Question 10. Do you think we should require extra climate adaptation and resilience features to new developments?
Yes; goes without saying – almost a redundant question given the scale of the problem we’re facing
No uploaded files for public display
Suggest integrated sustainable drainage with provision of lakes and water space in new settlements and larger new developments for their cooling effects, flood alleviation, biodiversity benefits and recreational potential. The use of integrated green walls and roofs in buildings and vertical greening of buildings to enhance cooling effects and enhance biodiversity. Use of tree belts to mitigate wind effects and provide shade and biodiversity corridors for wildlife especially in edge of Cambridge and around fields and villages. Providing additional adaptation tree cover across Cambridge and surrounds to provide shade and cooling effect in summer , use latest studies to indicate amount of tree cover required to maximise cooling effects to mitigate naturally the increasing heat island impacts.
No uploaded files for public display
• Yes, this should be a priority for all new development
No uploaded files for public display
New developments are relatively climate-friendly provided we pay proper attention in planning conditions / engforcement to the design, control and long-term maintenance of surface-water management; improvements to the energy sources and insulation of older stock would have a much bigger payback in carbon reduction.
No uploaded files for public display
Flood risk assessment: Needs to be based on up to date data. The most recent County wide ground water risk assessment available online is dated 2014 and the last flood risk management plan was produced in 2015 and covers the period to 2020. Policies in this area need to be regularly updated throuout the life of the Local Plan taking into account the latest rainfall projections and the impact of development, both with SCDC and further upstream. Assessments need to cover the entire catchment of each river system, not just the sections in Cambridgeshire. Water availability is likely to become a major issue if substantial future development is planned. Grey water recycling should be mandatory in all new developments and engagement with utility companies, including water suppliers needs to be undertaken at the commencement of planning major developments. PV panels should be compulsory in all new developments, covering all suiyable roof surface. Consideration should be given to linking these up into large communal schemes eg as at Ameersfort, Netherlands, thus improving overall efficiency. Flood assessments to be based on up to date data projections and cover entire river catchments. Grey water recycling & PV panels should be mandatory.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes but equally important is environmental protection through sustainable builds and protecting nature
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, it’s crazy not to.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes of course.
No uploaded files for public display
That's a question for our local experts: let's seek their opinions and use them wisely.
No uploaded files for public display
No. The delivery of large scale renewable energy projects can deliver a balanced grid system which would provide for energy needs.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes building on flood plains is absolutely stupid but I don’t see it stopping. You can build houses on stilts or floating houses – lets build like we’re in 2040 and there is more flooding and look at far more creative ways of doing things. Look to Holland see what they do, houses which double as boats when the land floods. There are brilliant solutions out there lets not build like we always have done but look to the future.
No uploaded files for public display
The NPPF, paragraph 149, states that Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, considering the long-term implications for flood risk, coastal change, water supply, biodiversity and landscapes, and the risk of overheating from rising temperatures. Policies should support appropriate measures to ensure the future resilience of communities and infrastructure to climate change impacts, such as providing space for physical protection measures, or making provision for the possible future relocation of vulnerable development and infrastructure. Paragraph 150 of the NPPF states that local requirements for the sustainability of buildings should reflect the Government’s policy for national technical standards. The effect of the March 2015 Written Ministerial Statement (and Deregulation Act in 2015) was such that Local Plans could not require new dwellings to comply with energy efficiency standards exceeding those in building regulations. The Government’s Future Homes Standard will set the benchmark for minimum environmental standards for all new housing, including a commitment to removing traditional fossil fuel heating systems, from 2025. The Government’s recent National Design Guide (2019) (NDG) also sets out guidance that encourages design that responds to the impacts of climate change: including measures to achieve: mitigation, primarily by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and minimising embodied energy; and adaptation to anticipated events, such as rising temperatures and the increasing risk of flooding. The NDG sets out the energy hierarchy as follows: 1. Reducing the need for energy; 2. Energy efficiency; 3. Maximising the potential for energy supply from decentralised, low carbon and renewable energy sources, including community-led initiatives; and then 4. Efficiently using fossil fuels from clean technologies. While additional measures to achieve extra climate adaptation and resilience are no doubt aspirational, national standards do not ‘require’ extra climate adaptation and resilience features to be incorporated into new developments. Each development should be considered on its own merits, having full regard to all environmental, social and economic factors that influence their deliverability; and the energy hierarchy outlined above. It should also be recognised that extra climate adaptation and resilience features are only a component of a much wider pool of initiatives that can be used to adapt to a low or zero carbon future. A step change in the way that people travel and live their lives will, for example, be a significant factor in achieving future carbon targets. As is the case for all Local Plan policies, the importance of viability should not be overlooked. Before embarking on restrictive policy requirements of any kind the Councils should first ensure that such features have been tested robustly, are deliverable, and do not prevent the delivery of sustainable development.
No uploaded files for public display
A policy approach with multiple options for delivering net zero carbon is likely to be most effective in delivering development, as well as carbon neutrality. A multi-pronged approach should allow different solutions for different developments, reflecting their use, local context and site-specific opportunities and constraints. 4.15 In the context of commercial development, developers should be encouraged to strive to do more that the regulatory minimums, but policies should seek to ensure certainty of delivery. 4.16 Where achieving standards requires a different approach in the design of buildings, the Councils must consider this and apply weight to the benefits of delivering low carbon sustainable development. The Council will need to be cognisant that changes to what are current ‘design’ norms may change as buildings strive to achieve higher environmental standards and reduce their carbon and climate impacts. This may require greater flexibility and a greater degree of understanding in respect to the issues concerned in delivering highly sustainable new developments, and that this will come at a cost.
No uploaded files for public display
A policy approach with multiple options for delivering net zero carbon is likely to be most effective in delivering development, as well as carbon neutrality. A multi-pronged approach should allow different solutions for different developments, reflecting context. For example, for some developments, Passivhaus energy standards may be achievable (going well above and beyond minimums set out in the Building Regulations), but for others, Building Regulations may need to be followed but an offset solution, such as a green bond or offset fund, could be used to achieve a net carbon reduction. Possible options need to be worked up in more detail as the Plan progresses and must build in flexibility
No uploaded files for public display
A policy approach with multiple options for delivering net zero carbon is likely to be most effective in delivering development, as well as carbon neutrality. A multi-pronged approach should allow different solutions for different developments, reflecting context. For example, for some developments, Passivhaus energy standards may be achievable (going well above and beyond minimums set out in the Building Regulations), but for others, Building Regulations may need to be followed but an offset solution, such as a green bond or offset fund, could be used to achieve a net carbon reduction. Possible options need to be worked up in more detail as the Plan progresses and must build in flexibility.
No uploaded files for public display
5.9 A policy approach with multiple options for delivering net zero carbon is likely to be most effective in delivering development, as well as carbon neutrality. A multi-pronged approach should allow different solutions for different developments, reflecting context. For example, for some developments, Passivhaus energy standards may be achievable (going well above and beyond minimums set out in the Building Regulations), but for others, Building Regulations may need to be followed but an offset solution, such as a green bond or offset fund, could be used to achieve a net carbon reduction. Possible options need to be worked up in more detail as the Plan progresses and must build in flexibility.
No uploaded files for public display
Southern & Regional Developments (Joscelyn) expreses caution relating to the application of higher levels of design standards and construction requirements through development management policies. their concerns is that such requirements will result in restrictions that will impact on viability and deliverability of development within the Plan area. Whilst it may be an objective of the Plan to combat Climate Change to mitigate development impacts and existing factors, the application of restrictive requirements to development design above national standards could directly impact on the Plan's ability to ensure adequate levels of growth are implemented. The Plan should not attach restrictive caveats to development management policies and should explore alternative strategies to combat climate change and achieve a highly environmentally sustainable approach to development. It is important that this is carefully balanced with the needs of the Plan area to achieve growth that meets the demands of its communities and support the everyday requirements of the area's residents. Summary of Comments: Application of restrictive development management requirements is not supported where it will result in the suppression of the delivery of growth.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes, Strongly Agree We draw your attention to the Urban Greening Factor study for the City of London - https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/environment-and-planning/planning/planning-policy/local-plan/Documents/urban-greening-factor-study.pdf , and the Nature/Public Space sections of the National Design Guide - https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/environment-and-planning/planning/planning-policy/local-plan/Documents/urban-greening-factor-study.pdf
No uploaded files for public display
A policy approach with multiple options for delivering net zero carbon is likely to be most effective in delivering development, in addition to carbon neutrality. A multi-pronged approach should allow different solutions for different developments, reflecting context. For example, for some developments, Passivhaus energy standards may be achievable (going well above and beyond minimums set out in the Building Regulations), but for others, Building Regulations may need to be followed but an offset solution, such as a green bond or offset fund, could be used to achieve a net carbon reduction. Possible options need to be worked up in more detail as the Plan progresses and must build in flexibility.
No uploaded files for public display
5.8 A policy approach with multiple options for delivering net zero carbon is likely to be most effective in delivering development, as well as carbon neutrality. A multi-pronged approach should allow different solutions for different developments, reflecting context. For example, for some developments, Passivhaus energy standards may be achievable (going well above and beyond minimums set out in the Building Regulations), but for others, Building Regulations may need to be followed with an offset solution, such as a green bond or offset fund, to achieve a net carbon reduction. Possible options need to be worked up in more detail as the Plan progresses and must build in flexibility.
No uploaded files for public display
A policy approach with multiple options for delivering net zero carbon is likely to be most effective in delivering development, as well as carbon neutrality. A multi-pronged approach should allow different solutions for different developments, reflecting context. For example, for some developments, Passivhaus energy standards may be achievable (going well above and beyond minimums set out in the Building Regulations), but for others, Building Regulations may need to be followed but an offset solution, such as a green bond or offset fund, could be used to achieve a net carbon reduction. Possible options need to be worked up in more detail as the Plan progresses and must build in flexibility.
No uploaded files for public display
5.10 A policy approach with multiple options for delivering net zero carbon is likely to be most effective in delivering development, as well as carbon neutrality. A multi-pronged approach should allow different solutions for different developments, reflecting context. For example, for some developments, Passivhaus energy standards may be achievable (going well above and beyond minimums set out in the Building Regulations), but for others, Building Regulations may need to be followed but an offset solution, such as a green bond or offset fund, could be used to achieve a net carbon reduction. Possible options need to be worked up in more detail as the Plan progresses and must build in flexibility.
No uploaded files for public display
5.8 A policy approach with multiple options for delivering net zero carbon is likely to be most effective in delivering development, as well as carbon neutrality. A multi-pronged approach should allow different solutions for different developments, reflecting context. For example, for some developments, Passivhaus energy standards may be achievable (going well above and beyond minimums set out in the Building Regulations), but for others, Building Regulations may need to be followed but an offset solution, such as a green bond or offset fund, could be used to achieve a net carbon reduction. Possible options need to be worked up in more detail as the Plan progresses and must build in flexibility.
No uploaded files for public display
5.8 A policy approach with multiple options for delivering net zero carbon is likely to be most effective in delivering development, as well as carbon neutrality. A multi-pronged approach should allow different solutions for different developments, reflecting context. For example, for some developments, Passivhaus energy standards may be achievable (going well above and beyond minimums set out in the Building Regulations), but for others, Building Regulations may need to be followed but an offset solution, such as a green bond or offset fund, could be used to achieve a net carbon reduction. Possible options need to be worked up in more detail as the Plan progresses and must build in flexibility.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes strongly agree. Trinity College Cambridge recommend that a more future proof option is to require that developments respond to the most up to date risks identified by the Climate Change Committee8 and demonstrate a clear adaptation strategy including a risk assessment and the mitigation measures to be adopted. There is a clear commitment by Trinity College to go over and above the standard approach to climate adaptation and resilience on Cambridge Science Park North. A real opportunity exists for an exemplar scheme with the potential to trial and showcase natural resilience features due to the scale and critical mass available on site. In addition, due to the nature of work undertaken there are opportunities to cultivate and trial emerging technologies on site allowing innovation to develop more quickly and solutions to move to market at enhanced speeds. 8 https://www.theccc.org.uk/
No uploaded files for public display
A policy approach with multiple options for delivering net zero carbon is likely to be most effective in delivering development, as well as carbon neutrality. A multi-pronged approach should allow different solutions for different developments, reflecting context. For example, for some developments, Passivhaus energy standards may be achievable (going well above and beyond minimums set out in the Building Regulations), but for others, Building Regulations may need to be followed but an offset solution, such as a green bond or offset fund, could be used to achieve a net carbon reduction. Possible options need to be worked up in more detail as the Plan progresses and must build in flexibility.
No uploaded files for public display
2.14 Climate adaption should be seen as a universal and not as an exceptional requirement or characteristic in Grater Cambridge 2.15 A balance will be needed between delivering the development needed and the national objective of moving towards properly sustainable communities: this is unlikely to be fully delivered in the period to 2040 which must be considered to be a transitional period and planned for accordingly. 2.16 Climate adaptivity – and the general approach to development form and distribution – should be considered on a site by site basis tailored to each individual site, as the viability differs between each site and what can be realistically provided by each development in terms of climate adaptation, that will inherently increase the costs of development. In short, accelerated costs that diminish the viability of development or so work against needing economic and social needs must be avoided as this will damaging to key matters such as social inclusion as well as to the delivery of a sustainable future. 2.17 In particular therefore, we do not consider that climate adaption should dictate, for example, that all new development should be focused on a small number of central urban locations or new planned sustainable settlements. Rural communities which are a fundamental characteristic of the Greater Cambridge area, will continue to need support and levels of growth that will sustain them as communities. The way in which we build, the energy we use in our homes and the way we travel may change but delivering climate resilience should not mean either a substantial shift of existing populations out of rural communities nor the curtailment of future growth (of an appropriate scale) within them. 2.18 Climate resilience measures must however be realistic and deliverable within the economic, social and fiscal requirements to meet the housing needs of the population; they must also be capable of being delivered within whatever legislative framework driving sustainability and carbon neutrality shall prevail during the plan period.
No uploaded files for public display
4.10 A policy approach with multiple options for delivering net zero carbon is likely to be most effective in delivering development, as well as carbon neutrality. A multi-pronged approach should allow different solutions for different developments, reflecting context.
No uploaded files for public display
5.10 A policy approach with multiple options for delivering net zero carbon is likely to be most effective in delivering development, as well as carbon neutrality. A multi-pronged approach should allow different solutions for different developments, reflecting context. For example, for some developments, Passivhaus energy standards may be achievable (going well above and beyond minimums set out in the Building Regulations), but for others, Building Regulations may need to be followed but an offset solution, such as a green bond or offset fund, could be used to achieve a net carbon reduction. Possible options need to be worked up in more detail as the new Local Plan progresses and must build in flexibility.
No uploaded files for public display
Southern & Regional Developments (Cottenham) expresses caution relating to the application of higher levels of design standards and construction requirements through development management policies. their concerns is that such requirements will result in restrictions that will impact on viability and deliverability of development within the Plan area. Whilst it may be an objective of the Plan to combat Climate Change to mitigate development impacts and existing factors, the application of restrictive requirements to development design above national standards could directly impact on the Plan's ability to ensure adequate levels of growth are implemented. The Plan should not attach restrictive caveats to development management policies and should explore alternative strategies to combat climate change and achieve a highly environmentally sustainable approach to development. It is important that this is carefully balanced with the needs of the Plan area to achieve growth that meets the demands of its communities and support the everyday requirements of the area's residents. Summary of Comments: Application of restrictive development management requirements is not supported where it will result in the supression of the delivery of growth.
No uploaded files for public display