Question 10

Not at all

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 than this one. 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’.Given that Cambridge has recently declared a Climate Emergency, this is incredible disappointing.

Not at all

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE INCLUSION OF A FORCED LIKERT SCALE CHOICE ABOVE. MY SELECTION DOES NOT REPRESENT MY VIEWS: IT IS MERELY AN ENABLER OF THE TEXT SUBMISSION IN THIS FIELD.

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly not

Development isn't the answer to climate change.

Neutral

Building more energy efficient buildings should be achievable,. However, encouraging people who will live and work here to lead low-carbon lifestyles is out of the developers control.

Neutral

Building more energy efficient buildings should be achievable,. However, encouraging people who will live and work here to lead low-carbon lifestyles is out of the developers control.

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

I welcome the focus on energy and water efficiency and sustainable travel, but ambitions fall short of what is required. The issue of regional water shortage is particularly pressing: this is already a water-stressed region and abstraction is causing a range of problems, even before the projected impacts of climate change are taken into account (see the Cam Valley Forum report ‘Let it Flow’: https://camvalleyforum.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Cam_Valley_Forum_Let_it_Flow_Full_report_26-05-20-compressed.pdf). The water use target for this development is 110 litres ppd. In contrast, the Eddington development had a target of 80 litres ppd, by using grey water and rainfall capture. To achieve this Eddington employed an Ecology Officer from start of project. The ‘target’ of the North East Cambridge development is poor in comparison to Eddington and is woefully inadequate considering the water-stresses this area is already facing. There is no specific commitment to green energy, district heating or highest residential building standards (Passivhaus/Sustainable Homes). By only ‘proposing robust targets’ and ‘encouraging … low carbon lifestyles’, the development plans leave themselves open to loopholes and the potential for not meeting any of their ‘targets’. However ‘efficient’ this new development turns out to be, the fact remains that introducing 8,000 new homes (with up to 4,000 private vehicles) plus businesses will increase the environmental footprint of Cambridge.

Mostly yes

Your planning may purport to be responding to the climate crisis, but with the density of population you are planning, the people will feel like ants. This will affect their daily lives, welfare and mental health with predictable social consequences.

Mostly not

I strongly feel that plans for this development are not ambitious enough given the climate emergency. Buildings should be carbon neutral or negative and much more water efficient. The water use target for this development is 110 litres ppd whereas the Eddington development had a target of 80 litres ppd theEddingtondevelopmenthadatargetof80litresppd,byusinggreywaterandrainfallcapture.ToachievethisEddingtonemployedanEcologyOfficerfromstartofproject.The‘target’oftheNorthEastCambridgedevelopmentispoorincomparisontoEddingtonandiswoefullyinadequateconsideringthewater-stressesthisareaisalreadyfacing.Thereisnospecificcommitmenttogreenenergy,districtheatingorhighestresidentialbuildingstandards(Passivhaus/SustainableHomes).Byonly‘proposingrobusttargets’and‘encouraging...lowcarbonlifestyles’,thedevelopmentplansleavethemselvesopentoloopholesandthepotentialfornotmeetinganyoftheir‘targets’.However‘efficient’thisnewdevelopmentturnsouttobe,thefactremainsthatintroducing8,000newhomes(withupto4,000privatevehicles)plusbusinesseswillincreasetheenvironmentalfootprintofCambridge.

Not at all

I welcome the focus on energy and water efficiency and sustainable travel, but ambitions fall short of what is required. The issue of regional water shortage is particularly pressing: this is already a water-stressed region and abstraction is causing a range of problems, even before the projected impacts of climate change are taken into account (see the Cam Valley Forum report ‘Let it Flow’: https://camvalleyforum.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Cam_Valley_Forum_Let_it_Flow_Full_report_26-05-20-compressed.pdf). The water use target for this development is 110 litres ppd. In contrast, the Eddington development had a target of 80 litres ppd, by using grey water and rainfall capture. To achieve this Eddington employed an Ecology Officer from start of project. The ‘target’ of the North East Cambridge development is poor in comparison to Eddington and is woefully inadequate considering the water-stresses this area is already facing. There is no specific commitment to green energy, district heating or highest residential building standards (Passivhaus/Sustainable Homes). By only ‘proposing robust targets’ and ‘encouraging … low carbon lifestyles’, the development plans leave themselves open to loopholes and the potential for not meeting any of their ‘targets’. However ‘efficient’ this new development turns out to be, the fact remains that introducing 8,000 new homes (with up to 4,000 private vehicles) plus businesses will increase the environmental footprint of Cambridge.

Neutral

This is a well-meaning policy but it lacks teeth. Unless the highest building standards are mandated and enforced, developers will cut corners and ignore the difficult and expensive requirements. Above all the water-saving measures need to be effective and every opportunity must be taken to generate energy from renewable sources.

Mostly not

You are not mentioning air quality or providing any projections of how the construction work, associated heavy diesel powered vehicles and ultimately the finished development will affect local air quality and gas + particulate composition of the air we breathe including any increases to NO2 and PM2.5. A solid plan for how to mitigate this must be in place.

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly yes

The buildings will need to be carefully designed so that they don't get too hot in summer as my understanding of other recently built dwellings is that they can become excessively hot in summer, as they are very well insulated against cold weather, but that this has an adverse affect of not being able to keep a healthy temperature in the warmer months. I believe that the people who will live here will only effectively be able to live a low-carbon lifestyle if most of the shops, restaurants, cafes, facilities and outdoor spaces that they will want to visit on a regular basis are accessible within walking or cycling distance. If not it is not going to produce the desired result. To give future residents of this area access to cars on occasions they are needed, without too many private parking spaces being available, car sharing schemes could be a way to make this an option without compromising the plan to be low-carbon, and to have only a small amount of car usage in this area. Electric car charging stations should also be available. The public transport that is planned for the area should include electric busses.

Neutral

See my responses to Q1. 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. Water conservation is weak. Accommodation proposed is not Passivhaus. Sustainable Homes Level 6 –or 5. Goldsmith Street, Norwich, and Eddington are better models.

Not at all

These are low-carbon policies, not carbon neutral. More needs to be put in place from day one

Not at all

An unnecessary relocation of the sewage works to green belt land can only serve to increase the damage to the environment.

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. 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

How do you propose to ensure that, once developers have considered the "lifecycle carbon costs for their buildings" that they are held to account for same ? After all, the developer will disappear with his sack of gold as soon as possible, leaving someone else to actually count the "lifecycle carbon costs for their buildings". Similarly "

Neutral

Are the houses build in a way that they get optimum sun. Does every house have solar panels?

Not at all

• The fundamental questions around carbon life cycle are avoided. By relocating the sewage works many miles of tunneling are needed along with the new construction of the sewage works which was recently refurbished and ‘futureproofed’. • BREEAM Excellent is not the higher rating, BREEAM outstanding would surely enable the developers to maximise the impact of this scheme rather than setting a lower target.

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. 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

The fundamental questions around carbon life cycle are avoided. By relocating the sewage works many miles of tunnelling are needed along with the new construction of the sewage works which was recently refurbished and ‘futureproofed’. BREEAM Excellent is not the higher rating, BREEAM outstanding would surely enable the developers to maximise the impact of this scheme rather than setting a lower target.

Mostly yes

We would like more consideration to be given to the role that Milton Country Park and the proposed Cambridge Sport Lakes and Country Park can play in supporting the impact of North East Cambridge on climate change. The carbon sink / offset opportunities that could be achieved, by working in partnership, are significant.

Not at all

No, not as far as I can see from the discussion document, rather the reverse.

Not at all

You should be honest about the true carbon cost of NEC by including the environmental cost of relocating the sewage works. There need to be concrete guarantees that developers will play their part in reducing carbon emissions. Surely NEC buildings will have the highest carbon footprint in the land after factoring in the colossal carbon cost of moving the sewage works, building all the extra pipes and tunnels and decommissioning work. The associated sewage works relocation to Sites 1 and 2 also risks reducing options for cycle and public transport infrastructure.

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly yes

Buildings must be designed to be carbon-negative. The vision should not be for a ‘low-carbon’ district. This is is too vague for developer commitments. Specific targets must be set for each aspect of the site. The Climate Change paper notes that significant reinforcement will be needed to the electricity grid to support the development, including increased use of renewable energy and infrastructure such as electric vehicle chargepoints: these will be needed throughout the site for e-bikes (especially e-cargo bikes) as well as cars. In terms of climate change, it will also be important to consider flooding. Trip budgets have been based on the ability of the local highway network to support levels of car usage at peak times rather than the reductions of transport emissions needed to support local authorities’ achievement of zero net carbon emissions. Trip budgets, car parking allocations and other car use metrics must begin with the carbon budget, not levels of congestion and pollution.

Mostly yes

The development (building it as well as when in use) must create as few emissions as possible, Buildings must be built taking into account the carbon footprint and must run carbon-negative. The vision should not be for a ‘low-carbon’ district because this is is too vague for developer commitments. Specific carbon emission targets need to be set. The Climate Change paper notes that reinforcement of the electricity grid and that infrastructure such as electric vehicle chargepoints are needed. The latter must be provided for e-bikes, in particular for e-cargo bikes. In terms of climate change, it will also be important to consider flooding. Trip budgets have been calculated based on the ability of the local highway network to support car usage at peak times rather than the reductions of emissions to support the local authority's achievement of net zero carbon emissions. Trip budgets, car parking allocations and other car use metrics must begin with the carbon budget for travel, not the acceptable level of congestion and pollution.