Question 10

Not at all

Clearly not and this is shameful and inexplicable. The residential parts should of course achieve Passivhaus or Sustainable Homes Level 6. Water conservation is weak. Eddington once again provides a worked example, of a planned 80 litres per person per day. We have a groundwater crisis, and a properly challenging target on water use, and suitable programmed mitigating arrangements should be axiomatic and the Council's duty. Goldsmith Street Norwich offers a fine example of social housing which meets Passivhaus standards at a human and attractive scale and density. Follow that.

Not at all

No answer given

Mostly yes

One additional driver of climate change is the short cycle of construction and demolition of buildings. All new buildings on the site should be required to have a design life exceeding 100 years. The major factor that limits building lifespans is the use of rust-prone steel in structural elements such as lintels and concrete reinforcement. Stainless steel with a chromium content > 10% corrodes about 20 times more slowly than ordinary steel. Stainless steel costs about four times as much as ordinary steel, but since these components make up only a small proportion of the overall building, the relative increase in cost would not be great. Joist hangers are metal components that enable lazy contractors to install floor joists without having to leave a slot for them in the brick or blockwork. They corrode after several decades requiring the floors, or the entire building, to be replaced. In contrast, joists placed directly onto bricks or blocks can last indefinitely with proper maintenance. The use of joist hangers should not be allowed in the development area.

Mostly not

Using the phrase net zero is simply complying with central government and not addressing the science which is well known to Cambridge academics. Professor Julian Allwood (Engineering) makes the case for absolute, not net zero and his report is attached below. I'm sorry to say that the proposals smell very strongly of business as usual, that there is brown land up for grabs and the proximity to the Science Park is irresistible to Build, Build, Build. The building standards that you cite are all well and good but the construction industry is notorious for generating waste in its hurry to complete a contract and move on. The ethos should be build well, build less than you planned. The industrial revolution started in the UK bears the responsibility for the climate crisis. Can we really be so crass as to direct our intelligence into more of the same climate destroying, species eliminating growth?

Not at all

You intend to create a small town the size of Ely and additional commercial floorspace for 20,000 jobs. To suggest that the water available is adequate by reducing consumption by 15% is simply not good enough. The chalk aquifer round Cambridge is seriously depleted due to over abstraction. Chalk streams that feed the Cam such as the Mel and the Shep are 'augmented' by water pumped from the aquifer. Currently Cambridge Water is using 20% of its total abstracted water on this augmentation policy. How is this sustainable? As for flat roofs these are a poor design response to changing climate. No amount of grass is going to deter significant solar gain and result in occupants eventually purchasing air conditioning equipment. You cannot beat traditional pointed roofs in terms of insulation of occupants from solar gain. You may try to deter car usage but look at the streets of Cambridge, even the ones near the center like mine, where in theory residents do not need private transport. Cars are parked both sides of terraced streets usually one side on the pavement. Promises of a CAM metro, the 'joy' cycling in the rain and the opportunity to use the monopoly high priced local bus service is not going to deter car ownership.

Not at all

All of this building will involve a huge amount of emissions, concrete etc. in its construction and in decontaminating the current sewage works site. Some part of this could be prevented by NOT relocating the sewage works, but modernising them onto a smaller footprint on the current site, which would also avoid incursion into the Green Belt - an important 'green lung' for ALL of Cambridge's future inhabitants.

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. The Climate Change paper (p12) 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 as well as cars to enable people of all ages and abilities to travel by cycle. In terms of climate adaptivity, it will also be important to consider flooding: drainage should be managed in such a way that cycle and walking routes are not disrupted in the case of a 100-year rain event and remain clear and accessible at all times. Finally, we note that the trip budgets have been calculated 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’ journey to zero carbon. Trip budgets, car parking allocations and other car use metrics should begin with the carbon budget for travel not the maximum acceptable level of congestion and pollution.

Not at all

You intend to create a small town the size of Ely and additional commercial floorspace for 20,000 jobs. To suggest that the water available is adequate by reducing consumption by 15% is simply not good enough. The chalk aquifer round Cambridge is seriously depleted due to over abstraction. Chalk streams that feed the Cam such as the Mel and the Shep are 'augmented' by water pumped from the aquifer. Currently Cambridge Water is using 20% of its total abstracted water on this augmentation policy. How is this sustainable? As for flat roofs these are a poor design response to changing climate. No amount of grass is going to deter significant solar gain and result in occupants eventually purchasing air conditioning equipment. You cannot beat traditional pointed roofs in terms of insulation of occupants from solar gain. You may try to deter car usage but look at the streets of Cambridge, even the ones near the center like mine, where in theory residents do not need private transport. Cars are parked both sides of terraced streets usually one side on the pavement. Promises of a CAM metro, the 'joy' cycling in the rain and the opportunity to use the monopoly high priced local bus service is not going to deter car ownership.

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. The development must be carbon negative-ready, i.e. to produce more zero carbon energy than it uses, all whilst ensuring houses are well ventilated and not relying on ecologically damaging biofuels. District heating networks should be installed as standard, with ground and air-source heat pumps where this is not possible, and any fuels capable of easy replacement by hydrogen.

Neutral

There's a lot of expertise in Cambridge which points to transport being the biggest contributor to carbon emissions locally and across the nation. Most people drive and, in order to achieve your ambitions for 75% walking/cycling/public transport, you will need to generate a massive cultural shift, whereby residents find that active travel is by far the most convenient, safe, cost-effective and attractive mode of transport. This will entail very specific and non-negotiable guidelines for your developers.

Mostly not

The targets for energy and water efficiency lack ambition: no specific commitment to green energy, district heating or highest residential building standards and a per-dwelling water use of 110 litres ppd (compared to Eddington's 80 litres). However efficient the new buildings are, the fact remains they will increase the environmental footprint of Cambridge. The issue of water shortage is especially acute (see the Let it Flow report

Neutral

Wouldn't it be more sustainable not to move the sewage works?

Neutral

strongly support response from Camcycle

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

Taking away green belt from around Cambridge for the water treatment plant will have a negative impact on tackling the climate crisis. On top of this concreting over large areas and large amounts of construction will also have a massive negative impact. I don't think the impact of the actual construction phase is covered.

Not at all

You set yourself up to fail with the wording of this question. No one can say this development is "maximising the role ... in responding to the climate crisis". Naturally, I welcome the focus on energy and water efficiency and sustainable travel, but ambitions fall far 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). If we as a town, and nationally as a country, are to meet climate targets all new buildings should be built to these highest standards. Anything less is negligent. 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

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.

Neutral

No answer given

Not at all

Any attempted climate improvement measures would be offset by the major task of moving the sewage works. Better to modernise existing works into a smaller footprint creating extra land for expansion of the Science Park, if required after Covid. There would still be room for lots of new homes.

Mostly not

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly yes

No answer given

Mostly not

In your proposals you seek to encourage a low carbon lifestyle. However there is no hard and fast commitment to adhere to the highest building standards, renewable energy and reusable water systems . Builder’s must future-proof the houses so that the owners can upgrade them in the future. Why not build them now to a Passsivhouse standard? This is such a great opportunity to build a really sustainable award winning development ! The page on sustainability in building does not lay down solid standards for the houses in the development. Without these builders will cut corners and go for the cheapest option not the most environmentally friendly. If we are to combat climate change action is needed not warm words.

Not at all

In context of biodiversity (there is no carbon sequestration from anything you're doing environmentally, none of the habitats you've looked at will do that) and the undoubted reliance on cars that is the inevitable result of no public transport then, again, this is cynical greenwash. You can boast of reducing the amount of water needed per home but we've got insufficient water in this part of East Anglia already - where do you plan for the extra water to come from?

Not at all

Where is the existing water treatments plant going to be moved? The 3 short-listed locations are right on the edge of Cambridge. So the plan will rejuvenate one area (NE Cambridge) while completely destroying another one (where the new WTP will be located), right on the edge of the city. And all this will be branded as "carbon neutral", "net zero", "sustainable" etc. If climate change and the planet in general were a priority, we would keep the WTP where it currently is, re-develop the area around it and/or build more homes on the proposed sites for the new WTP.

Not at all

No NeCAAP is not maximising the role that development at North East Cambridge has to play in responding to the climate crisis. It is too ambitious/large and too dense and puts growth ahead of the green issue of climate crisis. At a technical level the role of energy use (based on a district heating/cooling incorporating the sewage works and ground storage) should be investigated. The plans dealing with water stress and avoiding flood risk may have too high a carbon footprint. A high degree of recycling of demolition materials or re-purposing buildings in NECAAP and elsewhere in Cambridge should be explicit goals

Mostly yes

The targets being adopted are correctly challenging. My concern is about the wider sustainability of the development once the requirement for off-site provision for replacement for displaced 'low value' industrial uses/parking/open space/biodiversity offsetting and the relocation of the Cambridge WWTW are taken into account. Nowhere in the draft AAP are these impacts properly articulated. Indeed the AAP is almost entirely silent on the planning case for relocating the WWTW, passing it off as a matter that will be the subject of a DCO application by Anglian Water. This is a matter which I shall raise separately which goes the heart of whether the AAP is 'sound'.

Not at all

Why so un-ambitious? Have you looked at the new Council developments in York - far more ambitious in reducing carbon use. Decrease in water use seems very unambitious. Especially give that the flow in the river Cam is the worst in the UK. Cars are the biggest problem - yet the plans to reduce/mitigate their use are timid.

Yes, completely

No answer given

Neutral

No answer given