Policy 3: Energy and associated infrastructure

Support

Representation ID: 52142

Received: 26/08/2020

Respondent: UNOCT

Energy efficiency and sustainable living should be mandated not dependent on 'where viable'. Viable for who? Too vague. All of this document is aspirational no guarantees or binding commitments are given on better sustainable living. Please present hard limits on dwelling kwh use, energy sources (no gas central heating), carbon emission and vehicle numbers and restrictions. Space per person (important density factor for future outbreaks)

Comment

Representation ID: 52367

Received: 07/09/2020

Respondent: Ms Clara Todd

"...investigated and, where feasible and viable, implemented." - I would assume that you mean that this is not going to happen. If building is necessary, how about reaching a green build standard - for eco and efficiency. Insulation, materials use. Heat pumps and heat exchangers. Water usage. We are in a climate emergency. Being less wasteful of resources is not a "nice to have" or "where feasable".

Comment

Representation ID: 53715

Received: 04/10/2020

Respondent: Ms Clara Todd

what is "feasable and viable"? Does that mean that anything here is binding - can the developers dismiss anything as not being "feasable" or "viable" to cut cost and time?

Object

Representation ID: 53776

Received: 04/10/2020

Respondent: Rebecca Munns

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

Representation ID: 54495

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Cambridge Cycling Campaign

An area-wide approach to energy will be essential for the site to meet its carbon targets, so the qualifiers ‘where feasible and viable’ should be removed. At least 25% of cycle parking (in all staff and residential areas) should be provided with infrastructure to permit charging e-bike batteries. Buildings should also be designed with the capacity to be retrofitted for higher capacities of charging infrastructure (and therefore futureproofed to allow for a growth in e-bike usage). Research from 2020 shows that a quarter of Europeans intend to use an e-bike this year*.

*https://cyclingindustry.news/quarter-of-europeans-likely-to-be-e-bike-riders-in-2020-says-largest-study-to-date/

Object

Representation ID: 55468

Received: 27/09/2020

Respondent: Mr Matthew Asplin

Page 58/59

Earlier consultation submissions do not appear to have been fully taken into account.

The draft plan seeks to evaluate the development on an integrated basis in other areas, but is
disassociating the relocation of the Treatment Plant within this policy and the draft plan in general
and therefore fails to provide a holistic integrated approach to the proposed development.

Support

Representation ID: 55664

Received: 02/10/2020

Respondent: St John's College

Agent: Savills

The investigation of an Area Action Plan wide approach to energy and associated infrastructure is welcomed but as the policy acknowledges, this needs to be where feasible and viable, and must also not delay the delivery of development.

Comment

Representation ID: 55746

Received: 05/10/2020

Respondent: Brookgate

Agent: Bidwells

Neutral:
Policy 3 states that an Area Action Plan wide approach to energy and associated infrastructure
should be investigated and, where feasible and viable, implemented. The Shared Planning Service has
commissioned the development of an Energy and Infrastructure Study and Energy Masterplan for NEC.
This will consider the energy options and associated infrastructure requirements needed to support
the energy demands of the development and the transition to net zero carbon, giving consideration
to energy use in buildings, battery storage and that required for transportation. It will also give
consideration to the development of local energy communities and local collaboration and options
for community ownership of decentralised energy opportunities that may arise from the energy
masterplan.

At this stage of the Plan, the site wide energy and infrastructure study and energy masterplan has
not been prepared.

Whilst Brookgate do not oppose the approach set out in Policy 3 in principle, throughout the NEC
AAP workshops, Brookgate has made it clear that they have already sourced their power and other
such requirements both on and off site in
respect of the Chesterton Sidings site.