Object
Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan
Representation ID: 53737
Received: 04/10/2020
Respondent: Mr Jon Pavey
The cost of the water supply / plumbing systems for most, if not all, non-residential developments will be a very small element of the overall building development and operation costs. An economically viability test leaves open the opportunity for spurious challenges to achieving the BREEAM 5 credit standard. It dulls innovative thinking and shifts the burden (and cost) of the water resource challenge to users of the environment (boaters, nature lovers, wildlife, Cambridge Water). This is an unacceptable let-out.
The BREEAM 5 credit standard does not preclude developments which depend on industrial levels of water use, but requires significantly lower usage levels than the baseline. In a water stressed catchment like the Cam, this is not an unreasonable ask. And if it cannot be achieved at what the developer considers to be at an economic cost, it is better for all of us if that particular type of development was sited elsewhere - where water stress is not an issue.
Therefore "or economically viable" should be removed from the phrase "unless it can be demonstrated that such provision is not technically or economically viable".
The cost of the water supply / plumbing systems for most, if not all, non-residential developments will be a very small element of the overall building development and operation costs. An economically viability test leaves open the opportunity for spurious challenges to achieving the BREEAM 5 credit standard. It dulls innovative thinking and shifts the burden (and cost) of the water resource challenge to users of the environment (boaters, nature lovers, wildlife, Cambridge Water). This is an unacceptable let-out.
The BREEAM 5 credit standard does not preclude developments which depend on industrial levels of water use, but requires significantly lower usage levels than the baseline. In a water stressed catchment like the Cam, this is not an unreasonable ask. And if it cannot be achieved at what the developer considers to be at an economic cost, it is better for all of us if that particular type of development was sited elsewhere - where water stress is not an issue.
Therefore "or economically viable" should be removed from the phrase "unless it can be demonstrated that such provision is not technically or economically viable".