[Committee] Representation received. ID:930

[Cambridge City Council]

Thank you for using our LDF online system to submit your representation,
which we recieved as follows:

Representation Number: 930
Document: Sustainable Design and Construction SPD
Section: 13.1 Introduction, paragraph 13.1.2
Support/Object: Object

One trouble with the Merton 10% rule is that it does not lay down specific
targets for the CO2 output. Thus it is possible to lose sight of the fact
that the quality of the building and in particular the thermal insulation
is probably of greater importance than the technological improvements
suggested. (This could change when the 10% is raised in the near future).
It is important for the council to distinguish between gas and electricity.
This is not being done in these documents.  There are several major schemes
in the pipeline for generating electricity by renewable methods e.g. 
windfarms (both off shore and on shore) , nuclear power  and  perhaps solar
thermal generation (after focussing the sunshine) in hot countries, but
almost no way of replacing a simple fuel like gas. The hydrogen economy is
speculative and would involve replacing all gas pipes by ones 50% bigger.
Thus locking in houses to individually supplied gas heating looks like an
expensive mistake.  District heating is much more flexible and can use
renewable fuel such as wood chips. This is an inexpensive way of cutting
back on CO2  output. It can also be combined with combined heat and power
which is also flexible with regards to fuel. 


SUMMARY

We object to the 10% Rule. We think instead a standard of 10kg CO2 /m2
(consistent with CEPHEUS study, and less stringent than the PassivHaus or
BEDZed Development) would be more appropriate.



This email is an acknowledgement of reciept of your representation. It is
NOT confirmation that the representation has yet been registered as being
duly made. You will recieve further notification that your representation
has been registered at the end of the consultation period.