Climate change

The climate crisis means we need to move away from GDP-led models of growth, which locally have meant disproportionate influence of Cambridge University and business lobbies in development and planning. Instead, the process should be led by democratically-accountable public bodies and communities. This would enable the promotion of eg community land trusts and community-led housing, community farms, allotment space, studios for artists and creatives, repair cafes and other initiatives that support cohesive, self-sufficient, resilient communities

Nowhere is the basic methodology of household formation questioned. 80% of jobs created by new homebuilding are service jobs, largely servicing the new residents. Thus of the 58,000 projected new jobs, only 11,600 will be in the Value Added category of hi-tech/bio med. And many of these will not require a 5 day a week presence. With improved rail connections, many of these hi-tech workers could be housed in existing communities up to two hours away, which would spread the envisioned prosperity. Cambridge can grow economically without a huge housebuilding programme, with its attendant water and embodied carbon issues.

Front fund infrastructure investment particularly in water resilience-this is key to all future development decision making. Emphasis should be made on protecting all existing flood plains and water courses.

“Achievement of these budgets…” sounds like the carbon budget is a target to be reached! It would be better to say “Staying within this budget…” or “Staying within these budgets…”.
I think you’re really talking about the GC budget here, so I wouldn’t use the plural.

Land used for growing food also contributes to carbon storage. This paper states “Covering only 0.0006% of Great Britain, allotments contribute a disproportionate 0.05–0.14% of nationwide total organic carbon stocks.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721012663
I would like to see the additional carbon storage in newly-planned allotments, community gardens and market gardens in Greater Cambridge quantified (according to this paper) and added to our carbon budget. It’s a small contribution but should be recognised.

All new housing must be required to use the most up to date solar/alternative heating and insulation.

Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth Parish Council has declared a climate emergency and considers these policies to be essential.
Consideration of new zero carbon technologies needs to be kept under review.
Page 6, para 1 – some data on things like rising sea level and impact on our area (maybe a map) might add valuable context for the reader.

In most cases, under “What alternatives did we consider?” there is no mention made of tougher climate change policies. These policies are a good start but given the magnitude of the crisis, even more stringent, urgent measures should be evaluated.

West Wickham Parish Council strongly support the aims of reducing carbon emissions and improving resilience to climate change.

In May 2019, Cambridgeshire County Council declared a Climate and Environment Emergency, and recognises that this is a priority with both local and central government. The Council is therefore supportive of the inclusion of this as one of the overarching themes.

Based on our experience in the Southern Fringe, the Trumpington Residents' Association is very concerned by the poor construction quality in the new developments and that this may be undermining their 'green' credentials. A significant percentage of the promised green benefit may be being undermined by poor construction and lack of developer commitment, e.g. the water conservation features in the Virido development.

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.

It is considered that it is important for Greater Cambridge to try and transition to net zero carbon by 2050 but the Climate Change policy needs to be realistic and deliverable. The strategy of directing development to areas that have the least climate impact is recognised as a sustainable approach, nonetheless concern is raised in respect of the approach to dealing with villages in the emerging Local Plan where only low levels of new homes are proposed. It is considered that the Council should consider improving public transport links to the rural areas to ensure that the rural population have a real alternative to the private car.
The Council’s policy on Climate Change is not considered to be achievable or deliverable and it is considered that it runs counter to advice in NPPF paragraph 16 (b) that states that Plans should be prepared positively in a way that is aspirational but deliverable.

We would encourage a broader strategic vision on the role of electric vehicles in delivering on the objectives to tackle climate change. We have included comments under policy “I/EV: Parking and electric vehicles”.

We would highlight that with the sale of new petrol and diesel cars ceasing in 2030, EV ownership and addressing the infrastructure requirements for the management and powering of EVs, beyond the home, will play a central role in tackling climate change during the plan period.

Abrdn notes the aim for the proposed climate change policies is to help Greater Cambridge transition to net zero carbon by 2050, by ensuring that development is sited in places that help to limit carbon emissions.

Abrdn supports this proposed approach, noting that the first priority for new development should be to redevelop brownfield land in existing town centres. This is the most effective way of ensuring new development limits carbon emissions as it reduces the need to travel long distances for commuting, education and leisure. Increasing density on brownfield sites and adding residential uses to town centres can be a significant driver of limiting carbon emissions across Greater Cambridge.

It is considered that it is important for Greater Cambridge to try and transition to net zero carbon by 2050 but the Climate Change policy needs to be realistic and deliverable. The strategy of directing development to areas that have the least climate impact is recognised as a sustainable approach, nonetheless concern is raised in respect of the approach to dealing with villages in the emerging Local Plan where only low levels of new homes are proposed. It is considered that the Council should consider improving public transport links to the rural areas to ensure that the rural population have a real alternative to the private car.
The Council’s policy on Climate Change is not considered to be achievable or deliverable and it is considered that it runs counter to advice in NPPF paragraph 16 (b) that states that Plans should be prepared positively in a way that is aspirational but deliverable.

USS notes the aim for the proposed climate change policies is to help Greater Cambridge transition to net zero carbon by 2050, by ensuring that development is sited in places that help to limit carbon emissions.

USS strongly supports this proposed approach, noting that the first priority for new development should be to redevelop brownfield land. This is the most effective way of ensuring new development limits carbon emissions as it reduces the need totravel long distances for commuting, education and leisure. Increasing density on brownfield sites and adding residential uses to existing urban areas can be a significant driver of limiting carbon emissions across Greater Cambridge.

Huntingdonshire District Council commend the proposed policies in relation to climate change.

The unique and protected Chalk Hills and river systems are a serious concern with regards to protection and management and any large scale development will exacerbate these difficult issues. Stapleford has suffered flooding and the river run dry. A length of cycle/footpath alongside the A1301 was replaced when the river broke its banks causing flooding on the the A1301, putting cyclists in danger. Water management is a key local concern. The village has declared a Climate Emergency and we are embracing climate change policies in all our decisions. Building on the Green Belt meets does not meet our policy statements.

Generally Support ambition –
However note - Note S/NEC Policy is contrary to ambition/values:
Carbon expenditure, emissions and embedded carbon to decommission fully operational CWWTP and decontaminate site and build new plant within 1 mile of existing inclusive of transfer tunnels, HGV traffic etc., should be factored into carbon expenditure associated with fulfillment of S/NEC Policy

We strongly support ambitious policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change. We would like Greater Cambridge Planning service to become a UK leader in ambitious policy and enforcement

Although we recognise that the Local Plan is mainly focussed on newbuild, rather that retrofit, we would like to see measures adopted to make it easier for home owners to upgrade the energy efficiency of existing homes. For example, by eliminating the need to get planning permission to install rendered external wall insulation or PV panels (unless this was essential to preserve important heritage aspects)

This suite of policies has much to be commended.

Reducing Carbon is not just about making Personal Car use hard. We have major concerns that making personal car ownership hard for an easy win is not a good decision. A wider view is needed.

The supply, usage, treatment and disposal of water is a pressing current issue; not least in view of the unique ecology of our chalk streams. Most of these are already degraded owing to over-abstraction from the aquifer and being overburdened by resulting lower natural flows and increased waste-water - that is more or less adequately treated!

Further degradation will result from high levels of development unless there is, a farsighted strategy, involving all the key players together with an action plan that is well-resourced and recognises the URGENCY of improving the current unacceptable state of most of the watercourses in the plan area. There will, of course, be a need for working closely with adjoining areas for rivers and stream whose catchments stretch beyond the Greater Cambridge Plan boundaries.

Climate Change

4.1. The big themes of the emerging Local Plan are an excellent way to progress the underpinning principles for growth in Greater Cambridge. Care needs to be used in prioritising each of these themes. A balanced approach should be used. Each policy of the new Local Plan, and each potential site for employment or housing (or both), will have different impacts that are nuanced depending on proposals and site locations. The Sustainability Appraisal is the key to understanding relative impacts on the four big themes, and we have commented separately on that in Section 5 of our representation. However, it is clear that the location and design of development will play a key part in achieving key principles of sustainability, including minimising operational carbon emissions and the effects of movements, which relate to climate change, wellbeing, social inclusion and place making.
4.2. A number of the issues raised in relation to reducing impacts on the climate are applicable to all policies and developments. The preparation of the Local Plan should therefore focus on those issues that have the most impact on the decision-making for the Local Plan, including:
 setting policies to reduce operational carbon emissions from new development;
 assessing whole life carbon emissions to account for a balanced approach to embodied and operational emissions for new buildings;
 promoting patterns of development that reduce the need to travel; and
 locating development where a choice of travel options exist other than the private car.
4.3. We would also add: -
 encouraging transport choices that have less impact on the climate, such as walking, cycling and public transport;
 promoting self-containment and sustainable settlements, where public transport can easily be supported and a wide range of facilities and services are within walking and cycling distance;
 allocating development where public transport infrastructure already exists, is planned, or can be provided, to encourage sustainable travel.
4.4. A key requirement for reaching net zero carbon targets is the minimisation of vehicular movements (with transport making the largest contribution, and responsible for 34% of emissions in South Cambridgeshire). The plan should therefore favour options that are capable of providing alternatives to private car use. Public transport is not only more efficient, it reduces traffic queues (and therefore impacts positively on productivity), it is better for health and wellbeing , and is socially inclusive as it allows equal mobility for those without access to a car (and for those who do not wish to own a car).
4.5. There are two key factors that can assist in reducing car travel and increasing public transport:
 placing jobs, leisure facilities and shopping in close proximity to housing, thereby reducing the need to travel and increasing ‘self-containment’;
 and providing new development in locations that provide alternatives to the private car – in particular good public transport services.
4.6. A further requirement to reduce the risk of climate change impacts is to minimise the energy used to construct and operate new development, with over 40% of UK emissions arising from built property. Whilst the costs of achieving more sustainable buildings will be similar regardless of the location of development, there will be greater opportunity for carbon reduction to be achieved where development is at sufficient scale to provide an integrated and holistic approach to climate change mitigation and adaptation.
4.7. The Climate Change Topic Paper sets out a number of emerging policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions from new buildings, and ensure that suitable adaptation measures are incorporated into proposals to futureproof development against a changing climate.

The objective is clearly stated: “Help Greater Cambridge transition to net zero carbon by 2050” . Net zero means reducing total net emissions to zero, not reducing the rate of growth of emissions to zero. To achieve net zero and still grow the economy we would need to decouple emission quantities completely from growth, not just reduce or mitigate them. Several economic projections including one by the UN Environment Programme indicate that such “ absolute decoupling” cannot occur and “green growth” is simply not possible in practice. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/12/why-growth-cant-be-green/

This plan calls for an average growth of the machinery of the economy of around 1.2% per year. The UK economy is currently growing at around 3% per year per capita long-term average, so the plan will grow the local economy by over 4% per year.

If we are to believe the plan will “help”, then it needs to demonstrate how it will reduce the emissions in Cambridge by more than 4% per capita per year. Otherwise (as it seems) the plan will simply “make it marginally less hard than it might otherwise be for Greater Cambridge to reach net zero”

see attached

This should be key to all development and this could go further in terms of sustainability
We endorse net zero carbon in new builds and this should be a priority.
We are concerned about the lack of water in South Cambridgeshire so water efficiency is a priority.
A priority for all developments. Further research needs to be undertaken to understand the future challenges we face.
A priority for all developments
A priority for all developments we need to keep ahead of new renewable technologies and review these yearly.
Key. (See document)
Key

The 40% expansion of houses over 21 years is incompatible with the requirements of climate change. Just building these houses will created around 5 million tons of CO2. Even with your limits on water supply that number of homes will require over 10 million litres of water per day. Growth is always exponential and in 100 years your growth rate for Cambridge will have increased housing by around 500%> Totaly unsustainable.

Yes, we can all become greener and produce less carbon, but in this part of the UK the issue is going to be water shortage. It's madness to bring in more people when the amount of water available is finite and is decreasing with global warming.