Comment
Greater Cambridge Local Plan Preferred Options
Representation ID: 57038
Received: 09/12/2021
Respondent: Dr William Harrold
I don’t agree with the scale of development. But if it is to happen then very tough requirements on CO2 emissions for construction and operation are right. Anna Mackenzie’s webinar presentation says we will spend the Greater Cambridge CO2 budget in 6.1 years if we continue at the 2019 rate. It is completely irresponsible to say that the retro-fit problem is out of scope for the plan. The existing houses will use the carbon budget even if the new ones contribute nothing (which they won’t). We are going to hell in a handcart. Use some S106 and CIL money to fund retrofit. Use money from local taxation. Now.
Your support for EWR is contrary to your climate goals – it’s (still unpublished) business case must depend on unnecessary infrastructure and housing around EWR stations – why do you support it? The local connectivity problem should be solved by the GCP.
I don’t agree with the scale of development. But if it is to happen then very tough requirements on CO2 emissions for construction and operation are right. Anna Mackenzie’s webinar presentation says we will spend the Greater Cambridge CO2 budget in 6.1 years if we continue at the 2019 rate. It is completely irresponsible to say that the retro-fit problem is out of scope for the plan. The existing houses will use the carbon budget even if the new ones contribute nothing (which they won’t). We are going to hell in a handcart. Use some S106 and CIL money to fund retrofit. Use money from local taxation. Now.
Your support for EWR is contrary to your climate goals – it’s (still unpublished) business case must depend on unnecessary infrastructure and housing around EWR stations – why do you support it? The local connectivity problem should be solved by the GCP.