Infrastructure
Water. The issue of water is also partially addressed in 3.3.
On page 41, Policy S/DS: Development strategy states that “Water Resources East is currently preparing its Water Management Plan for the region to cover the period to 2050, expected to be published for consultation in 2022. It is understood that this will include planning for significant new infrastructure in the form of a new Fenland reservoir, alongside other measures, to provide water supply that is designed to address both environmental and growth needs. However, on current timelines, this will only be available to supply water from the mid 2030’s.”
I therefore welcome the intention to scale back developments until the fundamental issue of supply is resolved. I am sure that residents would not wish to be subjected to water shortages as a consequence of foreseeable actions.
It is understandable that those responsible for the supply of water to the region may have underestimated the rapid expansion of Greater Cambridge resulting in potential delays to developments of national importance. I would therefore urge Greater Cambridge Planning to enter into discussion with government at the highest level to seek means to enable Water Resources East to bring forward the timelines for their infrastructure project to mesh with timescales in the Greater Cambridge Local Plan.
I also note the intention to reduce the allowance of water for new developments from 110 to 80 litres/person/day and am concerned by any policy that seeks to limit the availability of water, which is a basic human need. Our planet may be under stress, but it is not going to run out of water soon – the issue is one of logistics and not shortage. This is a lazy solution that unfairly passes the buck to the consumer.
Whilst I fully accept the need to respond to climate change, proposals should be proportionate and minimise inconvenience. Whilst grey water may be a partial alternative, I question the wisdom of reducing living standards for the younger generation – people have enjoyed a relaxing bath, which relieves stress and can be good for mental health since Roman times. But, with a typical bath using 80 litres of water, new properties will simply be designed without baths – this is not progress…
There is a far more satisfactory answer. Industry figures show that, on average, 112 litres per property are lost through leakage every day. So, since leakage dwarfs the proposed savings that are required, surely on the principle of polluter pays, water companies should be required to repair their leaks? And, if that is not possible, then we may well conclude that the development is not in a suitable area and pressures from government must be resisted to build on the site.
In relation to electricity, Policy I/IE: Energy infrastructure masterplanning is key.
I note and welcome that work has been carried out to assess electricity grid capacity and that it concludes it would be necessary to triple capacity to support the development already planned in the area and electrification of transport. However, I have worked through this informally with the Director of a company that builds medical premises, and our initial calculations suggest that this could be a substantial underestimate. In fact, Greater Cambridge may need to multiply capacity by a factor of ten over the period of the Plan. I will work through our calculations again, setting out the steps and assumptions in more detail and will forward them once this is complete. Meanwhile:
· Based on data from WhatCar and taking the Hyundai Kona Electric 39kWh as “typical” with a range of 158 miles, I arrive at a typical annual use of 2,500kWh. With an average of 1.2 cars per household, this rises to 3,000kWh. This will effectively double electricity consumption for the average household.
· Now allow for domestic gas conversion to electricity. The calculations are complex, but have the potential to result in a 250% increase of electricity use.
· Cambridge is projected to grow by almost 50% over the time of the plan.
· The compound growth over the period is of the order of a factor of ten – and ignores the industrial and commercial use of energy and future growth beyond 2041...
There are further worrying and substantial aspects that relate to the stability of supply (most people will re-charge electric cars overnight) and the capacity delivered to individual homes (a 60amp supply delivers 14.4kW so a 7kW charger, a 3kW oven, 2.2 kW dishwasher and 2.5 kW kettle would blow a fuse!).
2.4.3 In relation to transport, there is much sensible discussion regarding reduction of car travel through the use of better provision for cycling, walking and public transport. However, the effect on the disabled and immuno-compromised is totally ignored – and potentially threatens to create issues of disability discrimination. For those disabled who struggle with walking and cycling, getting to public transport may prove supremely difficult and, for the immuno-compromised, public transport (including taxis) is not a good option. More widely, the law of unintended consequences of removal of parking spaces has not been fully considered – as a simple example, many drivers prefer to park on a verge outside their own home, rather than walk 100 yards to a parking space in a side road.
2.4.4 Finally, no consideration has been given to transport infrastructure in the Queen Edith’s area, which will become inadequate once Marleigh, Cambridge East and Fulbourn are established, and significant numbers of residents have to travel to work at the southern campuses (CBC, Babraham and Genome).
Following the opening of the Babraham Park and Ride, Lime Kiln Road has become a highly dangerous road with often no more than 50cm available between passing cars, has no pavements and is full of blind corners. The road is hilly and with cyclists travelling uphill regularly create hazards when frustrated motorists attempt to overtake. During the summer, pedestrians from the Caravan site can regularly be found wandering along the road.
2.5 The disabled
Although references to the disabled “tick all the boxes” in the first proposals, they are not expanded on at any point. This suggests that they will come in as an afterthought to any development. I propose that you include a separate section in the Plan that addresses the needs of the disabled across all sectors and that, before the Plan is approved, it is audited by a disability action group.