Policy 2: Designing for the climate emergency

Showing comments and forms 1 to 13 of 13

Object

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 52141

Received: 26/08/2020

Respondent: UNOCT

Representation Summary:

Insufficient space for sustainable living with few green spaces. Poor public transport links. Nothing not address the current climate crisis due to heavy congestion in the area, this will only add to it. 0.5 cars per dwelling is still 4000 cars which will cause major problems.

Full text:

Insufficient space for sustainable living with few green spaces. Poor public transport links. Nothing not address the current climate crisis due to heavy congestion in the area, this will only add to it. 0.5 cars per dwelling is still 4000 cars which will cause major problems.

Comment

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 53409

Received: 03/10/2020

Respondent: Fen Ditton Village Society

Representation Summary:

Does net zero carbon by 2050 include the carbon produced by construction of new WWTP, removal and decontamination of current plant?
Insufficient detail on 15% water reduction use; nothing on rainwater capture, greywater recycling.
Can Cambridgeshire’s aquifers support an additional 3.2million litres demand per year? Site-wide 80 litres per home per day not in line with national policy.
Ventilation in high rises needs to include heat exchange system, e.g. air to water, to reduce carbon for heat production.
How can there be green roofs and solar panels?

Full text:

Does net zero carbon by 2050 include the carbon produced by construction of new WWTP, removal and decontamination of current plant?
Insufficient detail on 15% water reduction use; nothing on rainwater capture, greywater recycling.
Can Cambridgeshire’s aquifers support an additional 3.2million litres demand per year? Site-wide 80 litres per home per day not in line with national policy.
Ventilation in high rises needs to include heat exchange system, e.g. air to water, to reduce carbon for heat production.
How can there be green roofs and solar panels?

Object

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 53467

Received: 03/10/2020

Respondent: Mrs Laurie Woolfenden

Representation Summary:

Does net zero carbon by 2050 include the carbon produced by construction of new WWTP, removal and decontamination of current plant?
Insufficient detail on 15% water reduction use; nothing on rainwater capture, greywater recycling.
Can Cambridgeshire’s aquifers support an additional 3.2million litres demand per year? Site-wide 80 litres per home per day not in line with national policy.
Ventilation in high rises needs to include heat exchange system, e.g. air to water, to reduce carbon for heat production.
How can there be green roofs and solar panels?

Full text:

Does net zero carbon by 2050 include the carbon produced by construction of new WWTP, removal and decontamination of current plant?
Insufficient detail on 15% water reduction use; nothing on rainwater capture, greywater recycling.
Can Cambridgeshire’s aquifers support an additional 3.2million litres demand per year? Site-wide 80 litres per home per day not in line with national policy.
Ventilation in high rises needs to include heat exchange system, e.g. air to water, to reduce carbon for heat production.
How can there be green roofs and solar panels?

Support

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 53714

Received: 04/10/2020

Respondent: Ms Clara Todd

Representation Summary:

Yes, and I am glad you are calling it "climate emergency" and not softening it with weasel words.

Full text:

Yes, and I am glad you are calling it "climate emergency" and not softening it with weasel words.

Object

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 53774

Received: 04/10/2020

Respondent: Rebecca Munns

Representation Summary:

I think it is frankly duplicitous and disingenuous to be promoting the eco advantages of using this brownfield site when nearby greenbelt land is being destroyed in order to free up the brownfield site through the relocation of the sewage works. I don't believe the eco and climate impact of the sewage works has been included in the eco impact assessment of this build and you cannot divorce the two

I think the population density proposed for the site is simply too high in a post-pandemic world where there is more focus on needing space, both within one's own home and in the immediate surroundings for exercise and recreation. There is simply not enough outdoor space for the proposed population and the nearby places like Milton country park which are already at capacity will suffer.

I fear that the office space will sit unoccupied because of a shift in attitude towards homeworking (driving the need for more space at home) so I believe this should pause whilst an assessment of the needs in the "new normal" of a post-pandemic world is carried out.

I don't believe that effectively banning cars from this development will have the desired effect. People will still need and own cars for a variety of reasons and if they can't be parked onsite, they will be pushed out to the local streets in nearby communities. Reduced car ownership might be encouraged with a car sharing scheme but there still needs to be parking for those cars.

I cannot see how adding an additional 18k people on this site will not increase traffic on Milton road and the local A14 unless there is significant investment in public transport across cambridge, including to places outside of the city centre, like the retail centres of Newmarket road, the station and addenbrookes

Full text:

I think it is frankly duplicitous and disingenuous to be promoting the eco advantages of using this brownfield site when nearby greenbelt land is being destroyed in order to free up the brownfield site through the relocation of the sewage works. I don't believe the eco and climate impact of the sewage works has been included in the eco impact assessment of this build and you cannot divorce the two

I think the population density proposed for the site is simply too high in a post-pandemic world where there is more focus on needing space, both within one's own home and in the immediate surroundings for exercise and recreation. There is simply not enough outdoor space for the proposed population and the nearby places like Milton country park which are already at capacity will suffer.

I fear that the office space will sit unoccupied because of a shift in attitude towards homeworking (driving the need for more space at home) so I believe this should pause whilst an assessment of the needs in the "new normal" of a post-pandemic world is carried out.

I don't believe that effectively banning cars from this development will have the desired effect. People will still need and own cars for a variety of reasons and if they can't be parked onsite, they will be pushed out to the local streets in nearby communities. Reduced car ownership might be encouraged with a car sharing scheme but there still needs to be parking for those cars.

I cannot see how adding an additional 18k people on this site will not increase traffic on Milton road and the local A14 unless there is significant investment in public transport across cambridge, including to places outside of the city centre, like the retail centres of Newmarket road, the station and addenbrookes

Comment

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 54141

Received: 04/10/2020

Respondent: Mr Seb Dangerfield

Representation Summary:

Flat roofs don't sound a terribly good idea if we're to expect more rain year on year as the water won't naturally have any where to go and will be reliant on drainage which if this gets blocked or overwhelmed is likely to cause flooding into the building through the roof.

Full text:

Flat roofs don't sound a terribly good idea if we're to expect more rain year on year as the water won't naturally have any where to go and will be reliant on drainage which if this gets blocked or overwhelmed is likely to cause flooding into the building through the roof.

Support

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 54143

Received: 04/10/2020

Respondent: Mr Seb Dangerfield

Representation Summary:

Passive cooling and methods such as higher ceilings and material selection sound good. A ban on residential air-con would be good.

Full text:

Passive cooling and methods such as higher ceilings and material selection sound good. A ban on residential air-con would be good.

Object

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 54493

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Cambridge Cycling Campaign

Representation Summary:

Camcycle believes that all new developments should be designed as carbon negative (or carbon-neutral/zero carbon at the very least). Stating that ‘development at North East Cambridge must support the transition to a net zero carbon society’ is far too vague and open to interpretation by individual developers. Transport is a significant contributor to emissions and planning should consider construction traffic as well as the movements of early workers and residents. Actions to minimise carbon emissions from transport (including demand management measures such as congestion charging and workplace parking levies) both within the area and in surrounding communities should begin immediately in order to obtain an appropriate carbon budget for the construction of the site.

Full text:

Camcycle believes that all new developments should be designed as carbon negative (or carbon-neutral/zero carbon at the very least). Stating that ‘development at North East Cambridge must support the transition to a net zero carbon society’ is far too vague and open to interpretation by individual developers. Transport is a significant contributor to emissions and planning should consider construction traffic as well as the movements of early workers and residents. Actions to minimise carbon emissions from transport (including demand management measures such as congestion charging and workplace parking levies) both within the area and in surrounding communities should begin immediately in order to obtain an appropriate carbon budget for the construction of the site.

Comment

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 55663

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

Representation Summary:

Neutral:
Clarification as to the type and scale of development that Policy 2 applies to, including for example the requirement to undertake overheating analysis, needs to be provided.

The requirement to “minimise” carbon emissions is ambiguous and unduly onerous in that it is not qualified. It is noted that further work to inform the development of a carbon reduction target is currently being undertaken, and will inform specific targets. The acknowledgement that the requirements will be viability tested is welcomed. These targets will clearly need to be consulted upon.

Requirements are, as the AAP itself states, robust and many/most known technologies will need to be employed to meet the prescribed standards. Futureproofing is important for all but it is unclear how it is expected that applicants meet the requirement to demonstrate that proposals are futureproofed to enable future occupiers to easily retrofit additional technologies.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 55745

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Representation Summary:

Neutral:
This policy sets out the range of measures that are proposed to be an integral part
of the design of new development proposals, in order to ensure that new
development responds to the climate emergency. These measures are to ensure
that development in North East Cambridge addresses the twin challenges of
climate change mitigation and adaptation, in a way that enhances the
environmental and social sustainability of the development.
Brookgate broadly support Policy 2. However, climate change policy and good
practice is changing quickly, and the Plan will need to build in suitable flexibility to
accommodate these changes within the lifetime of the plan. Climate change
scenarios predict extensive changes by 2050, much of which is dependent on
government and human action so there is substantial uncertainty over outcomes.
Allowing for changing technologies and approaches should also help with viability
as technology and approaches improve and are more widely adopted, thereby
reducing costs. Escalating targets and policies may be able to accommodate these
changes, while providing clarity to developers on the costs of development over
time.
Policy 2, part (b), states that development must be climate-proofed to a range of
climate risks, including flood risk, overheating and water availability. Specific
guidance is then given on how to minimise the risk of overheating and that
overheating analysis must be undertaken to include consideration of future climate
scenarios using 2050 Promethesus weather data. However this data is based on
UKCP09 data rather than UKCP18 climate change projections which are the most
recent data.
~



□ ~ □
Policy 2, part (b) also states that all flat roofs must contain an element of green roof
provision. This section of the Policy needs to be more flexible to allow on-site
mitigation to be reflective of the baseline ecological conditions. For example, at
Cambridge North where the railway sidings context has created habitat that is
unusual within the AAP area, mitigating for open mosaic habitat (OMH) is required.
The Cambridge North proposals will include a mix of green and brown roof planting
but with the majority being brown roof because this is closer to the OMH habitat
lost. These brown roofs or a combination of brown and green roof planting will form
part of the overall mitigation strategy. Ecologically biodiverse brown roof planting
mixed with a small proportion of green roof is more appropriate for the Cambridge
North Site given the OMH baseline and this is the strategy that the Councils have
approved previously for the consented office and hotel developments.

Attachments:

Support

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 55900

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: GCR Camprop Nine Ltd

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

The principles of sustainable design and construction as set out in Policy 2 are supported. The
planning application for the proposed development at the site was supported by a Sustainability
Statement including Renewable Energy and Water Conservation Strategy, which demonstrated
how the proposed development would satisfy all of requirements identified in Policy 2.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 55951

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Natural England

Representation Summary:

Natural England is fully supportive of policy requirements to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
Please note our comments above.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan

Representation ID: 56136

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: U+I PLC.

Agent: We are Town

Representation Summary:

Focused on individual buildings – needs a site-wide approach eg on masterplanning for climate change; on transport and
neighbourhood hubs. Plus infrastructure? Also add something on post-occupancy evaluation?
Unfortunate lag in evidence base (Greater Cambridge Net Zero study).
Policy focused on here & now – how is it to be future-proofed?
a - Construction Standards: Good aspirations – welcome construction certification requirements such as BREEAM
Excellent/ Outstanding. Also support the need for a site wide community sustainability framework.
However there are limitations to the use of particular frameworks. Passivhaus is better for operational carbon reduction
and there are concerns over use of BREEAM communities. Other tools are more flexible – given timescales involved this is
essential.
b - Adaptation to climate change: All flat roofs must contain an element of green roof provision (p51) – Is this the right
approach? What about if it’s used as a communal / private terrace? What about solar panels? Should prescribe standards
and allow developers flexibility in achieving them according to the site and building rather than arbitrarily dictating eg
green/brown roofs.
Fully support the move to undertake CIBSE TM52 and 59 analysis in order to inform design and ensure comfort is
addressed. Modelling alone is not enough but requires adjustments to designs to be undertaken.
c - Carbon Reduction: Aspiration is good and pleased that further work will be done. Is there a recognised form of
‘Assured Performance Certification’? What about a prohibition on use of fossil fuels on site?
d - Water – see policy 4 below.
e - Site Construction Waste. Good to see this addressed but opportunity has been missed to set a holistic benchmark
target for construction waste. What about infrastructure waste?

Attachments: