the complete lack of gardens will eliminate the need for watering plants, but that would not give the savings you project in this prospectus.

Not at all

Turn it into something else! Or leave it alone!

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly not

“Robust targets” ? No commitment to renewable energy, SUDS, Passivhaus construction standards.

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly not

Policy 4c simply states that ‘Any flat roof provides an element of green or brown roof’. This sounds vague and open to much interpretation, especially as the term ‘green / brown roof’ is such a broad one. To echo comments made in response to Q8, we would urge that firmer commitment be made within the policies guiding the AAP to extensive areas of biodiverse green roofs, with minimum areas required for each phase of development. Biodiverse roofs can come in a variety of forms, and the Wildlife Trust would support a move away from simply using sedum mats, towards more diverse green roofs. Setting this intention out at the policy stage would be very useful and highlights the aspiration that the North East Cambridge District will deliver a variety of biodiverse roofs which could act as a catalyst for bigger thinking in terms of green roofs in Cambridge. The water efficiency targets in policy 4a are welcome in so far as they go, but as a minimum there must be a commitment to achieve a maximum potable water use per person of 80 litres per person per day (pppd). Water supply in Cambridge comes from the underlying aquifer. There is now a considerable body of evidence that not only is the aquifer unnaturally depressed through over abstraction, but that this has fed through into low flows across the Cam catchment, to the significant detriment of the rivers and wetland SSSIs. This situation needs to be reversed if Cambridge is to grow sustainably, which will require a much more stringent approach to use of water. The Wildlife Trust therefore favours a firm policy commitment for water efficiency to aim for no more than 80 litres pppd, with a proportion of this to be grey water provision, thus reducing potable water use well below 80 litres pppd. There is the opportunity for North-east Cambridge to draw from and improve upon the water efficient design and approach used at the Eddington development.

Neutral

No comment

Neutral

*

Mostly not

This development should be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate the world leading expertise within Cambridge.

Not at all

10pc biodiversity increase is appalling. It should be at least 50pc. One of the best ways of achieving this will be to create combined inclusive non-motorised routes (for all of walkers, cyclists, equestrians) along a cohesive network of corridors across and through and out of and around the area with a wonderful, good, rich mix of grassland, flowering plant, hedge and tree planting along all of these routes. This will provide extremely wonderful benefit for wildlife both in terms of foraging, food, shelter and movement.

Mostly not

Carbon neutral within 30 years does not seem to be a very ambitious target! A development bringing in 4000 cars to the city is hardly carbon/environmentally friendly!

Neutral

This question should be rephrased -- Are we minimizing any negative impact that this development will have on the climate? That question needs to be asked at every stage.

Mostly not

No answer given

Not at all

This development need to be net negative for day to day carbon emissions from day 1, and to 'pay off' the carbon emissions involved in construction within 10 years of construction starting.

Mostly not

Solar panels to be installed on all roofs, roads and built-up flat spaces (car parks etc). Houses must be well insulated, this must be a requirement or industry will just build the same cheap rubbish as elsewhere.

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly not

There is very little mention of solar PV for residential structures in the plan. Generating energy through solar should be considered. Especially when paired with battery storage. Charging electric cars will become more and more important in the future. Providing charging near dwellings should be provided and paired with micro generation and power storage.

Not at all

This is a disappointing plan lacking in vision and ambitionThis is an opportunity to build a truly sustainable development meeting Passivhaus construction standards such as the Goldsmith development in Norwich.

Mostly not

You are not including the total of all components that contribute to carbon emissions

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly not

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. Buildings should be designed to be carbon-negative rather than ‘low-carbon’ - specific targets in terms of carbon emissions should be set for each aspect of the site. Electric vehicle chargepoints will be needed throughout the site for e-bikes and cars to enable people of all ages and abilities to travel by cycle. The water use target (110 litres ppd) compares unfavourably with Eddington (design target 80 litres ppd). Why is there no commitment to green the highest residential building standards such as Passivhaus?

Mostly not

Plans for water use are weak and housing will not be built to highest sustainable standards.

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?

Mostly yes

The design of dwellings and places of work should be as energy-saving and as carbon neutral as possible. Having said that you are starting with a massive deficit in relocating the sewage works to create your site. Not only because there is £20m worth of modernisation embodied in the present works, but £250m of unecessary building activity will be involved in providing a new works. In its turn this works, to make it viable,will process fertiliser from sludge , much of which will be imported , generating heavy traffic. Can you afford to build sufficiently carbon neutral buildings to offeset this initial deficit? The way your development is used will also be a factor - for instance if a lot of people libving here commute into London to work then its carbon footprint is greatly enlarged.. In the relocated works is the process of waste water treatment envisaged the least environmentally damaging , softer systems involving more natural digestion processes seem to be working with far less impact elsewhere.

Neutral

I'd like to see more detail about ways that this development will cope with coming climate change - e.g. heavier rain and hotter summers - as well as plans to make the construction as carbon-neutral as is possible.