Question 10

Neutral

Probably not. The green areas are positive. The new residences is simply placing more consumers within City limits, and some of them will be high carbon users, if they have high flying Science park jobs. Seems all good intentions with green building design. But having a supermarket there with items flown in from all over the world and loads of plastic is not sustainable or green. So having community farm on site would be a start towards shifting people towards more local consumption - if it were used. And a market would minimise sale of plastic packaging. Plus a repair cafe to make sure people get the most out of their existing items.

Mostly not

Scheme should be designed to be carbon neutral much earlier, with further detail on provision for heating sources etc provided. Cambridge University has just committed to being carbon neutral by 2038,

Mostly not

Not unless you take a stand against the relocation of the sewage works to any of the 3 proposed areas, which risks devastation to a vulnerable aquifer on which many of us depend for our water, and on which the sensitive Quy and Lode listed environment depends.

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly not

I dont have confidence that developers will invest in the technologies required to create a low carbon community. The proposed density is a clear signal that financial returns are all that matters. It is clear that you are planning on replicating the travesty that is the CB1 development.

Not at all

No answer given

Not at all

Far too dense and too high which will negatively impact biodiversity. Unrealistic to assume no additional car journeys in the area with 8000 new homes. There will be an increase in car, motorcycle, bus and delivery vehicle journeys.

Not at all

Any buildings need to take into account the importance of reducing energy and waste. High rise blocks of flats will not have their own compost bins. The odd green covered roof will be of limited, marginal effect. If you have to build at all you should ensure that all new builds have solar only heating, ground heat pumps, triple glazing yet windows that open to let in fresh air (except there will not be "fresh air" unless you have big green open spaces). Every dwelling should have space to grow their own fruit and vegetables in other words their own garden. A development of 8000 new dwellings plus all the other buildings cannot possibly reduce or limit the amount of energy used. How much energy will be used actually building the buildings?

Neutral

If the people who live there work there yes. But that is pie in the sky thinking.

Neutral

The transport sector is the largest contributor to carbon emissions in the UK and it will be a challenge to achieve a modal shift in north Cambridge from a situation where 71% of trips are made by car to one where 75% of trips are made by walking, cycling or public transport. Public transport itself is unlikely to be zero-carbon for some time. Therefore, it’s important that other aspects of the development create as few emissions as possible: for example, 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. 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.

Mostly not

As I understand it, earlier versions of the plan did include components which would have helped to address climate change concerns, but many of these have been lost or diluted in the drive to fit more and more buildings into the space.

Not at all

Attempting to greenwash a 8000 home development in a space that should support less than half that will do nothing to address climate change. Fewer homes and more green space is the only way to address this.

Mostly not

My view is commercialism and the environment do not go hand in hand. Wholly the environment loses. You say you propose that developers should consider lifecycle carbon costs for their buildings, and that all buildings are designed to be resilient to the climate change. But developers could ignore your proposal. Which then does not fir with your plan. You would need developers to agree to a defined type of build and not ignore your idea of carbon neutral.

Not at all

By not developing the area you will do more good

Not at all

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given

Mostly yes

But see responses above, the roads will be gridlocked and that won't benefit the environment at all.

Mostly not

Have the buildings been checked for actually living in comfortably? I have worked in energy efficient buildings and there would be blinding sunlight a few times a day. I would hate to live in such a place.

Mostly not

Cars will be bought and parked on streets nearby. Cambridge’s traffic will get worse.

Not at all

All development using concrete - the most carbon emitting form of building material - is by nature unsustainable and green roofs although looking photogenic will go a ridiculously little way to offsetting that. Rethink! C19 has changed how and where people work probably for ever - this development risks being a massive white elephant. Scale right down to human scale, build a modest amount of sustainable low rise totally efficient dwellings as we need in the 21st century- put minimising carbon at the front of every design consideration and quality of built environment for people too. No-one knowing Cambridge will want to live in a Hong Kong type area attached like a carbuncle to its side, causing huge carbon emission in it's building with only what amounts to token offsetting. The issue of water shortage is becoming critical here too, caused by changing weather patterns, long droughts and high temperatures - highest ever recorded in UK in 2019. Rethink!! Act as if we have a climate emergency - scale back, cut down, build autonomous dwellings constructed with little or no climate impact. Please think for 200 years ahead when this development will be by or under the sea if you don't act now - you are the guardians of our future here in this beautiful city. Don't make a huge mistake.

Neutral

I don't know enough about this. It all sounds very worthy. I might note that the properties actually need to be properly built; there is no point designing in all this stuff and testing the first one built and saying it's great if the rest of them get flung up with the sort of snagging that many new build properties seem to suffer. If places have hidden big gaps around pipes which no-one will ever see but lead to massive heat loss in the winter for example, well all the sentiments in the accompanying documents are worth nothing. Also 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. We already see that the busway cycleway at Fen Drayton is impassable one year in two; as many cyclists are going to places that are not served by the bus, they take to their cars instead. The riverbank is often impassable if you want to arrive at work looking clean and professional. Such routes also need regular maintenance, in much the way we expect roads to be maintained.

Neutral

The whole design is completely wrong for Cambridge. I appreciate the need for more housing in Cambridgeshire but this is not the right place or development. STOP spoiling the beautiful city we (once) had

Not at all

i don't think the environmental impact of moving the sewage works has been included in your environmental impact assessments.

Not at all

We all know that new builds are the best opportunity to build in sustainable energy capture and insulation. We need specific commitments to renewable energy, the highest construction standards and the conservation and re-use of water. You 'propose robust targets' and 'encourage low carbon lifestyles'. These phrases are meaningless and will not go any way to averting a climate crisis.

Mostly not

It should be zero cars. 0.5 cars per household leads to ~3000 extra cars and pollution. Please consider changing to zero cars and promote environmentally sustainable travel (bikes, electric buses etc)

Neutral

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. There is no commitment to renewable energy, the highest construction standards, conserving and reusing water that responds to the climate crisis. 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.

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

I wasn't clear to what extent the progressive policies in this section would be mandatory. Would developers be able to water them down on viability grounds? There's only an aspiration to achieving the Passivhaus standard. This needs to be beefed up.