Question 10

Mostly not

This was a golden opportunity to build a truly sustainable development meeting Passivhaus construction standards such as at the new Goldsmith Street development in Norwich. Even Eddington has higher standards so this is a retrograde step. However there is no 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’.

Mostly not

There has already been local concern expressed (via FECRA) over the already increased pressure on city water supplies, which is not helped by this new development. And although we have not had a serious local flooding event for over a decade, climate change means uncertainly about that, while much of this new development is very close to the flood plain. And it is not clear at all what the developer is to contribute to any of the carbon goals(charging stations for electric vehicles, e.g.), which if anything need to be carbon-negative.

Mostly not

I am not sure you are following the most sustainable and highest construction standards. They must be at least as good if not better than the development at Eddington. Cambridge ground water levels are exceptionally low. How will you make sure no more water is extracted?

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly yes

Lots of good things proposed but this falls short of "maximising the role that ..... climate crisis". 1) Cambridge Water Company's Final Water Resources Management Plan (2019) indicates currently water consumption is around 110 l/p/d in new residential buildings. So while the target water use will decline compared with the Cambridge average, it is not making material inroads on what currently is being achieved for new builds. A more ambitious water consumption target is needed given there are (i) proven technologies for reducing water use further; (ii) additional savings in water use possible should the policy environment shift so their commercial exploitation becomes feasible (iii) technical means for reducing water supply levels further through recycling grey water (iv) abstracting, processing, distributing (including pumping) water all have marked carbon-emission components exacerbating the Climate Emergency. Maybe the target should be on a sliding scale 120 l/p/d all units with foundations in place by end 2025 dropping to 80 l/p/d on units were construction starts after 2045?

Neutral

The aspirations on climate change are good, but the details are more aspirations than commitments, so don't inspire confidence that they will be delivered. It should be designed as zero carbon - no fossil fuels burnt anywhere on the site, most transport movements walking or cycling, and buildings designed to not need energy generated elsewhere for heating or cooling.

Mostly yes

But only if there is a much less density of population. Cambridge has already been spoiled with excessive increase of large tech businesses who bring in many of their own employees.How many of these houses will go to local people?

Mostly yes

1) All multi-storey buildings alongside which the public have access should, as the default design, have a 2 or 3m overhang at 1st/2nd floor level so as to provide shade in summer, protection from rain and protection from the cold in winter. Legal arrangements to give this effect (if any are required) should be put in place across the whole site. 2) Wide streets should have trees to provide shelter and shade. 3) Streets too narrow to support trees should be made as narrow as possible where this would decrease the potential for solar heat gain on buildings along the street.

Mostly yes

The 10% increase in biodiversity target is too low; set it at 20% or better, 25%. There is considerable opportunity to raise the biodiversity in this location and if planned in from the beginning, this can be done at an affordable cost.

Not at all

Again, and disappointingly, not at all. This would be a golden opportunity to build a truly sustainable development meeting Passivhaus construction standards such as at the new Goldsmith Street development in Norwich. However, there is no 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’. This is simply not enough.

Neutral

This has to be carefully balanced without going completely overboard with your actions.

Not at all

No not at all. I think you are doing something but you are not maximising its role at all. You talk about 'proposing robust targets' and 'proposing developers consider' but will any of this be enforceable or could it not actually happen. I would like to see firm commitments and guarantees. The water use target is 110 litres ppd but the Eddington target is 80 litres ppd and includes grey water and rainfall capture. Will there be an appointed Ecology officer from the start of the project as at Eddington? There is no specific commitment to green energy, district heating or the highest residential Passivhaus standards 10% increase in biodiversity is the absolute minimum required by the Cambridge City policy so I think it is misleading to highlight this as something to be proud of

Not at all

Biodiversity increase of 20% at the expense of a much larger percentage of greenbelt land which will be contaminated with sewage. All flat rooves green or brown. Flat grooves are not good insulators they don't last long so that is not good. These grooves are on high density housing this can never be good for any environment but definitely not a covid 19 one.

Neutral

There is The comparison for water consumption is to the Cambridge average rather than the most water efficient developments in recent years.

Not at all

There doesn't seem to be anything concrete to stop car use

Neutral

Cannot find any commitment to provision of on-site renewable energy sources or district heating systems. Disappointed to see that Passivhaus design standards are not mandated. Instead there is reference to BREEAM Excellent (not Outstanding) and just 'robust targets' for energy use. Eddington and Marmalade Lane are local examples where a commitment to the highest standards of construction, insulation, ventilation and use of renewable energy have been realised. Will you consider mandating a waste management system similar to that at Eddington which appears to be working well and reduces street clutter? Will the development be designated as a zero-emission zone for motor vehicles?

Mostly not

This is an ideal opportunity to build a really sustainable development like, as already mentioned, Eddington or the Goldsmith Street development in Norwich. There seems to be no push to commit to the best standards and the coloured flats will soon fade. If you don't build to the highest standards viz the climate crisis, there will be a danger that NE will turn to neglect within a generation. You don't mention solar panels on the roofs, for example nor mention the low water levels around here. Much depends whether you have the will to ban cars from NE. The rest the pollution of the A14 and A10 will achieve. In order to address the climate crisis successfully, you shall have to reduce NE Cambridge development by at least half.

Neutral

The development is ambitious but the resources needed to construct it will contribute to the climate crisis. The UK Green Building Council definition of carbon neutral (i.e. offsetting 'embodied' carbon emitted as a consequence of construction and maintenance) will need to be adopted if it is to truly claim to be addressing the climate crisis.

Neutral

This is very important and obviously the plans include some steps in this direction but perhaps we should look to other new developments such as Goldsmith Street in Norwich or even Eddington to see how things could be done better.

Neutral

This is very important and obviously the plans include some steps in this direction but perhaps we should look to other new developments such as Goldsmith Street in Norwich or even Eddington to see how things could be done better.

Neutral

This is very important and obviously the plans include some steps in this direction but perhaps we should look to other new developments such as Goldsmith Street in Norwich or even Eddington to see how things could be done better.

Mostly not

This was a golden opportunity to build a truly sustainable development meeting Passivhaus construction standards such as at the new Goldsmith Street development in Norwich. Even Eddington has higher standards, so this is a retrograde step. There is no 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’. Better policy provision which sets robust targets to measure against any proposal’s objectives is required.

Not at all

There is no apparent firm commitment to reducing carbon emission. No mention of renewable energy, conserving water use, or the highest (and more expensive) green construction standards or, for example, the development in the Eddington area. Again, there are some attractive phrases about "encouraging low carbon lifestyles" but , like discouraging car use, these will have no impact unless they are built into the plan.

Not at all

Statements such as 'Development at North East Cambridge must support the transition to a net zero carbon society.' are not compatible with merely 'encouraging'

Neutral

No answer given

Neutral

In giving people a place to live which is hopefully near their workplace this may be beneficial .

Neutral

Solar panels could be considered. Use rain water for toilets etc. Look at K1 development for heating options. Look at insultation in Scandinavian countries. Triple insulation and cavity walls.

Not at all

You're making it a focus, but by no means are you maximising the role that it could play. As I mentioned in my response to an earlier question, the water demand in the East of England is already stressing what can be provided by the water sources in this area. 110 litres per day is much larger than the Eddington development's target of 80 litres per day. I understand they had an 'ecology officer' throughout the development, which would be a good approach for this development. There's no mention of other specific targets regarding energy usage - the development could be made much more environmentally friendly if it adopted something like the Passivhaus standard (https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/what_is_passivhaus.php), which details specific targets that the new homes must meet to achieve the standard (of being much better than a standard new-build). The targets mentioned include "an aspiration in policy to see buildings on the North East Cambridge site delivered to the BREEAM 'Outstanding' standard", which is an aspiration, not a promise.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given